Accessing Military Review

[marct]

I'm just downloading it now, but I have to say that the website gets an F- from me on usability. No online (html) tables of contents, not proper search, huge pdf files, absolutely crappy colour combinations all combine to make he reader totally frustrated.

[Cavguy]

I'm just downloading it now, but I have to say that the website gets an F- from me on usability. No online (html) tables of contents, not proper search, huge pdf files, absolutely crappy colour combinations all combine to make he reader totally frustrated.

Agree with you - I also found it frustrating not to be able to download the individual articles as useable, and found it difficult to find the current issue easily.

New websites are coming to CAC within the next month for the reasons you state. In the meantime, interested in your feedback on our revised site ....

http://coin.army.mil

[marct]

Hi Cavguy,

Agree with you - I also found it frustrating not to be able to download the individual articles as useable, and found it difficult to find the current issue easily.

Just as another note, by not having individual articles available as pdfs, it makes it very difficult for them to be assigned as readings for courses. This is a real problem for me, since I am advising two students in the stability ops/COIN/CT area right now....

New websites are coming to CAC within the next month for the reasons you state. In the meantime, interested in your feedback on our revised site ....

http://coin.army.mil

I get redirected to http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/index.asp

Was that what you wanted me to look at? If so, it appears to have the same layout and, I would suspect, faults as the Mil Rev site.

Some of the problems could be fixed really easily by identifying the link formats. For example, the COIN Center Base Brief is a PowerPoint presentation. I would strongly suggest that the link lead to an html page with a summary of the brief and options for downloading he full brief in ppt or pdf format.

Another example is the "Highlights" section which uses a fairly small typeface. This can cause problems for people trying to access it. The "Highlights" title should link through to an html page that use an icon (picture), summary set of links to each individual highlight.

Marc

[Cavguy]

Marc, thanks. Will forward. This was a significant improvement over our previous public site.

A new look is coming by mid-month, hopefully it will get us away from the current problems. As we indicated in another thread, we have had challenges internal to CAC getting our website standard together.

Also forwarded your earlier comments to Mil Review.

Now back o/t.

[marct]

Marc, thanks. Will forward. This was a significant improvement over our previous public site.

A new look is coming by mid-month, hopefully it will get us away from the current problems. As we indicated in another thread, we have had challenges internal to CAC getting our website standard together.

Also forwarded your earlier comments to Mil Review.

Now back o/t.

No worries Cavguy . Let's just say that making some off the cuff comments on the CAC site is much easier than some of the site design/re-design work I've done on multi-lingual, multi-cultural sites, multi-platform sites .

[Tom Odom]

I get redirected to http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/index.asp

Was that what you wanted me to look at? If so, it appears to have the same layout and, I would suspect, faults as the Mil Rev site.



Marc

Seems to redirect any and all right now including the Mil Review edition in question to the base CAC page.

Tom

[Jedburgh]

Agree with you - I also found it frustrating not to be able to download the individual articles as useable, and found it difficult to find the current issue easily....

This is a change since the last issue of MR. The site used to be much easier to use, with the current issue right up top, and the ability to easily download individual articles in pdf from the table of contents.

This is definitely an instance breaking something that was working.

[Tom Odom]

This is definitely an instance breaking something that was working.

Amen.

[Cavguy]

This is a change since the last issue of MR. The site used to be much easier to use, with the current issue right up top, and the ability to easily download individual articles in pdf from the table of contents.

This is definitely an instance breaking something that was working.

Please let them know how you feel at leav-milrevweb@conus.army.mil. It will help drive changes.

[Tom Odom]

Please let them know how you feel at leav-milrevweb@conus.army.mil. It will help drive changes.

For what it's worth, mission complete.

Tom

[marct]

Dear Webmaster,

I have been assigning my students to read various articles from Military Review for the past several years and I will no longer be doing so after your recent site redesign. Speaking as both an academic with a strong interest in the military and a professional web designer, I can only describe the new site as "pitiful" and a perfect example of how not to design a site - I may even use the new site as an example of truly pathetic web design to both my students and my clients.

It is my professional opinion that this redesign will result in a significant reduction in the number of readers of Military Review both in professional circles and in the general public. If the goal of the redesign was to kill Military Reviews readership numbers and increase the frustration of potential readers, then it has surely succeeded. Personally, I am shocked and appalled that such a redesign has taken place, especially in light of Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell's statement that

"If Soldiers are better educated to deal with new media and its effects, they will feel more empowered and be encouraged to act. We need to educate Soldiers on how to deal with the media and how their actions can have strategic implications. They need to know what the second and third order effects of their actions are."


I can only assume, being of a charitable mind, that approval for the redesign came from someone who is woefully ignorant of "how their actions can have strategic implications". To assume the alternate - that this was a willful decision to reduce readership, to hamper professional military education, to increase a general popular perception that the US military is inept and incapable of using the new media effectively - one would also have to assume that the decision came from someone whose purpose is to willfully destroy the effectiveness of US military communications during a time of war, and that is not an assumption I would like to make.

