SethLittrell.com

NorthTexan95 · July 27, 2016

I don't care what anyone says ... I think it's awesome!

GrayEagle · July 27, 2016

I figure a good professional-looking web design ought to be good for at least four more wins. Pity, we might have to be content with just six wins this season. Anyway, I appreciated the effort.

Christopher Walker · July 27, 2016

2 hours ago, North Texas Shep said:

Shut up Christopher! Of course the website is behind the times, but it is inspiring to say the damn least. They set it up nice and yes it looks great. Another swing, another quit being a turd.

Love ya Shep!

greenminer · July 27, 2016

Slick. My only nitpick is the scrolling...too much. Put a better menu/GUI in there and it's gold.

but I dig the effort. I hope this accompanies wins.

TheTastyGreek · July 27, 2016

1 hour ago, Snowy said:

Poorly designed website. No navigation?

Um, didn't you see the text that says "SCROLL DOWN"? They even have two arrows!

Christopher Walker · July 27, 2016

1 hour ago, MeanGreen22 said:

I don't anticipate many recruits to be website design experts

Ah, but that's just it; good design is something that is typically recognized instantly by most everyone.

aztecskin · July 27, 2016

5 hours ago, Christopher Walker said:

[anticipating downvotes]

This is actually really shitty web design, outdated by about eight years, and I'm not sure what mobile browser you're using @Zeke, but it's pretty crappy on iOS Safari. No scaling content, collisions, javascript image effects circa 2004, and of course a few typos; no es bueno.

It's like someone was inspired by parallax design trends of the last five years and then attempted to make the same on a platform that doesn't support such. It uses the same platform, typefaces, and design elements they've been using since I got here in 2009, that's for sure.

Another swing, another miss.

gagree. its fine on the desktop -- which only 10-20% of traffic uses.

Edited July 27, 2016 by aztecskin

TreeFiddy · July 27, 2016

First off, nice work. I am glad to see us trying. It is a good first step. The site works pretty well and is readable on a desktop browser.

However, on a mobile device there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. The designer needs to detect the type of device viewing the site and adjust accordingly if the desktop version is going to retain all of that text. On the mobile version they are going to have to use larger font and a lot fewer words. They will have to get more creative on getting the message across without writing a novel.

Great start. Now, hopefully the site designer will challenge themselves to take it to the next level and make it even better. Hopefully, challenging yourself to do better will become a recurring theme around here.

GMG24 · July 27, 2016

5 hours ago, Christopher Walker said:

[anticipating downvotes]

This is actually really shitty web design, outdated by about eight years, and I'm not sure what mobile browser you're using @Zeke, but it's pretty crappy on iOS Safari. No scaling content, collisions, javascript image effects circa 2004, and of course a few typos; no es bueno.

It's like someone was inspired by parallax design trends of the last five years and then attempted to make the same on a platform that doesn't support such. It uses the same platform, typefaces, and design elements they've been using since I got here in 2009, that's for sure.

Another swing, another miss.

Yeah because the current site is soooo amazing

mgfan · July 27, 2016

Looks great on my phone. Just rotate the screen or use the pinch feature if you can't read it. Some of you ppl will bitch about everything. It gets old. I'm not saying staying with the staus qou, but you don't have to bitch and nitpick every little thing.

Graddean · July 27, 2016

Looks fine in my iPad.

aztecskin · July 27, 2016

58 minutes ago, mgfan said:

Looks great on my phone. Just rotate the screen or use the pinch feature if you can't read it. Some of you ppl will bitch about everything. It gets old. I'm not saying staying with the staus qou, but you don't have to bitch and nitpick every little thing.

I understand what you mean about negativity, but this isn't nitpicking to be annoying. It really and truly is a strange design choice in this mobile-first Year Of Our Lord 2016. I and others on here have worked in industries where this a thing. It is known. (dothraki voice).

Responsive design was first broached in 2010. That was six years ago. That is an eternity in web years. Anyone who was on the cutting edge of web design adopted Ethan Marcotte's principles immediately. Web standards move relatively slowly but RD has been pretty much a thing for most sites for a very long while now. The last collection of sites adopting these principles are the biggest, and most bureaucratic (gov websites) --- or work by poor designers.

