Archive through June 08, 2006

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 41 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 02:41 pm:    I have the unique opportunity to meet with a company executive in charge of their website. The meeting is specifically to discuss improving their website to meet the needs of architects, specifiers, and construction professionals. I'm looking for examples of websites that you feel are exemplary in how they present their information, ease of use, organization, navigation, depth of content, etc... I am much less concerned about graphic appearance, as that's very subjective. However, particularly bad examples might be fun as well. To start off this list here are good sites (IMHO): - http://www.ardenarch.com - http://www.schluter.com/ - http://www.fryreglet.com/new/default.asp - http://www.pemko.com/ - http://www.hilti.com/ ...the list goes on. What are your thoughts? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 13 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 02:51 pm:    The ones I like the most and meet my standards: http://www.wrmeadows.com/ - lots of products and in French and Spanish - generally good info http://www.portafab.com/ - shows what they do and works well with the search engines. While this may not be important for the specifier using 4specs, it is critical for the manufacturer. http://www.nixalite.com/architectinfocenter.aspx great target page for architects, I plan to use all three in a newsletter showing good examples. Plus point them to the manufacturer's area on 4specs for our ideas: http://www.4specs.com/s2a/ Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 249 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 03:05 pm:    Some general ideas without specific examples; - show me company/division/group names up front - show mailing address, phone and fax numbers up front - show direct contacts at all levels, early on - require no log-in or other "secret passages" [are you interested in me using your products? then make it easy for me] - good menus to get to products and elsewhere I might wish to go [don't be encyclopedic!] - no glitz, electronic wizardry, film clips, commercials, shows, etc. - straight "stuff" - I'm pretty dumb so make it all easy and in terms I can understand - if you need to have me fill out a form, make it work easily-- much prefer direct e-amil with NO form. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 252 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 03:11 pm:    Bad example I just encountered: http://www.oshkoshdoor.com/ The immediate start-up is a spec wizard; I couldn't get any other information and I only wanted to know if they manufacture acoustic wood doors! And to add to Ralph's list above, if you want glitz, fine, but provide me a place to click where I can avoid all that (skip intro) and quickly enter the technical part of the site. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 65 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 03:20 pm:    Include information on Colin's creation of guidelines for manufacturer's websites - WebFormat - http://www.4specs.com/webformat/ Niki Koplowitz Intermediate Member Username: nikitk Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 03:28 pm:    Here's an entry for the "graphically grevious" category: http://www.cor-guard.com/ I find it visually stunning, in its own way. Beware the after-image when you look away. I'll second Mr. Liebing's criteria, to which I'll add: Actual technical data, ideally as a CSI spec (if practical), or at least major product characteristics (and available options!) clearly listed. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 250 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 04:03 pm:    Ms. Koplowitz-- You are obviously both spec writer AND perfectionist. Wow! what expectations!!! J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 151 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 05:43 pm:    I don't want to have to download anything in order to use the website (certainly no flash stuff!). I would rather have straight html coding (copies easier), but .pdf works too. Word documents are about as easy for me to deal with as .pdfs since I usually wind up doing a lot of reformatting. I would like to second the motion about having to log on to get information; I have been tempted to write such manufacturers out of my specs especially when I am trying desperately to get last minute information (usually at 9:00pm before the documents get printed 8:00am the next morning). I used to like Armstrong's ceiling site, but they have recently modified it so that I find it more difficult to use. I find both SherwinWilliams and PPG's sites extremely difficult to use unless I know what I want. The absolutely worst used to be 3M. They made so many different products and offered no way to find the particular product being sought. My suggestion to all the manufacturer's is to ban marketing from involvement in putting these sites together. In addition to spec writers and designers (seeking technical information both in verbal and graphic form), I would suggest that many if not most users are contractors, subcontractors, fabricators, etc. Unless you are offering consumer products, don't put together a website that is attractive to consumers; put together one that is useful. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 253 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:24 am:    And PU-LEASE PLEASE stop using that annoying Spec-Wizard! I can put together my own spec if I'm given the information. When I click on "specification" I don't need to be stepped through a series of questions to compile what the manufacturer considers the "perfect" spec. (can you tell this just happened while I was trying to get information?) George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 83 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:44 am:    This is a topical post for me – I’ve been “volunteered” to coordinate our CSI chapter program in April, on “Effective Websites”, for which Colin has generously agreed to be our featured speaker. May I quote some of your comments in our introductory panel discussion before Colin’s presentation? The focus of the discussion is “what specifiers are looking for in product websites”. By the way, my all time pet peeve on websites is passwords and registrations. Especially those sites that I visit once, then not again for 18 months, and they won’t let me back in because I have already registered, and forgotten the password. And those stupid “clues”. Do I really need to remember my mother-in-law’s canary’s maiden name to get back in? Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 254 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:21 pm:    You've got my permission. I never say or write anything publicly that I won't stand behind. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 153 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:48 pm:    Use mine as well; I would be interested in what you put together. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 251 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 01:08 pm:    Me, too, George Might also check other threads about what we want reps to know-- some of that applies to web sites also. Niki Koplowitz Advanced Member Username: nikitk Post Number: 5 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 02:17 pm:    Likewise. And I second the password complaint. GE has also improved; there are still multiple sites and arcane navigation, but at least now I can get to the technical data without a password. Once I find it. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 43 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 03:37 pm:    Mr. Everding, there was an excellent presentation on this topic at the CA/CS/PR Academy. The Powerpoint presentation was made available to the attendees, and unless I'm mistaken, permission was given to use the presentations for seminars exactly like yours. I'm remote right now, and don't have access to my presentation disk nor the name of the presenter, I know his first name is Sal :-) Email me offline and when I return to my office on Monday, I will find out if I can email you the presentation. For those of you who did not go and had the opporunity, shame on you! You really missed out. Richard Baxter (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 08:45 pm:    I like a website that is logically organized in a logical path from the most general categories to more and more specific ones. I’ve come across some websites recently that just listed all their products by their names and numbers. The only option is to click on every single product and try to figure out what it is and how it is different from the previous product. I certainly don’t have time for that. Maybe they are expecting people to have their entire lists of product designations memorized. I wouldn’t need their website if I had that kind of a memory. I also find it extremely convenient when they provide comparative lists of all their products so I can quickly compare them and zero in on what I’m looking for. I don’t think a lot of these companies understand how much business they lose when a competitor’s website is easier to use. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 64 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 08:11 am:    In addition to coming up with a consensus on the most desired and most dreaded features of product websites, I hope lots of 4specs wonks will use this thread for voting. Let producers know what makes a good site, and then let’s let them know HOW MANY of us want them. Ralph Liebing states the fundamentals with a good list, and others have added essential points. I would order the result so far this way: Three principles up front for producers: 1. Follow Colin Gilboy’s suggested format / checklist. 2. Follow first the wishes of the engineering department (including the senior sales engineer), and the marketers last – be they in-house or consulting. Then three principles to suit the busy specifier who must visit more than a dozen sites an hour on a busy day: 3. No glitz or kinetic wizardry. That stuff frustrates searching and selecting 4. No log-in, registration or password. That stuff ultimately creates responses that always come when the specifier is busiest. Trust the specifier to ask for help. Any good tech rep will get the info he needs more efficiently when he is contacted – often for an actual project. 5. Here’s a positive tip: On the main menu: after HOME, make the first items DESIGN, PRODUCTS and DETAILS: The first is for the designer who is looking for projects and how the installed product looks. The second is the detailed product line and all of its technical aspects. Sell the designer, then clinch the specifier. The third is needed for the drawings. The specifier often peeks at DESIGN and DETAILS to do her work All this means that main menu across the top of the home page should not exceed 6 or 8 subsites – for ease of navigation and to get the inquirer to the desired core info in fewer than a half-dozen clicks. For the specifier, three more features are most appreciated: 6. Lots of real technical info, with standards cited, organized by function and levels of quality. Here Search morphs into Select, and ultimately into Specify – the magic SSS key to Sales. 7. A 3-part guide spec with real qualities is appreciated. Sometimes a specifier will get the needed technical data right there in the guide, because the data is already organized. 8. Then lavish CONTACT info: Name of producer, street address, phone/fax/email addresses of representatives - or perhaps a factory contact. All sorts of desirable corollary information flows from these basics: Completed project lists, tables of properties for complex multi-product lines, product options and accessories, access to installation instructions and warranty forms, info on code compliance and regional variations, LEED and ADA info, SI equivalents . . . The person you heard in San Francisco on this subject was Sal Verrastro FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 252 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 08:27 am:    Just another thought that comes up more and more-- include a list of agencies that have approved the product, system or equipment. Make sure you include tha national agencies [ICC Evaluation Service, Ul, FMG, etc.] for the widest possible audience, and then the more jurisdictional approvals [Miami-Dade, L.A., etc.] Also, make a distinct point of this information-- don't hide it away, as it is often a "deal maker" under some circumstances. And be factual; this is a good attribute to dislay, but not necessarily a purely marketing point. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 47 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:41 am:    I was curious about a product mentioned on this forum so I visited their web site and lo and behold they wanted me to log in. Instead I sent them an e-mail indicating my displaisure with this inconvienience. It got their attention. If you dislike logging in then send the offending sites an e-mail expressing your preferences in a professional manner. You need to stand firm when they try to justify the practice claiming it allows them to give you better service. If enough people who follow this forum express their opinion there is a real possibility that the manufacturers will give you the service you want. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 435 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 08:44 am:    I don't feel as strongly as some about "logging in" to manufacturer's web sites. I see why they would want to know who's interested in their products and why. Plus, I don't mind being known to legitimate companies. However, I draw the line at two things: 1) They must have an explicit promise not to e-mail me anything, ever; and 2) I will not make up a "user ID and password" to get in. I can't and won't keep track of passwords. And what's with all the security, anyway? Are they afraid someone will go on the site claiming they are me and do ..... what, exactly?? Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 260 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:18 am:    When a site pleases me, I let the manufacturer know; when it displeases me, I do the same. I will now let the manufacturer know how I feel about logging in! I agree about remembering my "user ID" and "password" to the point where I have used "password" as my password on these sites. It probably does nothing for their perceived security. Maybe they're afraid that I'm an industrial spy, will hack in and discover their secrets? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 174 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:55 am:    I have a few canned responses saved as e-mail drafts. When I run into a site that requires log-in, doesn't have the info I need, is hard to navigate, etc., I just grab the appropriate text and send it to the company. I like to end them by saying that since I can't find what I want on their website, I'm going to a named competitor's site, where I know I can find what I want. The response has been surprising! Many times I get an e-mail back within a couple of days, and I've even had a few call by phone. Some manufacturers actually do want to give us what we need; they just need help knowing what that is. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 41 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:04 am:    I am currenty converting my firms documents from MF95 to MF04. When I'm in doubt regarding the new number to use for a specialized item, I call the mfr. Surprisingly every mfr. I've called so far (maybe 3-4) doesn't have a clue....their old number or their new number for their product. Not very encouraging?!? Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 88 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:37 am:    Suggestion for consideration: Suppose a “good housekeeping” seal of approval be established for websites that meet a certain level of quality. Guidelines could be set forth on a website setting forth what architects, engineers, specifiers, construction professionals are looking for when they visit a construction product vendor’s website. These guidelines could encompass Colin’s manufacturer's area page [with Colin’s approval] and, of course, most of the points raised by this thread. To qualify for this seal, a manufacturer would submit a simple application which would be reviewed against the “standards” set forth. If acceptable, the right to use the seal would be granted to the manufacturer for use on their respective websites. These types of quality or award winning seals abound elsewhere, why not on construction product vendor’s websites. It appears to be a win-win-win-win situation. Vendors win by having a useful website for construction industry user’s and gives them a better image. Users win by having a website worth their limited search time. The seal producer wins by providing a good, professional service. It also gives Colin, and others, a tool to use to encourage vendors to produce quality websites. The seal producer could be this 4Specs Discussion Group, a CSI chapter, or, preferably, the SCIP organization, if they are interested. SCIP is looking for additional industry exposure, its’ membership are users, and it is a board based, unbiased professional group. Just a thought. Any suggestions for a name for such a seal? Is there any interest at SCIP? Ron Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:41 am:    brillint brillant brillant. I will volunteer to assist in this effort. I will talk to John Regener and see if this is something he envisions SCIP to do Sheryl Dodd-Hansen, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: sheryldh Post Number: 24 Registered: 09-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:58 am:    Good ideas come around! Immediate Past President of SCIP, Dane Dodd-Hansen, gave a presentation on that very subject at Ecobuild/National Specifiers Conference in Orlando on June 20th this year. He will be covering some of the same material at Ecobuild Federal in Washington DC on December 14. He used the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" as an example. I, who sometimes read the magazine, noted that not only does Good Housekeeping approve - they guarantee quality. I doubt any of us wants to do the latter, but the idea of identifying quality sites, and possibly charging for the privilege, should be investigated further. If you're interested, and can get to DC, come to Ecobuild and talk to us. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 68 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 01:29 pm:    Ron, "Mr. Goodspec" would not quite fit. How about "Mr. Straightpoop"? Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 48 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 01:55 pm:    The governing body for developing web standards is the W3C (World Wide Web Consortiu-www.w3.org). They publish standards and have tools to "validate" websites that are "compliant" to the protocol or standard employed by the web developer. Examples would be compliant CSS, compliant HTML or XHTML, and so forth. I foresee this product presentation, information, and selection website accreditation program as being something similar. The W3C program has been a great success in that industry. It would be an interesting project, to define or describe performance based web design and presentation criteria that addresses the specific need of the individual A/E/C professional making product selections. Questions abound. Should it be like the LEED program, with varying degrees of compliance? Or like the W3C's program, where it meets the criteria, or it doesn't... The title of the program should probably have a three letter acronym, that seems consistent with everything else out there issued by the AIA and CSI :-) Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 89 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 02:11 pm:    Tom: ”Mr. Goodspec“ has a nice ring to it but it might convey too much emphasis on specifications. As much as I would like to see a good guide spec offered on a vendors site, I am also looking for other information. I would suggest the criteria include what