New banner

[Hamilton Saint]

Where's Ron Davies?

 

Surely he deserves to be there more than Alan Shearer?

 

 

[Pilchards]

Also that first man, did he score a goal with that thing balancing on his lip?

[Colinjb]

Never mind that, the 'Saints Web' bit looks absolutely antique. Hate it.

[niceandfriendly]

yeah the banner is pretty shocking. what happened to all the good suggestions on that thread? one thing which would improve it greatly is if the players weren't in black and white

[saint_stevo]

hate the 'Saints Web' font, hate that all the players dont fit in the red banner,hate the players are all black and white, hate the link to SaintsWeb home.

 

 

Mostly hate that someone was rewarded for the design.

[Danny]

I like it, especially the logo. Is the Saints bit the same as what was used on the cover of the programme in the 80s?

[trousers]

I like it, especially the logo. Is the Saints bit the same as what was used on the cover of the programme in the 80s?

That's what I was thinking .... Brings back happy memories :-)

[stevegrant]

I like it, especially the logo. Is the Saints bit the same as what was used on the cover of the programme in the 80s?

Correct

[Colinjb]

I like it, especially the logo. Is the Saints bit the same as what was used on the cover of the programme in the 80s?

 

Irrelevant, right now it looks sodding shocking.

[saintscottofthenortham]

hmmmmmm... can't say I feel it a deserving winner as there were some cracking efforts in the thread.

 

My main concern is that the winning banner has different dimensions to the ones we were given to submit with... and by quite a stretch too. Like DOUBLE the length hense why the entrant was able to fit so many players on it, because with the original dimensions we were given that would be impossible.

 

I personally think it looks like a front cover of an 80's german Porn Video.

[Danny]

Correct

 

Worryingly, I think the only reason I recognise it is due to the fact there's a programme from the early 80s behind the bar in The Alex!

[stevegrant]

My main concern is that the winning banner has different dimensions to the ones we were given to submit with... and by quite a stretch too. Like DOUBLE the length hense why the entrant was able to fit so many players on it, because with the original dimensions we were given that would be impossible.

The original submission fitted into the given dimensions. Each of the three shortlisted were asked to make - and made - modifications to make it wider, as they had all used transparency to decent effect to ensure the user menu at the top of the page wouldn't get lost.

[Micky]

hmmmmmm... can't say I feel it a deserving winner as there were some cracking efforts in the thread.

 

My main concern is that the winning banner has different dimensions to the ones we were given to submit with... and by quite a stretch too. Like DOUBLE the length hense why the entrant was able to fit so many players on it, because with the original dimensions we were given that would be impossible.

 

I personally think it looks like a front cover of an 80's german Porn Video.

 

Can't disagree with anything that you say there. It would appear that the 'goalposts' were moved by some considerable degree in terms of the size of the banner, which is a little disappointing as this was raised while people were submitting ideas. Absolutely hate the font, you're right, I too have seen that German Porn Vid...! All of that said - I do actually like the concept of the banner - it's just the execution that I don't like.

[Spudders]

When I view on my iPhone, the right side of the banner sticks out further than the main body of the forum!

[Big John]

Not that it matters one jot, but I am surprised at 2 omissions; the Red Nose and Sir Bobby Stokes.

 

No doubt this will run and run due to being close-season, roll on Thursday's Fixtures being announced.

 

Good site made even better steve, well done and thanks.

 

all we need now is a payment plan for our subs.

[Ajv2809]

I'm sorry, but the banner is TERRIBLE. The font is wrong and the black and white is very dated, makes the whole site seem bland and boring. Of all the great designs that were submitted you choose that? Seriously, what were you thinking?! Options for a different background colour would have helped too.

 

Can we get a poll to decide whether to change it?

[Super_Saint]

I remember when we changed over before I felt like it would take some getting used to. But I can't see myself getting used to the banner to be honest, it's a good job but there was better ones posted in my opinion.

[skintsaint]

I like the whiteness..means it doesnt stand out so much on my work monitor.

 

Other than that seems a bit wierd, dont like the header much but meh...its only a website at the end of the day. Still does its purpose.

[SaintRobbie]

Truly awful. We've gone from a classy banner to a complete joke. Utter rubbish. If I were a Pompey fan it would raise my morale. The banner is arguably the worst change to Saints since we were taken over!

 

Shame.

 

The forum is more user friendly though.

 

Geckosaint..... you are needed urgently to come and redesign a banner to save the day!!!

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Sorry to say it but the banner is appalling. Looks so unprofessional.

[SaintRobbie]

True. Happy memories for some.... but we're supposed to be looking forward and moving forward as a Club not backwards, 125 years of celebrations or not. This banner makes the rednose 125 Crest look a work of art.

 

I liked the quality of the last banner. This makes the site look like some sort of amateur fanzine. This site has been cutting edge - the best forum on Saints - and influential over the years. When I look at this banner I expect to see Ronald McDonald next to the Saints bit.

 

It is to banners what the first Ted Bates' statue was to art.

[ponto1963]

Prefer last banner by a long way,

 

Also why no Alan Ball

[doggface]

I like the saints font, it is a welcome blast from the past. Big ron should be on it in place of shearer IMO

[chrisobee]

Back to the point of the thread Big Ron should be there ahead not only of Shearer but also Keegan who left after only one full season of being fit despite saying he was going to stay and angered many fans in the process.

[Toomer]

Back to the point of the thread Big Ron should be there ahead not only of Shearer but also Keegan who left after only one full season of being fit despite saying he was going to stay and angered many fans in the process.

 

Agree with this, no Bobby Stokes as well.

[croome]

why shearer, he couldnt wait to leave us, always gave us s**t when he played us, didnt talk about us with any affection.

