Am I the only one that has problems seeing the new Cirrusdesign.com web site?
I find it very slooow
I also find the letter too small
How about too much empty space because the space that is used is small and then the letter have to be small to fit the tiny space.
I am using a large flat screen with 1024X768
I don’t have problems with any other page other the Cirrus web site.
Anyone else with the same problems?
I do my best not to go to the new site, because it just does not put the informantion out like the old site, which had bright pictures, quick response and good information. Clyde, could you please help those guys out. Go to http://www.aero-news.net and see a quick response clear pictures and I don’t need glasses to read it. To me this is a happy site. It reminds me of a Funeral when I am at Cirrus site.
I know they can do much better,
Cheers,
Woor
Am I the only one that has problems seeing the new Cirrusdesign.com web site?
***I’m sure you are not.
I find it very slooow
***Me toooooooooo.
I also find the letter too small
***Very hard to read.
How about too much empty space because the space that is used is small and then the letter have to be small to fit the tiny space.
***Modern webpage design??? I don’t like it.
I am using a large flat screen with 1024X768
I don’t have problems with any other page other the Cirrus web site.
Anyone else with the same problems?
***Yep.
I do my best not to go to the new site, because it just does not put the informantion out like the old site, which had bright pictures, quick response and good information.
***You are right.
Clyde, could you please help those guys out. Go to http://www.aero-news.net and see a quick response clear pictures and I don’t need glasses to read it. To me this is a happy site. It reminds me of a Funeral when I am at Cirrus site.
I know they can do much better,
***I’m happy that they build better airplanes than webpages.
Cheers,
***Same
Woor
I agree that the Web site has some real problems.
Anyone who’s spent time on Web design knows that its cardinal principle is to make navigation of a site as SIMPLE as it can be. In the name of arty-ness, the CD site requires four or five clicks to discover info that should be available with one click from the front page. I won’t belabor the details because they’re not germane – and I suspect many of us are in businesses where we’re familiar with them. The color and font also suggest designers who aspire to “hip” style - but not style that works on the web.
Having said that, let me turn this, Pollyanna-style, to CD’s credit.
As Clyde and others have pointed out, this is a company that has developed a ruthless, triage-style sense of what it needs to do to have a future in the business. Unlike some of the dot-coms revving up in 1998 and 1999, it has never had the luxury of a tens-of-million-dollar warchest to spend however it wanted. Instead it has had to be very disciplined about where the NEXT dollar of capital and the next hour of time would go, and it has applied them quite shrewdly, I think:
-
It was more important to price the SR20 for volume sales than to be sure of making money on the initial run of SR20 sales, and they did that;
-
Once that was on the market, it was more important to get the SR22 in the pipeline than to do NON-ESSENTIAL tweaks on the 20. (Non-essential = gross weight increase. Essential = resolving TCM engine problems, etc.)This was necessary for the long-term business plan and for cash flow too, and they pulled it off.
-
Now it’s more important to pour available money into production hardware than anything else – and that’s where they’re spending their money and their top talents’ time.
Something I do admire about these people is their relentless concentration on the NEXT CRUCIAL TASK for corporate growth and survival. When they get around to fixing the web site, great, but not if it diverts money or attention from the real goal of the moment: production. Jim F
(FWIW I did a column on this very subject, streamlined Web page design:
www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,13276,00.html)
The current website design is an artistic experiment that failed. It’s OK to try and fail, as long as you recover quickly and learn from your mistakes.
But right now they have a worse problem – lack of content. There’s nothing on the SR22! There are dozens of popular aviation web sites (and newsletters) touting the introduction of the SR22, and most of these say “see www.cirrusdesign.com” for more information.
This is like bringing a plane to Oshkosh with no marketing brochures, or putting an 800 number in your press release and not answering the phone. Cirrus needs to begin treating the web a a real marketing channel.
Am I the only one that has problems seeing the new Cirrusdesign.com web site?
***I’m sure you are not.
I find it very slooow
***Me toooooooooo.
I also find the letter too small
***Very hard to read.
How about too much empty space because the space that is used is small and then the letter have to be small to fit the tiny space.
***Modern webpage design??? I don’t like it.
I am using a large flat screen with 1024X768
I don’t have problems with any other page other the Cirrus web site.
Anyone else with the same problems?
***Yep.
I do my best not to go to the new site, because it just does not put the informantion out like the old site, which had bright pictures, quick response and good information.
***You are right.
Clyde, could you please help those guys out. Go to http://www.aero-news.net and see a quick response clear pictures and I don’t need glasses to read it. To me this is a happy site. It reminds me of a Funeral when I am at Cirrus site.
I know they can do much better,
***I’m happy that they build better airplanes than webpages.
Cheers,
***Same
Woor
Thank you . . . . I needed that. For a while there I thought I was seeing things…
Cheers,
Woor
I agree that the Web site has some real problems.
Anyone who’s spent time on Web design knows that its cardinal principle is to make navigation of a site as SIMPLE as it can be. In the name of arty-ness, the CD site requires four or five clicks to discover info that should be available with one click from the front page. I won’t belabor the details because they’re not germane – and I suspect many of us are in businesses where we’re familiar with them. The color and font also suggest designers who aspire to “hip” style - but not style that works on the web.
Having said that, let me turn this, Pollyanna-style, to CD’s credit.
As Clyde and others have pointed out, this is a company that has developed a ruthless, triage-style sense of what it needs to do to have a future in the business. Unlike some of the dot-coms revving up in 1998 and 1999, it has never had the luxury of a tens-of-million-dollar warchest to spend however it wanted. Instead it has had to be very disciplined about where the NEXT dollar of capital and the next hour of time would go, and it has applied them quite shrewdly, I think:
- It was more important to price the SR20 for volume sales than to be sure of making money on the initial run of SR20 sales, and they did that;
- Once that was on the market, it was more important to get the SR22 in the pipeline than to do NON-ESSENTIAL tweaks on the 20. (Non-essential = gross weight increase. Essential = resolving TCM engine problems, etc.)This was necessary for the long-term business plan and for cash flow too, and they pulled it off.
- Now it’s more important to pour available money into production hardware than anything else – and that’s where they’re spending their money and their top talents’ time.
Something I do admire about these people is their relentless concentration on the NEXT CRUCIAL TASK for corporate growth and survival. When they get around to fixing the web site, great, but not if it diverts money or attention from the real goal of the moment: production. Jim F
(FWIW I did a column on this very subject, streamlined Web page design:
www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,13276,00.html)
All you are saying is absolutly right, but they could decide to activate the previous website that was much easier to master than the present.
And of course they did a great job on building a fantastic airplane, and I think on the long term they will do better than their competitors, e.g. Lancair c.s.
I’am still happy to be a position holder.
(#469 and 471)
Jan Stevens
The Netherlands
But right now they have a worse problem – lack of content. There’s nothing on the SR22!
Go to http://www.cirrusdesign.com
Click “News”, “Facts”, “Fact Sheet”. It now contains info, including some specifications, about the SR22.
I am still waiting for the day when clicking “Aircraft” yields a choice for the SR22 as well as the SR20. But, I remember that it hasn’t even been certified yet, so I try to be patient.
-Mike