GOTM web page needs a revamp -- urgently

[siggboy]

OK, let me first say that I love the GOTMs and totally appreciate the effort that the team is putting into organizing all this.

But here's something that has been annoying me since I've started to participate in some of the games over a year ago, and it's the almost complete lack of readability of the GOTM web page.

Please redesign the page. Please!

• The page is too wide overall; without enabling "Fit to width" in Opera, I can't even see the right hand bar where the important links are (current and past games, etc.). I'm using a 1152 wide resolution, mind you.
• It is extremely hard to find what you are looking for on the page. Even now that I've been there numerous times I still find it very unnerving to dig through those links that I want.
• The important links should be in a very prominent position (that excludes the current sidebar position which is not even on the upper half of the page). Link to everything that is downloadable in the most visible position of the starting page (ie. top, or top middle). That should include where to get the HOF mod!
• Make some of those fonts bigger, and don't use 4 different colors, bold, italics and underlining all at the same time.
• Loads of different background textures and graphics make this really hard to read and push the important information out of sight.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I really had to get it off my chest, finally. It's hurting me to see such an awful website for what is probably the best feature of all of civfanatics.com. Delete and redesign the GOTM page from scratch, and please take a nice and clean layout approach.

Thanks .

 

[AlanH]

Thanks for your comments.

I agree that the current layout is cluttered and needs a redesign. I inherited the design, fixed a few glaring browser compatibility problems, adapted its three-column layout to deal with Civ4 when it came along, and have tried to make some minor improvements without breaking it.

However, I have ZERO artistic capability, so I have been reluctant to try to create a new layout myself. If you, or someone else, wants to propose a new framework, I'll be more than happy to adapt it to the site.

 

[LowtherCastle]

If we're talking about the GOTM home page, I don't think it's nearly as bad as all that. In fact, I find it adequately functional. I would suggest one small alteration, at most. Assuming more people use the CIV sidebar than the CivIII sidebar, maybe switch them (butI could care less if it stays the same). Other than that, I like being able to quickly find the CIV functions I need and I like the lower function that allows me to find any older GOTM. (Something sorely lacking in the HOF home page for finding older Gauntlets, unless I've overlooked it.)

 

[AlanH]

I sympathise with the view that it should be capable of being viewed on a narrower screen. The challenge is the width of some of the tables we have in places like the Global Rankings and the Pantheon. As siggboy has only one submission to date, for Civ4, he may not be aware of the full extent of the pages on the site, and the large amount of Civ3 and Civ4 historical material we support.

I'm not sure why a revamp is suddenly "urgent", however. We've had the existing site format for quite a while, and apart from my own misgivings about it, this is the first time anyone has really made a severe criticism of it.

I've considered swapping the two margins as a "quick" fix. I then thought I should make that conditional, depending on whether the page being viewed is Civ3- or Civ4-focused. The trouble is that these musings lead down a path to a deep desire to throw away what we have and start again, particularly as the existing code is a patchwork of styles, originated in FrontPage, using server-side-includes and labour-intensive manual updates every month , and later adapted by my predecessor and me, to be PHP scripted and database-driven.

 

[Shillen]

IMO, giving civ3 and civ4 each their own separate GOTM page would be far better. But, yeah, definitely not an "urgent" fix.

 

[siggboy]

As siggboy has only one submission to date, for Civ4, he may not be aware of the full extent of the pages on the site, and the large amount of Civ3 and Civ4 historical material we support.

I have used the relevant parts for Civ IV, so I'm somewhat familiar with what the page has to offer for Civ IV players, but not beyond that.

I've certainly not looked at the source code for the pages, trying to figuring out the reasons why it looks a bit "sophomoric" in places. You've mentioned that you took over the template from somebody else, and had to adapt it when Civ IV came out. This is actually what I suspected, and it's only natural that sooner or later the product won't look quite as good anymore in such scenarios.

I'm not sure why a revamp is suddenly "urgent", however. We've had the existing site format for quite a while, and apart from my own misgivings about it, this is the first time anyone has really made a severe criticism of it.

Well, that nobody loudly complains about it doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong. Actually I've run across a very clear complaint on these forums just yesterday, but his criticism of the website (basically what I said "can't find anything there") was not addressed at all because his actual question was about something else.

