New OS

[Macky]

Tried to load it on my mobile and it doesn't work.

I managed to load it on my phone. It was extremely slow and it actually looks even worse. It isn't optimised for mobiles at all.

 

[Lako42]

Why change it?

Becuase it was a massive pile of shit in the 1st place, the amount of avertisements on there make it impossible to highlight the actual content of the website. I won't be using it that's for sure.

 

[spenno]

Can't find the mobile optimised site (if there is one).

It's 'coming soon' apparently: http://www.lcfc.com/mobile/

 

[dpjfox]

it is rubbish cant even remember existing foxesplayer members and i doubt will announce signings quicker than the existing 3 weeks!!!

 

[Jeff]

It isn't optimised for mobiles at all.

There is a mobile version, but it's not expected to be available until September.


Rather than use the mobile version of the sites I use the android app. But that doesn't seem to be working at the moment, it won't fetch news articles or fixtures. Maybe it's trying to connect to the old system and not the new one.

 

[bocadillo]

There is a mobile version, but it's not expected to be available until September.


Rather than use the mobile version of the sites I use the android app. But that doesn't seem to be working at the moment, it won't fetch news articles or fixtures. Maybe it's trying to connect to the old system and not the new one.

This is certainly happening with NewsNow.

 

[Orifice]

What is it designed to look best on?

I apears to be a shambles on a regular traditional PC. Is it suposed to be optimised for an eyepad or something?

 

[Mawsley]

What is it designed to look best on?

Fax

 

[Miles Away]

They have the option to import them from the old site. There have been so many problems with the new system that some have been delaying this until everything is working properly.

Thats the thing, isn't it? Get something viable out there and then fix the mess. From a product manager view I'd much prefer that than gilding a lily for 6 extra months.

It's not the prettiest by any means, and I'm sure they've severed a lot of content feeds and database calls in the process...but I'll reserve judgement until they've had a chance to iron out the worst of it.

But then, I'm from the "throw it out there and see what sinks" school.

 

[SwedeFox]

What is it designed to look best on?

I apears to be a shambles on a regular traditional PC. Is it suposed to be optimised for an eyepad or something?

Looks like shit on my iPad, so unless it's worse on a PC (which I can't imagine) then no.

 

[Miles Away]

Thats the thing, isn't it? Get something viable out there and then fix the mess. From a product manager view I'd much prefer that than gilding a lily for 6 extra months.

It's not the prettiest by any means, and I'm sure they've severed a lot of content feeds and database calls in the process...but I'll reserve judgement until they've had a chance to iron out the worst of it.

But then, I'm from the "throw it out there and see what sinks" school.

Not to say they don't have a lot of work on their hands...because just pinging around there are a lot of weird pages. Hopefully they have some staff on hand sorting it and don't think they have a finished product.

 

[Matt_B]

Like I said elsewhere, it looks like they forgot to upload a stylesheet at some point.

 

[spenno]

Is it suposed to be optimised for an eyepad or something?

The days of optimising websites for one particular browser or device are long gone (they should be anyway).

 

[bocadillo]

Terrible, terrible design: http://www.lcfc.com/

As a web designer, [I would] have picked a better template to work with e.g. Wolves and Coventry.

I've just looked at the Wolves and Cov versions. I think the latter is even worse than ours - and so is the former as soon as you scroll down past the big picture to get to the stuff that really matters.

I notice that the Wolves site has a poll , asking people if they prefer the new style to the old version: it's running at 66% NO at the moment. I wonder if lcfc.com would have the courage to ask a similar question.

 

[SJN-Fox]

What is it designed to look best on?

A bonfire.

 

[Miles Away]

I notice that the Wolves site has a poll , asking people if they prefer the new style to the old version: it's running at 66% NO at the moment. I wonder if lcfc.com would have the courage to ask a similar question.

Almost every poll ever asking "do you like the new way or the old way" will generate the same result.

 

[bocadillo]

Almost every poll ever asking "do you like the new way or the old way" will generate the same result.

That's not what NottsFox's missus told him last night.

 

[Miles Away]

That's not what NottsFox's missus told him last night.

c. Neither

 

[spenno]

I've just looked at the Wolves and Cov versions. I think the latter is even worse than ours - and so is the former as soon as you scroll down past the big picture to get to the stuff that really matters.

Yes, they are also rubbish, but better than our template IMO. It's safe to say the current system is genuinely poor, both technically and aesthetically.

 

[M17TT C]

Opens fine on Dolphin HD Browser but not Firefox mobile.

Really don't get why so many seem to be getting their knickers in a twist over it. Simple but effective were my first impressions and the contrasting background and foreground colours made it clear to read though any excuse for a moan I suppose.