I don't know who did this but this is non-good work for that very reason.

Edited July 27, 2016 by aztecskin

NorthTexan95 · July 27, 2016

6 hours ago, aztecskin said:

I understand what you mean about negativity, but this isn't nitpicking to be annoying. It really and truly is a strange design choice in this mobile-first Year Of Our Lord 2016. I and others on here have worked in industries where this a thing. It is known. (dothraki voice).

Responsive design was first broached in 2010. That was six years ago. That is an eternity in web years. Anyone who was on the cutting edge of web design adopted Ethan Marcotte's principles immediately. Web standards move relatively slowly but RD has been pretty much a thing for most sites for a very long while now. The last collection of sites adopting these principles are the biggest, and most bureaucratic (gov websites) --- or work by poor designers.

I don't know who did this but this is non-good work for that very reason.

Consider this to be a "retro" website. Seth is creating a new style.

UNT90 · July 27, 2016

6 hours ago, aztecskin said:

I understand what you mean about negativity, but this isn't nitpicking to be annoying. It really and truly is a strange design choice in this mobile-first Year Of Our Lord 2016. I and others on here have worked in industries where this a thing. It is known. (dothraki voice).

Responsive design was first broached in 2010. That was six years ago. That is an eternity in web years. Anyone who was on the cutting edge of web design adopted Ethan Marcotte's principles immediately. Web standards move relatively slowly but RD has been pretty much a thing for most sites for a very long while now. The last collection of sites adopting these principles are the biggest, and most bureaucratic (gov websites) --- or work by poor designers.

I don't know who did this but this is non-good work for that very reason.

Maybe you could post a link to an up to date site so us web stupid folks can compare the two with our eyeballs?

That would probably open some eyes.

Cerebus · July 27, 2016

11 hours ago, hickoryhouse said:

Then when we get something that shows they are starting to make that effort we shit on it... We are a good group!

One of the hardest things in the world to get is honest criticism from a source that really wants you to improve. If you're smart you will treasure every bit of it.

UNT90 · July 27, 2016

^^^

Kudos for finally doing something like this, but criticizism is deserved for again half-assing the product.

It's not like the first time we have seen this formula.

Edited July 27, 2016 by UNT90

aztecskin · July 27, 2016

1 hour ago, UNT90 said:

Maybe you could post a link to an up to date site so us web stupid folks can compare the two with our eyeballs?

That would probably open some eyes.

http://meangreennation.com/seth/

^^ That didn't take very long and I was eyeballing a lot. I cleaned up a lot of the unnecessary CSS so if you are enterprising and want to test -- it *should* be a lighter weight page. Albeit slightly. I stopped lining up the animations when I got to the TV and Bowl stuff. I was just trying to make the text more readable while preserving their style. If I were doing this from scratch I would have made different choices.

You should be able to read the text at any screen size with more comfort (depending, of course, on your age and eye abilities).

Edited July 27, 2016 by aztecskin

hickoryhouse · July 27, 2016

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

One of the hardest things in the world to get is honest criticism from a source that really wants you to improve. If you're smart you will treasure every bit of it.

I'm not saying criticism isn't deserved. Of course we should scrutinize the methods that our university choose to expose the brand and endorse the product. I don't disagree with that at all and honest feedback should be treasured.

My frustration lies in the fact that our first reaction is negative, punitive and critical. Those base negatives seem to be our starting point for everything. We can't get past the bad enough to even recognize the nugget of good. What happens if your only interaction with your employees is to tell them what they are doing wrong and never what they are doing right?

i guess my main beef is why is it so difficult to be constructively critical as opposed to, "this sucks"?

Aldo · July 27, 2016

3 minutes ago, hickoryhouse said:

What happens if your only interaction with your employees is to tell them what they are doing wrong and never what they are doing right?

Then you're not a good boss.

I don't want to be critical of the work that department does. I want to look and stuff and say, hey that's awesome.