A lot of the players here are long term participants and they know the site inside out by now, they've bookmarked the pages they are interested in and surely got used to how the pages look. They surely won't suddenly start complaining on the forums. Actually, I did not want to do it either when I first came here. I was new to the site, it would have been rather inappropriate to point out shortcomings just after joining the forums. I then did not play Civ for quite a while, and when I came back I was very disappointed that the website had not been improved so now I decided to point out my objections.

If you're in doubt if the community actually wants a change, maybe run a poll here, asking people to give grades to the website, or maybe just if they think the page should be redesigned.

Probably it's not "urgent" in some actual sense to redesign the page. The feature will still be able to be ran monthly if you don't change anything at all. I was (deliberately) polemic with my choice of words here. My point is that such a great feature should have such a sub-standard web site.

I also think that at least a few new players might be driven away from trying a GOTM in the first place in the past because they might not have been able to figure out where to go on the web site. I remember feeling a bit like that when I explored the site and found the GOTMs.

I've considered swapping the two margins as a "quick" fix.

That might be good. I humbly suspect that Civ IV weighs a bit higher than Civ III by now and that probably a lot more players are looking for Civ IV material. So maybe swap its column to the left.

The trouble is that these musings lead down a path to a deep desire to throw away what we have and start again, particularly as the existing code is a patchwork of styles, originated in FrontPage, using server-side-includes and labour-intensive manual updates every month , and later adapted by my predecessor and me, to be PHP scripted and database-driven.

OK, it almost hurts to read that. The page needs to be reset and redone. I am familiar with web programming (I've done several PHP and Ruby/Rails projects) and, to a much lesser extent, with web design, so I might be able to help with this. At first sight it doesn't look like as if a lot of magic would have to be worked programming wise to get this thing going. Finding a really good design, while you're at it, seems more difficult to me (it always is).
In any case, less is more.

Maybe a full-blown CMS might be in order to drive the site (not an expert on these, but the learning curve on the more powerful ones can be steep). In any case there shouldn't be any labour-intensive monthly work to be done by the staff. That just feels plain wrong in 2008.

 

[AlanH]

If you're in doubt ...

I thought I made it clear that I would be the first to admit that it needs rework!

OK, it almost hurts to read that. The page needs to be reset and redone.

No, I think you misunderstood. Only the Template/Navigation needs to be redesigned. The actual page content is OK. I was describing the manual update procedures that existed before I took it over, but they are long gone.

Finding a really good design, while you're at it, seems more difficult to me (it always is).
In any case, less is more.

That is the bit that I need help with, and you are welcome to suggest a format.

Maybe a full-blown CMS might be in order to drive the site (not an expert on these, but the learning curve on the more powerful ones can be steep). In any case there shouldn't be any labour-intensive monthly work to be done by the staff. That just feels plain wrong in 2008.

In more detail ...

There are only a few static pages. Almost all of the site is data-driven.

There is already a 'CMS' system, but we don't need one in the sense you are referring to. 99% of our content comes from parsing the starting saves and the submitted saves, and is automatically created, either during file upload or on-demand.

The News items you see on the home page are actually formatted RSS data extracted from news posts in this forum system.

The game release pages are script-generated, with minimal text manually created by the game designers.

I have already done all the scripting and database development to remove the monthly update processes. That was required before we even moved to two Civ3 games a month. It would be impossible to manage five Civ3/Civ4 GOTMs every month, plus a couple of concurrent SGOTMs, if there were still any manual work involved. The only per-game work we do now is to create the game-specific text for each game release page. PHP/MySQL scripts, plus real-time save parsing where required, create all the Pantheon, Rankings, Results, Statistics, Events Replays, Map Gallery, SGOTM Progress Graphs, QSC Data etc., and the menus in the common page templates.

No one around here writes HTML on a routine basis at all. The game designers are free to focus on producing great maps, and the Staff work required to analyse and deliver the results is supported by behind-the-scenes database-driven tools. Results release is a one-click operation that updates everything.

