DL021 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 11433 posts, RR: 81 Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5776 times:
Boeing just modified their website with an all new look.
What do you think? Better, worse, no diff?
I'm not sure yet, but it's more traditional looking. Sort of reminds me of Lockheeds site.
DL021 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5721 times:
OK...so I don't like it as much as the previous one, and am waiting for them to finish the flash site that is promised in their discussion of the new look.
IAH744 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5710 times:
DavidT From Switzerland, joined Oct 2005, 475 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5666 times:
They need a cross between the new on and the old one. The old one was quite narrow in terms of focus.
The new one just looks like somebody picked a random corporate template and used that. I challenge anybody who doesn't know who Boeing are to work out they sell planes from the first impression that site gives!
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11358 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5649 times:
Hmm, at the moment I preferred the old one, but as others have said, I'll reserve final judgement till the flash version is ready. Some of my Boeing IE Favourites are broken now though.
Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 2): I like it! I always found the Airbus website nicer and easier to use but this website is just as good.
I agree that Airbus's new website is better than their old one. I also really like that they provide their sales and deliveries in a spreadsheet. But, I have to say, the ability to produce custom reports on Boeing's site is very neat. What I'd really like is effectively, a combination of both - customisable reports (with historical data) that can be downloaded in Excel format.
BCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5623 times:
BOOOOO! I for one find it very bland and it's something I'd expect on an organizational intranet (portal), rather then the corporate main site. A big step backward. And I really don't care for the color pallete used on the graphics that rotate in the center, each time you reload the page. They don't seem very dynamic and exciting, they seem almost boring.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4003 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5622 times:
I much prefered the old look, while it wasn't as functional as it could be, it was very distinct. This, as others have said, looks like some generic website. But hopefully the flash site will be better.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21026 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5613 times:
Quoting IAH744 (Reply 3): i think its easier to acces everything
exactly. graphic design may not be better, but a website's primary purpose is to provide information and information is FAR easier to access in this format. Those damn dropdown and breakout menu things were hard to get through and made it even harder to navigate backward.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21026 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5606 times:
I do think they have way too much "line spacing" between text and buttons and such. This website requires plenty of window scrolling that is entirely unnecessary compared to the old site or any sports website with similar tiers of information. Who do we write to to point this out?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9605 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5586 times:
Although I find it a bit easier to browse through aesthetically its disappointing compared to the old one.
Its so ...stiff and rigidly designed. The white-blue-grey colouring is unimaginative and very boring - and extremely generic, bloodless. In fact at first glance, on the major pages, compared to the old one the new feels somewhat older after browsing through the first time. That somehow changes if you browse into the "back" pages, which are better designed now, though still not great.
I won´t call this a final judgement, just the first impression.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10557 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5583 times:
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 7): BOOOOO! I for one find it very bland and it's something I'd expect on an organizational intranet (portal), rather then the corporate main site. A big step backward.
I agree.
Barf.
And now I kind of think adding Flash will be lipstick on a pig.
Rpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5553 times:
Definitively better! The previous looks really "amateur" regarding design, in my opinion. This one, still, is not a beauty. Airbus one is really beautiful!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5521 times:
I like it and there is more information that is easier to get.
Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 2): I always found the Airbus website nicer and easier to use but this website is just as good.
I don't know, the Airbus.com site is difficult to navigate through, Boeing.com always seems easier, at least to me.
The Boeing site seems to offer more information than Airbus does.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21026 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5496 times:
Orders and deliveries are in the About Commercial Airplanes area.
I think the main thing against this website is the button size/shape/coloring.
But that is easy to fix in the future. It's getting it all to work right that's the hard part. I'd expect to see them soften it up.
As for the color scheme, well Boeing is blue and silver and white right now, so...
As for the Flash complaints, you need to move into the present, your anti-flash bias, while likely justified, is roundly ignored by most companies as it is a very easy way to add interactive content. It's just one of those evils of today's life that you can either fight futily against or get used to.
Quoting Rpaillard (Reply 16): Definitively better! The previous looks really "amateur" regarding design, in my opinion. This one, still, is not a beauty. Airbus one is really beautiful!
Of course the Airbus one is better. Always is.
Except for the annoying drop down things that go away and change if you dare not move your mouse precisely. I like the Airbus website look but hate the navigation.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5473 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): I don't know, the Airbus.com site is difficult to navigate through, Boeing.com always seems easier, at least to me.
The only thing I hate about Airbus is their website, one thing in particular that bothers me is the way that they do orders and deliveries. I like how Boeing does the weekly update on a webpage and not a monthly one on an enormous spread sheet. I also think that Boeing does a better job of keeping their orders and deliveries accurate. I also like the user defined report option that Boeing has because it can basically allow you to make a spread sheet like Airbus does if you want to.
I'll have to check out the Boeing site a little more before I pass judgement on it
Charlib52 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 164 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5456 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10): Those damn dropdown and breakout menu things were hard to get through and made it even harder to navigate backward.
AMEN!!
I do agree some tweaking needs to occur -- photos way too bland (why are they there -- tell us something about them!). Overall the design is very amatuer. But I'm liking the navigation a lot better. When they give it a professional graphics touch I think it will come togther quite well.
Killjoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5437 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 18): As for the Flash complaints, you need to move into the present, your anti-flash bias, while likely justified, is roundly ignored by most companies as it is a very easy way to add interactive content. It's just one of those evils of today's life that you can either fight futily against or get used to.