We just aren't there yet, but I expect - as in I have high expectations - that any new AD staff we bring in will fix a lot of our woes.

It won't be all at once, but I am excited to see what improvements are made, and what improvements I didn't even know needed to be made.

aztecskin · July 27, 2016

15 minutes ago, hickoryhouse said:

I'm not saying criticism isn't deserved. Of course we should scrutinize the methods that our university choose to expose the brand and endorse the product. I don't disagree with that at all and honest feedback should be treasured.

My frustration lies in the fact that our first reaction is negative, punitive and critical. Those base negatives seem to be our starting point for everything. We can't get past the bad enough to even recognize the nugget of good. What happens if your only interaction with your employees is to tell them what they are doing wrong and never what they are doing right?

i guess my main beef is why is it so difficult to be constructively critical as opposed to, "this sucks"?

I get your point.

OP was pretty positive. There were some pretty positive comments initially. I thought it was fine when I saw it via desktop. So I wouldn't call it our 'first' reaction.

And I kind of felt like @Christopher Walker @Aldo and my own criticism was fairly constructive. If you are speaking generally -- like our collective vibe on the board/internet is negative, consider that fandom is by nature reactive. And there hasn't been much to positively react to.

Cerebus · July 27, 2016

45 minutes ago, hickoryhouse said:

My frustration lies in the fact that our first reaction is negative, punitive and critical.

That isn't true. The reaction to hiring SL was incredibly positive. The reaction to firing RV was incredibly positive. When positive things are done positive reactions can be expected.

Now even on this thread there are some people who think its a good design, feedback from them is positive. Those who think it's bad, the feedback is negative.

I happen to know/work with several web specialists. Feedback from them was universally negative. "Dated", "Hard to read", "trendy 10 years ago", "vomiting up info about an organization in the hopes that it will lure people in vs. answering questions/problems prospective athletes might have."

I think the last one is probably the one that needs to be addressed the most. On every single possible screen that comes up, there should be some sort of action button or link for recruits to reach out and contact the coaches, instead of having one small text link at the bottom that is ambiguously titled "football questionnaire."

For example: http://biology.unt.edu/

What is the primary purpose of that site? To get people to apply to the program. What is on every single page? A button to Apply Online.

What is the purpose of the SL website? To get recruits/coaches to contact the NT coaches. What is not on every single page? A way for recruits/coaches to contact the NT coaches.

Christopher Walker · July 27, 2016

3 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

For example: http://biology.unt.edu/

What is the primary purpose of that site? To get people to apply to the program. What is on every single page? A button to Apply Online.

What is the purpose of the SL website? To get recruits/coaches to contact the NT coaches. What is not on every single page? A way for recruits/coaches to contact the NT coaches.

Step one is to probably have the University step in and demand they get in on the Drupal bandwagon like the rest of us are.

aztecskin · July 27, 2016

12 minutes ago, Christopher Walker said:

Step one is to probably have the University step in and demand they get in on the Drupal bandwagon like the rest of us are.

@Cerebus with great points. Fake +1s to you.

@Aldo pointed out that Coachsaban.net and Lesmiles.net are also terrible. Which is something to consider -- the coach websites genre is terrible.

MEANGREENCOACH2 · July 27, 2016

I for one loved it!! sent it around to my co-workers who are just your average technology skilled person. I didnt see much difference from what @aztecskin did and what was originally posted.

But then again i am not a technology guru by an stretch. It was awesome to see what people had to say about Seth. I also appreciated the line graphs about the improvements on the offense once Seth showed up. I think one day when he leaves us and goes on to bigger things we will be one of those graphs that have the biggest turnaround.

Cerebus · July 27, 2016

8 minutes ago, MEANGREENCOACH2 said:

I for one loved it!! sent it around to my co-workers who are just your average technology skilled person. I didnt see much difference from what @aztecskin did and what was originally posted.

I don't think the site is terrible. I think it could be improved. If it made you and your coworkers excited, great. If it make kids you coach excited, great. Then what? Have an action button on every single page so that recruits or coaches can reach out, not one ambiguously named link at the very bottom of a a very, very long page.