 

[ChrisShaffer]

The main background (the grey lines behind "Welcome to CivFanatics Games of the Month" on the home page) was so hard on my eyes that I adblocked the background image.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/common/lines_bg.gif

I can almost never find what I'm looking for on the site. Civ3 and Civ4 stuff is all mixed up. An easy example is the list of allowed/disallowed exploits for Civ4. Clicking the "Code of Conduct" link in the Civ4 sidebar leads to "General Rules: To play the GOTM games with Civilization III..."

The fonts are so small I always increase the font size to read things.

 

[siggboy]

No, I think you misunderstood. Only the Template/Navigation needs to be redesigned. The actual page content is OK. I was describing the manual update procedures that existed before I took it over, but they are long gone.

OK, I understand what you meant now.

[The page templates] is the bit that I need help with, and you are welcome to suggest a format.

Well, I'm not a professional web designer (not even a hobby web designer). I know a good page when I see one, at least ;-). I will try to make a good design/mockup for the page, and you can have a look and decide if it's worth deploying. That will take me some time but since nothing has moved on that front for a long time now I guess a few more weeks do not matter much now.

No one around here writes HTML on a routine basis at all. The game designers are free to focus on producing great maps, and the Staff work required to analyse and deliver the results is supported by behind-the-scenes database-driven tools. Results release is a one-click operation that updates everything.

I understand that writing a (good) web page can be a tedious task, and is often avoided unless somebody in the team happens to actually enjoy it or do it for a living. In my own web application projects, I've always despised the task of finally polishing the site so that it would look good on all important browsers. I'm also kind of perfectionist, and in combination with HTML coding this trait becomes very time consuming quickly.

I had already assumed that the current site is almost completely data-driven already, anything else would make the amount of games that are handled monthly unmanageable (as you've pointed out as well).

 

[LowtherCastle]

One aspect of the overall CFC website that initially struck me as odd was how certain sections have a different 'look and feel' from others. I can think of four examples, each with a different look and feel:

1. the main page and some of its children.
2. HOF
3. GOTM
4. the forums​

I might add that some have features I wish the others had.

Integrating them all into one might be a major undertaking. Perhaps instead of coming up with a new "really good design" for the GOTM, you could just use one of the other three designs? (just a thought--maybe I'm way off base here, not being a web designer)

 

[AlanH]

The main background (the grey lines behind "Welcome to CivFanatics Games of the Month" on the home page) was so hard on my eyes that I adblocked the background image.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/common/lines_bg.gif

I can almost never find what I'm looking for on the site. Civ3 and Civ4 stuff is all mixed up. An easy example is the list of allowed/disallowed exploits for Civ4. Clicking the "Code of Conduct" link in the Civ4 sidebar leads to "General Rules: To play the GOTM games with Civilization III..."

The fonts are so small I always increase the font size to read things.

Good points. Guilty as charged.

Changing the background sounds trivial until you realise that it is merged into the edges of all the little images that compose the framework of the page. Just changing the main image will leave the edges looking messy. I may have to change them all, but I would rather do the whole job properly and replace the framework entirely.

The two or three static information pages - Intro, Code of Conduct, FAQ ... are the ones whose content is most in need of review, and they are probably more urgent than any other issue. They were quickly adapted from very wordy originals when Civ4 came along, and since then have had no real attention.

Font sizes are a challenge. The HTML is riddled with inconsistent size definitions, some defined in FONT tags, some in embedded s CSS styles, and some in included or external style sheets. I need to do a thorough exercise to export them all to a single set of CSS style sheets.

One aspect of the overall CFC website that initially struck me as odd was how certain sections have a different 'look and feel' from others. I can think of four examples, each with a different look and feel:

That's because they are four different sites, one uses professionally designed forum software; the others were created by three different webmasters.

The forums are driven by vBulletin, a highly specialised applicaiton specifically for discussion forums, and highly unsuited to the tasks involved in distributing, recording and publishing competition data. It also has a different look depending on the style you choose. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't recognise the forums as seen on my Mac as being the same site that you are used to, at first sight.

The CFC main page is a three-column layout, and I believe it was the original inspiration for Cracker's GOTM site template. I don't know why it was not replicated - maybe copyright reasons? NIH? You will notice that its width reduces as you reduce the width of your browser window. As a result, the content area gets narrow quite quickly. That would cause serious problems for some GOTM pages such as the Global Rankings table with its large number of columns. CFC's navigation columns suffer from the same length issue that siggboy complained about on the GOTM site.