[O_RLY]

I don't like the banner, and the old setup was easier to read and faster.

[Badger]

Totally agree that Big Ron should be ahead of Shearer/Shilton and KK in the pecking order.

 

Bobby Stokes probably deserves a place,although one major addition should be Lawrie.I know he has his detractors on here from more receny years but even they cannot deny his record of 1976,promotion,the KK era,and then runners up 1983/4 etc.Thats by building and rebuilding the team four times.

 

Personally I don't begrudge KK's place there despite him leaving after two seasons.His signing was probably the biggest name to sign for us.Bally however was a great hero of mine and probably shades it ahead of KK for his services to Saints over a longer period.

[StuRomseySaint]

You lot really are a bunch of complete saps.

 

Moaning about a fookin banner on a website, get a grip you bunch of girls.

[miserableoldgit]

Thank goodness that we have something else important to moan about. Might take the attention away from the ST`s

[Doctoroncall]

The use of print font can have a profound influence on things and how information is processed. (Song, H. and Schwarz, N., If it's easy to read, it's easy to do, pretty, good, and true. the psychologist vol. 23 no 2.). Arial font is an easy to read one to use.

 

HTH

[niceandfriendly]

You lot really are a bunch of complete saps.

 

Moaning about a fookin banner on a website, get a grip you bunch of girls.

 

lol, and look at you. moaning about the people who are moaning. you're worse than us.

[del boy]

Dont mind the banner but the whole site set up seemed better before - not a moan, just an observation from a user perspective

[Griffo]

Looks ****e.

[ART]

I don't like the new set up a all. I thought I'd landed on Stoke City's website by mistake. The whole thing looks really amateurish and in no way reflects what the reborn club is all about. The spacing and the fonts are all wrong. Have enormous difficult to read the text without zooming in and thus making most of the page invisible.Now just about every other Saints forum looks a whole site better. A great shame and think a poll should be conducted to get everyone's feedback.

[stevegrant]

I don't like the new set up a all. I thought I'd landed on Stoke City's website by mistake.

Dunno if you've noticed, but Saints play in red and white as well

[Baj]

Thanks for your feedback Art, however you've been around long enough to know that everytime we rework things, people moan about how the old site was better, how we shouldnt have changed things. Invariably they are the same people each time, so we'll take it as read that people who dislike this version will love it in the end, even if loving it is a day after its changed again.

[Isla Wight]

I don't like to moan (unusual for a poster on this forum), especially as the administrators obviously dedicate a lot of time and effort into running the forum, but I must agree with others that this new format is not as good as the old one by a long way. Just my opinion.

[Minty]

Honest first impressions is that I don't like the new banner, but frankly it's unimportant and I'll get used to it. As for the rest of the site, I like it overall... I do seem to have some speed issues, as my browser seems to be using more resources, and my work pc is slow at the best of times, so that's a bit annoying.

 

As always, the most important thing is the content, and the admin have little or no control over that (on the forum)...

[del boy]

Thanks for your feedback Art, however you've been around long enough to know that everytime we rework things, people moan about how the old site was better, how we shouldnt have changed things. Invariably they are the same people each time, so we'll take it as read that people who dislike this version will love it in the end, even if loving it is a day after its changed again.

 

Baj - "taking it as read" means that you are accepting it as true without actually checking to see if it is. With respect, thats a bit arrogant, especially if some people who are commenting (not moaning) aren't the usual suspects. Art's suggestion of a poll is a reasonable one - I'd be happy to accept whatever the result is, but at least you'd have some actual indication of what people think rather than assuming you know best.

[Saint_Donovan]

Its vile!! there were some fantastic efforts on the other thread, how can anyone in their right mind think this turd of a banner was the best of the bunch?

[Liquidshokk]

Initially; Not impressed

2 hours on; growing on me

 

Bit like the sash really... Good job I keep my mouth shut on here until ive had time to decide on these things ;-)

[Thedelldays]

Sorry to say it but the banner is appalling. Looks so unprofessional.

 

looks crap, the old one was better..(I apologise to the person who designed it, nothing personal at all)

 

shearer..why..?

 

davies or bobby stokes should have been in there..

 

the whole format is now awful IMO....seriously..

looks more like a kids website

[Danbert]

It's true that whenever you change things people moan no matter what. The fact remains, however, and not that it matters, that that banner is utter gash.

[B Rabbit]

Think it looks pretty decent

[Wes Tender]

Frankly, I was a bit disappointed when I saw the new set-up. The simplest way that I can state it, is that the old format looked professional, whereas this looks amateur. And as for that typeface for the name, it looks juvenile. I've looked at links to other fans' sites over a longish period of time and thought that ours was far and away the best presented. It had gravitas and style. Now it is just the same as most others.

 

The white background to enter posts might make it easy to read, but I think it looks stark. I preferred the grey which looks more sophisticated. I've nothing against tweaking the site with additional facilities, but what was wrong with the actual format? Change for change's sake?

[saint_stevo]

it does look a bit like TUI

[dune]

And as for that typeface for the name, it looks juvenile.

 

It's what they call retro. It's a copy off saints programmes from the 80's.

[Wes Tender]

It's what they call retro. It's a copy off saints programmes from the 80's.

 

So we're wishing to portray ourselves as a 20th century outfit, rather than the modern, thrusting, dynamic club that we ought to be. Perhaps we should use fonts that were around 125 years ago instead and be really retro, although that would look even more odd on a website.

[lettuce]

As someone earlier suggested, this is the forum equivalent of the original Ted Bates statue. In fact, shouldn't the banner include photos of Milan Mandaric and Jimmy Crankie, if not the statue itself