# Army.gc.ca



## TimCadieux (22 Nov 2006)

Being one of the designers for the Army website (army.gc.ca), I would like to know what you, our intended public think of the various ways we are trying to get information out to you?  

Are you aware we offer video news updates 2-3 a week, all our news content is RSS streamed and that we now offer podcasting?

I'm not asking for a flame session, rather, if there's something missing or broken, I'm very interested in fixing it.  My goal is to make that site relevant to you.  

I am asking this on my own time, because I believe my work is important.


----------



## BernDawg (22 Nov 2006)

Is there any way to code that stuff so it makes it through the firewall at work?


----------



## Mithras (22 Nov 2006)

Hey Tim,

I am actually fairly impressed with the quality of all of the military sites.. government sites tend to be pretty poorly put together.  With regards to the Army website the overall usability is good but god do I hate flash.

I don't really have any complaints with that site in particular but if you know the folks who work on the CFLRS site (http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca) could you tell them to fix the script that keeps sending me to: http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/lib/GetFlash.asp

I have to disable javascript to get past the entry page.


----------



## TimCadieux (23 Nov 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Is there any way to code that stuff so it makes it through the firewall at work?


Actually, within the last 8 weeks or so, we have implemented a sister server inside the firewall that is allowing us to serve up the same content as what we serve on the Internet.  Did we miss something?


----------



## TimCadieux (23 Nov 2006)

Mithras said:
			
		

> Hey Tim,
> 
> I am actually fairly impressed with the quality of all of the military sites.. government sites tend to be pretty poorly put together.  With regards to the Army website the overall usability is good but god do I hate flash.
> 
> ...



Is there a particular reason you dislike Flash, we use it fairly heavily as our video medium, the files tend to be crisper and smaller.  As for the other, i'm sorry, i do not have any contacts with the Admins of that site.


----------



## skydiver (23 Nov 2006)

Tim..
I am glad to see that you have used these means to ask for input since the official system seems to be a tad..stuck.
I have passed a couple of points on through the "feedback" function and also through the PAO at this FMN HQ.
Quite some time ago as I recall.
Somebody in your organization is having a real hard time doing research for this web site. There were a whole list of wierdisms on the "Unit, Formation" etc section, not too long ago but I see that some have been fixed (3 CMBG?, PLF in wrong brigade etc).

I understand you guys must be busy as ol get out but there are a couple of funnys that I see are still not fixed:

1. 8th Canadian Hussars are not (and never have been) based out of Saint John NB. RHQ and A Sqn are in Moncton. B Sqn is in Sussex

2. The Bde crest shown for 37 CBG is not accurate (not even close). What you have is a trial version that was never accepted. The correct version has a Viking Longship and a Galley.

Other than the unit crest stuff, I think you are doing a great job. I sure wish Baseline would allow for viewing videos etc at our place of work though. We must be the only army in the world that is not allowed to see their own stuff.

Have a good one.


----------



## TimCadieux (23 Nov 2006)

skydiver said:
			
		

> Tim..
> I am glad to see that you have used these means to ask for input since the official system seems to be a tad..stuck.
> I have passed a couple of points on through the "feedback" function and also through the PAO at this FMN HQ.
> Quite some time ago as I recall.
> ...



SkyDiver, thanky uo for your comments, I agree about the "official system" which is why i am here.  Btw, feel free to also use the Feedback, that comes straight to myself.  Just so you know, our office is new and small (3yrs old) and we are only 3 fulltime staff, the research gets done by our Reserve students so...

As for the first Unit link, I will change it immediatly, as for the second, this is the logo i received from CFJG, do you know where i can acquire the correct version.  Also, can you be more specific when referring to RHQ, A Sqn and B Sqn?

As for videos, which are you referring to, as of August '06, we have dual posting of videos, both inside and outside the firewall, therefore you *should* be able to view them all?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Nov 2006)

Here is the current brigade badge for 37 CBG.







or just go look here http://www.army.dnd.ca/37CBG_HQ/37home.htm


----------



## TimCadieux (23 Nov 2006)

Excellent, thank you!


----------



## TimCadieux (24 Nov 2006)

I have updated the image as requested.


----------



## BernDawg (24 Nov 2006)

No Tim.  I'm just out of the loop, that's all.  Thanks eh.
Bern


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2006)

Where have the links to LFDTS and all of its elements gone?  I can no longer find it under the units & formations.


----------



## TimCadieux (24 Nov 2006)

Can you please be more specific ?


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2006)

I belive that all these used to be reachable by searching units:
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/lfdts/org.asp
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_gagetown/index_e.asp
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/clfcsc-cceftc/choose.asp


----------



## Klc (24 Nov 2006)

There seems to be compatibility problems with the flash on many of the updated sites, CFLRS being the worst. It seems there is no way to view the page under normal means in Mozilla based browsers, and even in IE the flash version repeatedly forewards to /getflash.asp.