The HOF site is run by a different group from the GOTM site, on a different virtual server. It uses a two column layout, and is nearer to the shape I think is right for the GOTM site. I wouldn't want to use its styles and colour scheme, but I guess those are a matter of personal taste.

There's no way the four could be integrated into one. That would mean we would have to operate a single collaborative team of volunteers, scattered across space and time zones. We would have to merge disparate standards of web page layout, database structure, PHP scripting .... I think the GOTM site scripts alone run to a couple of hundred files with 50 to 100K lines of code. Don't even go there!

I think the future for the GOTM site is a two column layout with only one navigation column on the left, with more use of drop-down menus and tabs. It doesn't seem to me to be critical to have all four sites look and feel identical, though a common "corporate identity" might be helpful to remind you that you are on CFC territory.

That will take me some time but since nothing has moved on that front for a long time now I guess a few more weeks do not matter much now.

Thanks, that puts the "urgent" back into context.

 

[siggboy]

I think the future for the GOTM site is a two column layout with only one navigation column on the left, with more use of drop-down menus and tabs.

That sounds excellent, and is kind of what I had in mind. Of course it's totally unspecific, but especially hierarchical drop down menus and tabs (using the "display" property for elements, so the page doesn't reload when you change tabs) make it so much easier to create a page that is both comprehensive and easy to navigate.

It doesn't seem to me to be critical to have all four sites look and feel identical, though a common "corporate identity" might be helpful to remind you that you are on CFC territory.

I think it's OK if the different sections look somewhat different. It also points to the fact that the sections (HOF, GOTM, etc.) are run by different people, like what you've said above. Probably agreeing on a common color scheme would be sufficient already for a visible "corporate identity", as you've called it. On the other hand, since all the sites are grouped under a common second-level domain (civfanatics.com), one would have to be very clueless not to get the point here .

Completely unrelated to all this, I just realize you have over 16,000 postings on these forums already. That is probably the highest post count I've ever seen.

 

[AlanH]

That sounds excellent, and is kind of what I had in mind. Of course it's totally unspecific, but especially hierarchical drop down menus and tabs (using the "display" property for elements, so the page doesn't reload when you change tabs) make it so much easier to create a page that is both comprehensive and easy to navigate.

That's not necessarily a good idea. It would mean that multiple tabs of content have to be downloaded even if a user is only interested in one of them. There are not many pages that can be assumed to be grouped in that way.

I think it's OK if the different sections look somewhat different. It also points to the fact that the sections (HOF, GOTM, etc.) are run by different people, like what you've said above. Probably agreeing on a common color scheme would be sufficient already for a visible "corporate identity", as you've called it. On the other hand, since all the sites are grouped under a common second-level domain (civfanatics.com), one would have to be very clueless not to get the point here .

They aren't even under a common first level domain. HoF and GOTM are civfanatics.net

Completely unrelated to all this, I just realize you have over 16,000 postings on these forums already. That is probably the highest post count I've ever seen.

I've been active here for over six years, and I look after the Mac forums and the SGOTMs as well as helping out in GOTM-land . Check out some of the other CFC staff if you want to see high counts, and there are some OT posters for whom post count seems to be the sole reason for posting. But post count is not a valid measure of one's contribution.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On this topic, one thing that strikes me on looking at the GOTM home page is that it seems to be designed very much for a regular user who comes back to that page every few days/weeks to see what's going on in the GOTM world: Most of the area on the home page is devoted to 'News' which generally means links to threads on the forums.

Personally, I never use the GOTM home page in that way. If I want news, I come straight to the forums. If I'm going to the GOTM home page, it's invariably either to download a game or to see some game results. Because of that, my personal preference would be for a home page that is focused on getting the latest game or on seeing/linking to the latest results. I'd also like to see a strong emphasis on guiding people new to the GOTM to how to join in for the first time (which I think is a real weakness of the current GOTM site - it doesn't obviously lead new users to the right links to join in a GOTM).

I'm wondering how much my preference is shared by others. Is there anyone who uses the GOTM home page for news and would therefore prefer a news emphasis in it?