I most strongly urge you, at the minimum, to make the Tales of Contents pages for all issues available in html format with links through to pdf's of individual articles. The current practice of lumping the entire issue together in one pdf document is totally unacceptable to anyone who wishes to link to a single article, which is exactly what most educators and blogger do. As an example of how to meet current academic standards and, I will note, that they tend to be 2 years behind the tehnology edge, consider the website of Nature or Science. The goal of a website should be to communicate effectively with your audience and to convey and enhance a professional image. It should not be to frustrate that audience and, by doing so, create negative perceptions of the organization.

//
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.

--
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University
Associate Researcher, ICAN, University of Technology, Sydney
http://marctyrrell.com/

[Tom Odom]

Dear Webmaster,

I have been assigning my students to read various articles from Military Review for the past several years and I will no longer be doing so after your recent site redesign. Speaking as both an academic with a strong interest in the military and a professional web designer, I can only describe the new site as "pitiful" and a perfect example of how not to design a site - I may even use the new site as an example of truly pathetic web design to both my students and my clients.

It is my professional opinion that this redesign will result in a significant reduction in the number of readers of Military Review both in professional circles and in the general public. If the goal of the redesign was to kill Military Reviews readership numbers and increase the frustration of potential readers, then it has surely succeeded. Personally, I am shocked and appalled that such a redesign has taken place, especially in light of Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell's statement that

"If Soldiers are better educated to deal with new media and its effects, they will feel more empowered and be encouraged to act. We need to educate Soldiers on how to deal with the media and how their actions can have strategic implications. They need to know what the second and third order effects of their actions are."


I can only assume, being of a charitable mind, that approval for the redesign came from someone who is woefully ignorant of "how their actions can have strategic implications". To assume the alternate - that this was a willful decision to reduce readership, to hamper professional military education, to increase a general popular perception that the US military is inept and incapable of using the new media effectively - one would also have to assume that the decision came from someone whose purpose is to willfully destroy the effectiveness of US military communications during a time of war, and that is not an assumption I would like to make.

I most strongly urge you, at the minimum, to make the Tales of Contents pages for all issues available in html format with links through to pdf's of individual articles. The current practice of lumping the entire issue together in one pdf document is totally unacceptable to anyone who wishes to link to a single article, which is exactly what most educators and blogger do. As an example of how to meet current academic standards and, I will note, that they tend to be 2 years behind the tehnology edge, consider the website of Nature or Science. The goal of a website should be to communicate effectively with your audience and to convey and enhance a professional image. It should not be to frustrate that audience and, by doing so, create negative perceptions of the organization.

[/URL]

Say what you think, Marc. Don't hold back ...

[marct]

Say what you think, Marc. Don't hold back ...

I was just trying to be nice, Tom .

Seriously, I don't think that they have thought any of the impacts through. From a strategic communications stance, this redesign goes completely against LT GEN. Caldwell's openly stated intent by making at least one part of CAC appear to be thinking with the same mindset as the cavalry generals in WW I - I hope someone gives them Red Tabs to wear .

And I will be using the current "new" version of the site as an example of how not to design a web communications strategy . Quite frankly, I know grade school kids who could easily produce a better site.... ad I'd beter stop there while I'm still being "nice" .

[120mm]

Actually, it sounds like just about everything Army IT guys do.

Army IT "If it's user-friendly, fix it!"

[Menning]

A message from Military Review regarding recent troubles accessing their latest edition:

The recent redesign of the Military Review website has prompted concerned responses across the globe and from all segments of our audience regarding accessibility to individual articles. We have taken your concerns to heart and are currently working to increase accessibility. Effective immediately, you now have access to individual articles in the September-October 2008 online edition. You will continue to see even more changes that will make the site more suitable to academic and better business practices. Your readership and active participation is vital to the professionalism of our Journal.

We ask for your continued patience as changes occur and thank you for your unwavering support.

[marct]

I should have posted earlier, but I've been stuck in meetings.....

I received several response to my email that were uniformly in agreement that the a) the current situation was #$@& b) it was forced on them an not any design choice by MilRev, and c) they had finally managed to get agreement to go back to individual article access (which Menning just announced). So kudos to the entire MilRev team for this.

[Tom Odom]

I should have posted earlier, but I've been stuck in meetings.....

I received several response to my email that were uniformly in agreement that the a) the current situation was #$@& b) it was forced on them an not any design choice by MilRev, and c) they had finally managed to get agreement to go back to individual article access (which Menning just announced). So kudos to the entire MilRev team for this.

Well I was too polite as they ignored my email altogether.

They won't like my letter about the Rwanda article.

Tom

[marct]

Well I was too polite as they ignored my email altogether.

I thought I WAS being polite !

Honestly, I suspect that the MilRev people had it forced on them by some dweeb contractor or bureaucratic nitwit; they are way too professional to have shot themselves in the foot that way.

They won't like my letter about the Rwanda article.

I hope they publish it. You're one of the experts in the area and if it made me wince I can just imagine your reaction....

Marc