Flash is all fine and good for a high speed connection, but the site needs to be accessable to the maximum number of people. Please please please make basic information available in a lite format. There is a reason why most sites have a splash screen allowing you to choose with or without flash. In my experience, flash is simply not reliable in enough situations. You risk limiting the audience of the website. 

Yes, there is a option to turn flash of from within the page, but this is AFTER the splash screen you have to get through - making it useless if you can't open the main site in the first place.


----------



## TimCadieux (25 Nov 2006)

THE Common Look and Feel rules of Treasury Board state that every site MUST offer all content in HTML, then and only then may they use other formats.  Recruiting has been exemoted from this rule directly by the PMO, but I doubt this other site you are referring to has.  I will notify my OPI but that's all I can do.

Thanks for pointing it out however.


----------



## TimCadieux (25 Nov 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> I belive that all these used to be reachable by searching units:
> http://armyapp.dnd.ca/lfdts/org.asp
> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_gagetown/index_e.asp
> http://armyapp.dnd.ca/clfcsc-cceftc/choose.asp



I believe I had to take those links offline unitl i had the proper logo.  I will verify once i get back to work.


----------



## Kiwi99 (26 Feb 2007)

A great site indeed, with a lot of user input. And the fact that you are always trying to improve it is a great thing that Canadian Recruiting website should offer for making ads.  

One thing I have noticed during my short time associated with this site is the most important. It is operator/ user relations.  Now, I will be the first to agree that when asking a question, cinduct a search first.  But the common thread through many of the posts  is that the Directing Staff on a regular basis cut down people.  Yes, there are stupid people out there, but simply because they have adiffering opinion doesn't make them wrong or and idiot.  Many threads mention ideas for the future, or points raised from the current mission in Afghanistan.  And these are the ones that recieve most of the slamming from the DS.  I suggest that time served in the forces is not a replacer of experiance, nor does it create the be all and end all of opinions.  As for the pers whom post some of these comments, i amsure they didn't post just to have some cold war vet jack them up for maybe not being as smart as they should have been.  Thats why we learn.

Like I said at the start of this post, a great site and a useful resource.  Just reign in some of these Directing Staff, or recruit more people from the modern armed forces to be Directing Staff as well.  That would at least give two sided to discussion; a historical one and a new age one.

Great site, keep up the good work


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Feb 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> A great site indeed, with a lot of user input. And the fact that you are always trying to improve it is a great thing that Canadian Recruiting website should offer for making ads.
> 
> One thing I have noticed during my short time associated with this site is the most important. It is operator/ user relations.  Now, I will be the first to agree that when asking a question, cinduct a search first.  But the common thread through many of the posts  is that the Directing Staff on a regular basis cut down people.  Yes, there are stupid people out there, but simply because they have adiffering opinion doesn't make them wrong or and idiot.  Many threads mention ideas for the future, or points raised from the current mission in Afghanistan.  And these are the ones that recieve most of the slamming from the DS.  I suggest that time served in the forces is not a replacer of experiance, nor does it create the be all and end all of opinions.  As for the pers whom post some of these comments, i amsure they didn't post just to have some cold war vet jack them up for maybe not being as smart as they should have been.  Thats why we learn.
> 
> ...



Kiwi99, I believe you are confusing *army.gc.ca* and *army.ca*.

With regard to your comments which appear to be directed at the latter, perhaps the DS wouldn't have to step in as they do if others (like the non-Cold War vets you suggest?) stepped in to offer those explanations we all know are in the existing threads.  Please feel free to do so at any time.


----------



## Kiwi99 (26 Feb 2007)

No, I just wanted to make a quick dig at the CF recruiting ads, as brutal as they are.  Thanks for the prompt reply, and it actually cleard things up a bit.

Kiwi out


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Feb 2007)

Somehow I am getting lost here.

Am I the only one feeling confused?

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2007)

> Lenght of time in Forces does not make you an expert and does not equal experiance.



Maybe not. However, it does allow for learning how to spell and the use of proper grammar.  ;D


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> No, I just wanted to make a quick dig at the CF recruiting ads, as brutal as they are.  Thanks for the prompt reply, and it actually cleard things up a bit.
> 
> Kiwi out



Crap, and here I thought that I was part of the modern Armed Forces. 

Kiwi,

This is a site owned by Mr. Bobbitt, and moderated by volunteers. Keep that in mind lest I volunteer you for the job. Simply put, if the asshats would smarten up their acts the site would be a whole lot less moderated.