 

[PutCashIn]

Its strange but true of most games and thier forums, they all are linked from the games 'homepage' by some tiny little underlined text link, the 'patches' link takes you too -2 levels of the current patch and 'news' tells you about the 'first expansion coming soon summer 2002......'

I think CiVF's homepage is obviously more well maintained and has a plehora of rankings and tables and games of x and maps and mods and patches etc etc........but how to actually join and play, say, a HOF game.... I generally dont see any shiny big button saying 'learn how to participate in GOTM here' or I'm blind. Maybe a 'features' page?

I stumbled in here by a. trying to find a 24player earth map for warlords, b. the sullas? arabian walkthrough.

 

[Thrallia]

obviously it needs a revamp of some kind, and I think DynamicSpirit at one point started working on a revamped starting out thread/page...but as happens sometimes, its gotten put on hold. Over the summer(read: after finals the last week of April) I should have more time to do something about updating it, until then, I'm barely even aware of the passing of days...I can't believe April is almost half over...yipes, I haven't started GOTM 29 or gotten to the first spoiler for BOTM4...

 

[AlanH]

........but how to actually join and play, say, a HOF game....

(Disclaimer: The HOF and GOTM web sites are separate, and I'm not involved in HOF at all.)

In the case of the Hall of Fame (HOF) competition, you probably have to use information in the HOF forums to understand how to register and submit games.

In the case of the Game of the Month (GOTM), we do try to provide the all information you need on the GOTM web site. However, this effort is clearly not successful!

I generally dont see any shiny big button saying 'learn how to participate in GOTM here' or I'm blind. Maybe a 'features' page?

There isn't room for big shiny buttons on the GOTM web pages, but there is a "1st visit to the land of GOTM" link at the top left and top right of every page. That takes you to a page of explanations of how to play in the competition.

I stumbled in here by a. trying to find a 24player earth map for warlords, b. the sullas? arabian walkthrough.

I don't think either if those is a Game of the Month.

 

[MarkM]

Coming a bit late to this, so let me just say: Without a doubt the page could be improved. Heck there is nothing in this world that could not be improved in some way (except for my wife of course, lol). But it's 100% functional, which is a lot more than can be said for software I pay for, rather than this stuff which has been done for free out of the goodness of the mods hearts

Also like I think DS (?) said, I really don't look at that page more than once a month, I just look in the forum here. So I frankly would find very little cost/benefit (something that should be evaluated for any project) to focus on this. Yeah you could improve it a lot, but benefit from that has a very low ceiling given the infrequent and "single-minded" purpose most have for accessing it (download the latest xOTM save). I think the projects that the mods have been talking about in other threads (esp. the "high level" replays of player submissions playable with a web plug-in or whatever, without needing to download submission/replay file & start up civ to view each one), while perhaps less "urgent," in the real world of limited staff resources would bring a much greater cost/benefit in the end for the majority of xOTM participants.

On the other hand if siggboy is offering to bear most of the "cost" of doing this so as not to keep staff away from this other stuff, then I say go for it, and thanks in advance to you as well!

 

[MarkM]

After I posted my comments a few minutes ago, I started to think about DS & my shared observation that the forum page is the real "control center" for xOTM players, not the GOTM "main page." In that spirit here's a hopefully low cost/high bang-for-buck idea:

1. Put the link to the xOTM subforum on the main page in a more prominent position, and make the text clearer about what it is. Right now it just is called "CIV-4 Forums" under the "Civ 4 Resources" section, it doesn't even make it clear it's xOTM and not just generic Civ 4 discussion! Since the whole point of xOTM is to share common playing experiences, it'd be a shame if it's so obscure where that activity is going on that a potential new recruit would miss it while browsing the page.
   
2. Consider placing near the top of the civ 4 xOTM forum page a small "status" display that shows the same information as on the submit page, e.g.

   We are currently accepting submissions for BtS BOTM 04 (1 day 20 hours), C-IV GOTM 29 (17 days 20 hours) and Warlords WOTM 17 (38 days 20 hours)

   Perhaps this could be accommodated by using whatever facility the forum software has for placing ads? If the game names could be linked to their starting save pages instead of bolded that would be nice icing on the cake (that applies to the submit page too I suppose, and heck why you're at it, why not the main page too). And maybe the wording could be tweaked a little bit, instead of saying "currently accepting submissions for" it could be something more straightforward like "Current competitions (submit deadline): ..."