It's impossible to just get used to it considering Flash is a closed standard and my operating system isn't supported. There is no way in hell I'll stop fighting something that excludes open source browsers from accessing a website.
Getting into why Flash is bad in general is a matter for another topic, though, so I'll just stop here...
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4175 posts, RR: 30 Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5418 times:
Much better than the old version. The old version wasn't organized very well -- you had to go through multiple pages to get to where you wanted to, such as commercial airliners. It was as if they wanted to be all things to everyone. This new site is much better looking and easier to navigate.
Zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4720 posts, RR: 13 Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5360 times:
I like the new site. It's traditional as others have mentioned. Easy to navigate.
Also, it's sad to see the 757 in the out of production birds.
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
25 RedFlyer: Anyone try the pocket reference guide for PDA's? I just downloaded it. Nice detailed specs in there for each of their birds. (And handy to have around
26 Ikramerica: It is not Boeing's fault that Macromedia does not offer Flash for your OS. You should get on Macromedia's case about that. While I'm no huge flash fa
27 Killjoy: But it is Boeing's fault for utilizing a closed standard. If Macromedia wanted to make Flash more acceptable, they should create an open source refer
28 Pavlin: gr......... holly s... it's almost worse than Airbus site. ................................
29 Ikramerica: Or you could petition them to make a version that works with your OS, whatever it is. Despite the wishes of some, the whole world is not about to mov
30 Sammyk: Liked the old one better. This one, while functional, looks like someones high school project.
31 Aileron11: The web sight is excellent! Just like their airplanes.
32 PHXinterrupted: What's the big deal anyway? In case you haven't noticed, Boeing doesn't sell website designs.
33 Grantcv: I am a developer and from what I can see - this is a very poorly designed and poorly implemented website. The graphic design is very amateurish, the w
34 A360: I've just checked the website and I was surprised to see one thing: in the 787 section, the first image shows the 787 with winglets!! http://www.boein
35 Grantcv: No, the 787-3 has always had winglets - the 787-8 and -9 have raked wingtips.
36 ETStar: U-G-L-Y. And too stripped down. Not something that one would expect for a similar company. I did not like their previous site either, was too amateuri
37 BA: You took the words right out of my mouth. It looks like a typical software company website... Regards
38 RedFlyer: The 787-3 will have winglets. Its wingspan will in fact be shorter than the -8 and -9 versions.
39 N328KF: I like this site more. Flash is ass. Imposing it upon people is bad juju.
41 N328KF: What are you talking about? Everything's in the same place...even the old URLs still work. Just because it doesn't have that system-crashing PoS Macr
43 TPASXM787: The first thing I noticed was you click on commercial airplanes and BAM...a 717...odd they are still pimping it on the frontpage and they aren't even
44 777ER: I personally find the old design nicer, but I'm sure the new one will grow on me
45 Ikramerica: you may not like the look but it is NOT hard to find things at all. it's all there, more accessible than before. did you even bother to really try it
46 Ikramerica: Your statement contradicts Boeings own statements: http://www.boeing.com/utilities/upgrade/ They claim the website is based on OPEN STANDARDS and tha
47 Ikramerica: BTW - if you read the thinking behind the redesign including making the website more accessible to those with disabilities and designed to display cor
48 Gatorman96: Boeing's new site is more simple compred to the old one, but it is still easy to navigate and has the same if not more info. I hate to say it, but I l
49 Freedom4all: I think its got a good new look, I had no problem getting around on the old site though, I can understand how this one is easier
50 BCBHokie: I don't have Flash installed on any of my computers, so I'm just thrilled there's finally a Boeing site I can actually visit. Way to go Boeing!
51 Killjoy: What? You've misunderstood me. I was complimenting Boeing for not using it. Take a new look at who I'm quoting for the Flash requirement. It would be
52 Neilking: Well I think both the old and new sites are remarkably poor for a company the size and prestige of Boeing. The Airbus site is a little bit better but
53 Killjoy: The graphics may be a bit underwhelming, but I wouldn't call XHTML and CSS "very poor". It might not be all that clean yet, but their development tea
55 VS773ER: Now the sites easier to navigate I might place my order for a 777.
56 Aither: Better however they have a frame problem : i need to use the horizontal scroll bar to navigate when using Firefox.
57 Grantcv: Yeah, it is very poor. I am an XML developer, in particular, and I work with XHTML and CSS all the time. You should not be able to watch the loading
58 Yyz717: I noticed that also. Very odd. Obviously a case of an image being approved for display with an old/discontinued product displayed by accident. You wo
59 Grantcv: The graphics in the new design are pointless. The shading and lines all over the place don't make geometric sense. The random images that are stuck in
60 Ikramerica: I totally thought you were saying the Boeing site was not standards/open source compliant. I can't. How slow is your browser or connection? Are you t
61 CruzinAltitude: For me, its like going from an exotic sports car to an econo car. The sports car looks beautiful, but is not always the most practical form of transpo
62 Neilking: LOL! Free delivery before Christmas with a 737 thrown in absolutely free!
63 Lehpron: Would it be probable that this change was not meant for the average A.net user? A change does everyone good, some simply do not know that there are ch
64 Glom: I think the Airbus website was easier to navigate, but also had more information nicely presented. I don't think this has really done anything to help
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! 
, 11433 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6099 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2005, 475 posts, 
From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 137 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