There are hundreds of threads running with differing opinions noted in them, and discussed rationally. If you want to post something like you have below to get us going, you are part of the problem; not the solution. 

I'm a pretty fair girl, usually; but I don't take kindly to posts that serve no reason other than to piss people off. Trying to take a dig at recruiting my ass. I may be dumb, but I sure ain't stupid. You managed to get your .02 cents in. I hope you're happy.


----------



## Kiwi99 (27 Feb 2007)

I think you missed the intent there with the recruiting ads comment.  Not a dig, but a comparison for what a website offers.  Take it as you will, but jumping to conclusions that I intended to piss people off is...come on.  This website offers viewers to comment on performance and capability of the site. If there is a problem there is a forum for people to make suggestions. Whereas, if I thought the recruiting ads were lame  I have no forum to say so.  It is a comparison that gives credit to your site, not to make a dig at anyone. Like I said, people take things differently.  If this is the response somebody gets for giving compliments, there is little wonder that there are so few of them here.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Feb 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I think you missed the intent there with the recruiting ads comment.  Not a dig, but a comparison for what a website offers.  Take it as you will, but jumping to conclusions that I intended to piss people off is...come on.  This website offers viewers to comment on performance and capability of the site. If there is a problem there is a forum for people to make suggestions. Whereas, if I thought the recruiting ads were lame  I have no forum to say so.  It is a comparison that gives credit to your site, not to make a dig at anyone. Like I said, people take things differently.  If this is the response somebody gets for giving compliments, there is little wonder that there are so few of them here.





			
				Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Like I said at the start of this post, a great site and a useful resource.  Just reign in some of these Directing Staff, or recruit more people from the modern armed forces to be Directing Staff as well.  That would at least give two sided to discussion; a historical one and a new age one.
> 
> Great site, keep up the good work



Okay folks,

Now I am really confused, Kiwi99 are you talking about the ds at army.gc.ca or the staff here??

Sorry, for the highjack.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (27 Feb 2007)

just responding to librarian and her comments.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Feb 2007)

I am referring to your original post, regarding reigning in staff, and recruiting from the new army.

What do you mean?

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (27 Feb 2007)

wrong thread I posted in, but it sure got me in kaka


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Feb 2007)

oh...I see....

'Kay....still wondering what you meant by the comment...All clear now, like the water on the mattawa plains...

dileas

tess
 ???


----------



## R.O.S (7 Mar 2007)

On the government website I personally would like to see more information on reserve training and application process. More on recce (because all I see is just heavy armour), and more information on smaller units (like the 1st Hussar).


----------



## Armynewsguy (7 Mar 2007)

To R.O.S.

It is my job to report on 31,32 and 33 brigades plus all the regular force units outside of the Petawawa, Ottawa area. I would love to get more unit stories out including 1H, but trying to get training calendars or to have people let me know when their units are doing something interesting is like pulling teeth.  We usually find our stories by talking to people when we are out on jobs and then follow up from there. We will be going along with the troops on Op Narwhal which will involve soldiers from all 3 brigades so hopfully this will lead to more stories once we get back from the north. If you have any friends in the London area that are in Reserves (or Regulars) get them to get in touch with me and we will certainly come and cover the unit events. Here is a link to one of our stories involving 4RCR, E and K Scottish and 31Combat Engineers   http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=1638

Armynewsguy


----------



## LordOsborne (29 Mar 2007)

Tim, first of all I would like to say that I think the website is well laid out and easy to navigate. It's also pretty easy on the eyes which is nice. 

Some of the things I would like to see improved on or changed would be the equipment pages. A lot of the descriptions are pretty vague, bland and need to be changed. For example, the blurb for the C7A1 is "The C7A1 is a soldier's best friend." No complaints there, but i think it needs a bit more info than that. Not just that, but the A1 is in the process of being phased out in favour of the A2.. some mention of the C7A2  and C8A2 is probably a good idea. Off the top of my head, there's also no heading for the new Medium-Range sniper rifle (C14 i think is the new designation.. i could be very wrong on that.) which is going to replace the C3A1. In general, I think a little more attention needs to be paid towards keeping up to date with new kit and equipment in the CF, as well as taking the time to remove items no longer in service (The M109s are in the "Out of Service" heading, but the GDF-005 35mm guns are not, for example).

I also would like to see descriptions that are more mature and professional in tone. The blurb for the Eryx made me laugh, but it's not what I think is appropriate:



> _Ever hear of the big bang theory? The Army's theory is that when ERYX goes 'bang', hostile tanks get destroyed!_ This weapon is used at short ranges and is capable of destroying virtually any modern tank on the battlefield.



Just a little silly, says I 

My 0.02. Cheers,
Pat


----------