I don't really need any of this to be done for my own purposes, I'm proposing these simple steps in the context of making the site easier to get the lay of for newbies. Although it must be said that I've read more than once that a player has misinterpreted submit deadlines & gone to turn one in nly to find they just missed deadline. it seems like putting this info on forum page would minimize that chance.

 

[AlanH]

Lots of good input. Keep it coming. Lots to respond to ...

I think the comments highlight the fact that there are at least two different audiences for the content on the GOTM web site.

1. The newcomers to the Games of the Month. They need to be able to find out what the GOTMs are all about, how to get involved, and what they have to do to play and submit games. They need a simple recipe book on how it all works, which the 1st Visit, FAQ and Rules pages attempt to meet.

2. Those who have played a game or three. They want to find a game download page, submit their completed games, and look at results and statistics. The existing left and right columns seek to meet these needs, accepting that there are issues about their length and page position.

Re. PutCashIn's comments:

Back in the day, the GOTM Home page had static text content. It included way out of date "news" about changes to the GOTM competition such as the introduction of the Civ3 Quick Start Challenge and the arrival of Civ3 Conquests. Updating it was a pain, and news at that level really didn't happen very often. So it followed the description given above by PutCashIn's first paragraph, conjuring an image of tumbleweed blowing across a dusty, deserted street in a spaghetti western.

We changed it to use a third party "Content Management System" - a News Writer script that would make it easier to enter news onto that page. That got over the workload barrier, but it still didn't make news happen any more frequently. Then that script got hacked, and we pulled it off in a hurry, leaving it with a static version of the last news items.

Then I had the bright idea of "subscribing" the GOTM Home page to the RSS feeds from these Forums, extracting threads that are tagged as "News", and displaying them. So that's what we have now. It means we can write a News items once for the Forums, and it gets published on the GOTM home page. The GOTM home page looks like an up to date, lively site, and you can go there for a single list of everything that we consider new and exciting in the world of Civ3 and Civ4 GOTMs and SGOTMs.

Re. the idea of putting the 1st Visit information on the Home page instead of the News feeds:

I have absolutely no doubt that the 1st Visit and other static pages need improvement, and that we need a clear way for newcomers to find them. But a newcomer wants to see that 1st Visit information once or twice. Thereafter s/he wants what the regular players want - see (2) above. So putting static instructions on the Home page would cater for very few visits to that page, and bring back the tumbleweed ...

It may be that the most important and dynamic information we should put on the Home page is an expanded version of the Current Games info, complete with submission deadline countdowns as suggested by MarkM, and more of the release information for each game - maybe including download links, links to the pre-game threads, etc. Perhaps that is the way to get the Home page back into users' bookmarks menus.

Re. MarkM's comment on links FROM the GOTM site TO the Forums, it's worth noting that the news item titles on the Home page are links to the relevant forums, and the news items themselves contain links to the source threads.

I'm not sure how we could provide a live copy of the submission deadline feed in the Forums. The forum system is a closed book to me. I had to work out quite a subtle hack to get it to display SGOTM team lists driven from the GOTM database information, but this appears in a post, not in any kind of banner. The only banners that appear on every forums page are defined in the site-wide template. I can't see Thunderfall being prepared to either (a) define a GOTM-specific template or (b) forego his advertising revenue by allowing us to replace the ad feed with non-revenue-earning information.

I'll also give an update on changes I've made since this discussion started:

- As MarkM has noted, the main menus in the left and right margins are now split into sections so that GOTM, S-GOTM and Resources links are more distinct. There are a couple of important links that need to be more prominent, however.

- I've reduced the min-width spec for the page to 1000 pixels. It should therefore be possible to see the entire page width on a 1024 wide screen.

- I've made a start on clearing out the most outdated stuff in the 1st Visit/Rules/FAQ pages. They need more work.

[PS] @MarkM: I have a first working version of a full graphical replay system ... as long as no one wants to see it in Internet Explorer. How would users feel about having to use another browser to see it?