new design!

[AtomicSkier]

http://www.skicamelback.com/

 

that site design is unoriginal

[skidude]

EWWwwww

[nick malozzi]

unoriginal, but it certainly conveys info to the masses with the small/nonscrolling size (with exception to the larger pages that expand the design). it may not have too many bells and whistles, but it loads fast so it dosen't exclude the dial-up folk. i do think they coulda done a little more work to it so it didnt look so much like a template they downloaded and just changed the vital info on. it certainly sux in my opinion, but it is better then the old one.

[Ski]

http://www.skicamelback.com/

 

Yikes, I thought I'd reached an error message.

[skifreak]

Omg that is soooooooo ugly. If they had an award for the ugliest site they would win.

[pyro_boarder]

I liked their old site better. This one is so plain and it looks too much like a cookie cutter webpage. Oh well at least its not red.

[romemadman]

looks prety bad

[sibhusky]

I agree, it's boring, but at least it's not red.

 

Also, I prefer sites that offer CONTENT over glitz. And the new thing certainly lacks glitz.

[pyro_boarder]

I agree that a website should focus on content rather that looks but they should at least make it look good while getting the point across. This site looks looks good so you want to see what its about. Cbs site dosen't look good and dosen't make you want see whats on it. Also I think their old site had most, if not all of the same information. It just looked better.

[haggard]

I don't think the new site looks THAT bad, It seems to be an improvement from the Dreamweaver MX tables and stuff. Oh well, its still better then Shawnee's...

Edited October 3, 2004 by haggard

[messr2006]

the site looks like a child did it

It sucks

[AtomicSkier]

omg, Shawnee's site is such a joke, its not even funny, how can they call themselves a company....

[haggard]

omg, Shawnee's site is such a joke, its not even funny, how can they call themselves a company....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly what I was wondering, The sad thing is places like Camelback and Shawnee have money, It wouldnt hurt their pockets at all to get a Professional designer to create a site... Sad..

[Timeless]

Exactly what I was wondering, The sad thing is places like Camelback and Shawnee have money, It wouldnt hurt their pockets at all to get a Professional designer to create a site... Sad..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Repeat after me: Camelback = profit, Camelback= profit, Camelback = profit... ad infinitum... same probably goes for Shawnee, but at least they are investing in a (hopefully) decent park.

[nick malozzi]

exactly my friend, exactly.

[Ski]

the site looks like a child did it

It sucks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And this is why we all thank the admin gang for taking time from their busy days to put together this MB. Welcome messr2006, your bad attitude would have gotten you warned or banned from the CB MB. A fine first post, I say!

[nick malozzi]

that you ski for the props, and welcome aboard messr2006

[Glenn]

Ok, well first of all there is a contest... sorta http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

of coarse if you ask me... this guys web site sux as well, but he does have a few good things to say. All in all I dont think their website is that bad. I think it looks a lot cleaner than the old one. Content is key. Style should complement content, not overpower, or detract from it. Its certainly not overpowering it, maybe detracting a little, but its a decent site. As a user its easy enough to navigate and find what you want. The pages dont take forever to load etc. and... Not in any way to take away from the admin here... but most of the software they use yields the boiler plate design you see on this website. Not to mention this site was built from the ground up.... not a revamp of an existing site (althrough it looks like they are using templates so I dont think it was that hard to apply the new site). Anyways, its not THAT bad. Still this site looks better.