NASCAR Got Screwed
Friday, February 2nd, 2007 4:56pm CST
By Luke, Thunder Lounge
Published on Thunder Lounge.
If you’re new around here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
How better else, can you explain the little screen shot to your left?
You can’t. Naturally the title is a little strong for around the Thunder Lounge, but how else can you describe the fiasco which has been, and still is NASCAR.com and what is supposed to be the crown jewel and “sacred ground” for all things NASCAR.
If I turned out a site like that, I’d put a bullet in my head. OK, so what about the Lounge? Yeah, it needs a face lift worse than anything, but we’ll get to that come March.
So back to how exactly NASCAR has taken it in the shorts, and most assuredly the wallet.
First, it’s just plain “fugly”. Let me be more frank. 1998 called, and they want their site back. Maybe that isn’t strong enough. But it’s better than the last piece of junk they called the home of NASCAR. However windows 98 was better then windows 95, and it was still a p.o.s. if you recall. Of course, then again, if it says microsoft windows it’s a p.o.s. regardless. For those interested in a better alternative, and smart enough to know what the term “total cost of ownership” means, have a look at the worlds most advanced operating system to free yourself from standing in line to jump off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.
Second, and still, it still miserably fails validation, and the errors aren’t minor ones either. I wonder what NASCAR fans with disabilities think of the site? Hmmmm.
Third, the page size is still bigger than Rosie O’ Donnell, which as we all know is pretty damn big. Needless to say, it still loads slower than molasses in January during a real winter up north.
Need I go on? I’d rather not, but my final bags on it for this article are navigation and page width. If I want to have my browser open alongside another window while I work, I get a horizontal scrollbar. If I feel like using the real estate of my 23″ wide screen LCD, I get a lovely shade of gray surrounding the site. I’m guessing it’s about a #CCCCCC, give or take a bit. Then there’s the navigation. Where’s the convenient links to the main articles for the week? You mean I have to dig for them, and wade through all this other crap and wait on umpteen page loads?
Sorry, I’ve got better things to do with my time. Like scour the web to bring you all something worth reading.
Final thoughts: I don’t know if I’d call this an improvement or not. Best I can do from my eyes is call it different. I will give it one plus though, which is it seems there’s less advertising per square inch with this latest fiasco. Not that I’m saying ads are bad. Services cost money, and that has to come from somewhere. However the old site had more ads per square inch than content. With this one, it seems that the content has taken the lead. However it isn’t by much, and most likely is because instead of a fixed width for an 800×600 browser, it’s a fixed width for a 1024×768 window instead.
Does the new site upset you? It should. You helped pay for it. Well, you did. Through your support of NASCAR and their sponsors. I for one, am not pleased with what I helped pay for.
Filed Under: Busch Series, Craftsman Truck Series, Nascar, Nextel Cup, The Soapbox
Trackback URL for: NASCAR Got Screwed
Loading...
“You helped pay for it.”
I can unequiviably state I didn’t. At least not until NASCAR gains San Migel beer as a sponser.
I had forgotten about their new clothes until your “gentle” reminder. A pox on your house for doing so, the place is a mess, although less ads is a better thing. (unless you’re Robert Yates in Sept ‘06)
marc said this on February 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Wow Luke. And I thought I had a strong opinion about nascar.com. Your on fire my friend!
I was initially impressed with the unveiling in that the Firefox Web Developers toolbar showed no tables. I quick look at the markup revealed all div’s. I didn’t check it out much, but did take a look at the CSS. At the very least, their stylesheet is very nicely formatted. Hadn’t tried the W3C validation yet. I’ll have to take a peek after this comment. And see just how bad it is.
I analyzed the site a year ago and the homepage had a whopping 21% actual ‘content of interest’ (readable content…not advertising, navigation or self-promotion). I had a visitor bust my balls over how much advertising is on a stock car. Apples to Oranges.
I’ve noticed that most of the racing series sites are very 90’s as you put it. Lots of colorful images, contrasting colors, all smashed together real tight. It’s a racin’ thing I guess.
Darren said this on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Well guys, it is a step in the right direction. But the sad thing is that the errors are trivial. They shouldn’t exist, and are nothing more than bad programming.
The downside is all the flash. Flash, used in the manner in which they are using it, is bad because people with disabilities (OK, fans who are blind) can’t see it. On top of that, search engines can’t see it either. How are they supposed to index the content so when people do a search they can find the content they are looking for? Of course I guess when you’re “so popular” it doesn’t matter.
I think my biggest complaint on it is that it’s ugly. The color palate just doesn’t work, and is what makes it so “98″. Green on black? Whoever put the “design” together (if you can call it that) should have their head examined. It might not be their fault though, if (as Marc always puts it) HWSBO put his foot down and said this is what I want. Of course any reasonable designer would have at least tried to convince them otherwise.
Overall, it is an improvement, but not by much. If it at least validated, I’d probably be a little less critical, but that doesn’t take away the “ugly factor”.
Luke,
Personally, I’ve become less obsessed with validation. Not my own markup. When I remember to, I like to keep my stuff validating under XHTML strict. But, as more and more elements of a website are things ported in from outside sources, you can’t always worry about validating something that is out of your control.
As far as design. I’m still learning this. Things that I think are fugly…other people may think are great. I hate most of the stuff a designer I work with puts out. But, I’ve learned to mostly keep my mouth shut and just work with it. After HOURS (days) of tweaking my own designs to a point where I think it’s fabulous, I show it to my wife and get little desired response. Bottom line: Design is a subjective thing.
You and I spend too much time with the internet everyday. We are different then the casual browser. I’m thinking that if I took a poll of the casual browser and race fan on their thoughts of the new NASCAR site…they’d love it. In fact I bet we see some nascar.com sharing the ‘great feedback’ they’ve gotten about the site in the next days and weeks.
Sorry to go so geek on a NASCAR topic…but it’s nice to be able to talk geek with someone who is geeky (and NASCAR-y) too!
Darren said this on February 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
I dunno D, it’s in my nature to “care” about web standards.
However, I’m still not a fan of it. Then again, I’m not a fan of some of the stuff I’ve done myself, but clients sometimes dictate otherwise.
If indeed they “targeted” this site to the “tastes”, or what they perceive as “tastes”, of their fans, what does that tell you what they think of the fans?
“Low tech”? “Not too bright”? “Gullible enough to eat whatever they push and love it”?
Hmmmm…
OK, I still don’t like it.