all levels of the construction industry are looking for. I always review installation instructions to see if “what not to do’s” are present and to be sure it is flagged in Part 3 of the spex. Green products and LEED information is also helpful. But you raise an interesting point. Some of the most effective advertizing is based on persona’s; ie, Ronald McDonald, the DoughBoy, Mr. Clean, Jolly Green Giant, etc. Rememberable slogans are also effective. “Where’s the beef!” has always stuck in my memory over the years. And, there is a combination of both; ie, “Take a bite out of crime” has both a good slogan and an character image [the dog]. The “website police” image is obviously not the image we would want. Ron PS: "Mr. Straightpoop" does get right to the point, however. Anita Herrick AIA CSI SCIP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 02:36 pm:    Great discussion! Two other pieces of information I would like to find easily on websites are: Area served by company, and manufacturing location. Several times I have a discovered a great product to spec on a project, only to discover that my 'area' is not served by that manufacturer. Most web sites have a list of area reps, or distribution centers, but rarely do I find the manufacturing plant location. Specifying products manufactured closer to the project location makes sense with current gas prices. I also want an easy to use product search box on every web site. Sometimes I know a model number etc. and am trying to verify if that particular model still exists, or if it has been redesigned, or replaced with a new product. Even sites that have a product search box option often negate the usefulness of this tool by requiring spaces, hyphens, or case sensitive inputs. I am equally frustrated with the log in requirements and password folly. When time is of the essence, I go elsewhere rather than mess with it. I have done as Sheldon suggests, but not consistently . . . however, I will begin to send emails to those websites that are most offending, and those that are excellent. If they really really have to know who I am, I would think that my email address should be ALL that is needed, EVER!! One last suggestion, could manufacturers create two websites? Have a website designed for the general public, full of whiz bang commercials and long intros, and create a second website, just for us technical folks, serious, functional, and linked directly from 4-Specs, so that when they get a "hit," they know that it is from a spec writer or serious user. If they want, perhaps the two websites could be two parts of the same whole, or linked together. Tom, my idea is "Prefered SCIP[or CSI] Website" Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 149 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 02:42 pm:    I’m in the middle of a hearty e-mail exchange as we speak with the marketing guy and the regional manager of a well-know manufactured wood casework company. Their web site requires log-in/registration and so I sent (what I thought was) a cordial e-mail explaining my concerns. I happened to mention that one of their primary competitors allows unrestricted access to the literature and spec. In one of their responses It was suggested that I e-mail direct to the guy who would then send me the spec section I needed via return e-mail. I explained that we need the information when we need it, sometimes at 11:00 on a Sunday morning, and guessed that he would not be at his desk to respond to my e-mail at that time. In another I was told that, once you complete the log-in registration process the first time, then a special password can get you into the system next time without having to register again. I explained that I already have too many passwords / codes to remember and for sure would not remember my special one from them when I needed it. What I did not do was included a direct reference to this particular discussion thread! I remembered it after I sent my last reply. However, unless I miss my guess, I’ll hear from them again and then will “Suggest” that they come here to see other opinions of their process,, without having to log –in to read them.. Mitch Miller,AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 80 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 02:47 pm:    I will avoid using a company that makes me "log-in" I cant remember all the passwords and do not want to be bogged down when I am in need of information, whatever time of day or week it is. Also, if the website doesnt provide technical specification assistance, it is virtually of no value to me. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 396 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 03:35 pm:    For when they call Mr. Frank back again, I'll offer some general commets; If you are trying to "sell" me a product, doesn't it make sense to make it easy for me? And what I want, when I need it? [won't "bother" you otherwise] I don't really care what number contact I am on your web site! And you don't need all the information about me-- that is available from a zillion other clandestine sites. The customer is always right!!! Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 178 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 11:09 pm:    Hear hear regarding website logins. Make them optional! On a well-designed site, with good product data reachable within 3 clicks, I'm happy to leave my contact info behind. Just don't demand it as a condition of making your information available! And don't make me login when I return. A typical project manual has several hundred major products in it. Don't waste my time!! In short, don't let marketing drive the website. Talk to sales! Regarding product data: Pecora's is very easy to reach, cleanly written, and easily saved to my product data sheet folders neatly organized and approved by the MF04 police. Sins not to be forgiven: Product data that plays games with obscure ASTM tests to make products look like they do what they don't. About guide specs: Most manufacturer's guide specs ... aren't good. If you aren't going to hire an experienced professional specifier to write your guide specs, just give me a cleanly written product data sheet. I'll write my own specs anyway. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 374 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 09:34 am:    Amen, Phil! Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 11:06 am:    Pecora has to be good,on-line as they have lousy representation in our area-- short/cryptic, caustic, non-responsive, irritating and quite condensending. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 190 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 05:19 pm:    And don't let your marketing guys design your website if you want specifiers to use it!