The Framers Forum

So you got your 16 results by logging in?

Go to this page:

http://www.fineart.co.uk/Directory/Default.aspx

Then type "framer" in the criteria box.

OK - that gets me 209 results over 21 pages. How did you get those 16 you pasted above?

Seems there are many ways of skinning the rabbit!

Using the "site search" box in top right corner and entering "framer" brings up a sub menu and clicking on "Picture Framer" from this menu brings up a result of zero!

However, you do get a nice picture of Pete Bingham with whom I have just spent a very pleasant and educational day. Been looking for an opportunity to name drop!

john.

You can get further on your search - but I would agree that it seems to throw up a select few without your trying too hard. Searches on the old site using, say, town or county would throw up all the framers who are members in that selection - that doesnt seem to work anymore.

And they asked me for to references before They'ed let me become a member

Sorry G.Bush snr, W.Clinton and the Sultan of Brunei don't give references.

Nothing appear on my screen!!! What about you?
Heavy traffic at the new FATG's site???

gesso wrote:And they asked me for to references before They'ed let me become a member

Sorry G.Bush snr, W.Clinton and the Sultan of Brunei don't give references.

Back in my Mayfair days that is.

I did a search to find my GCF listing (not a member of the guild) I was supprised to see how many GCF's were not members of the guild, I wish I had put a tender in for designing the site, 10k less and far better design and quicker.

Steve

It would seem that having emailed all members to tell them the going live date (world's worst kept secret) they then realised they had not issued members with a login/password which arrived today two days after launch.

Now we all have to login and amend details so that we appear in the relevant section according to our activities e.g. gallery/framer/art supplies/print publisher etc.

I seem to remember giving those details on my annual renewal form.

John.

Some tweaking has been done - The MD now has a signature - and paragraphs. Have to say this managed to make me smile - I can only imagine the conversation that went on. How can this web site have taken so long - have been checked by court members and still have been so flawed.

If I had contributed financially towards this site (i.e still been a member) I would be asking some serious questions of the Guilds officers who oversaw this web site- just glad it wasn't my money.

I'd be interested to hear what paid up members think of their investment?

I'm going in! Cover me.

I have been looking forward to the launch of new FATG website and my personal opinion is that over the last 6 years my business has benefited from being a member and I value the raising of standards and GCF qualification etc, that the guild has developed over the years.

But I feel that the new site looks rather amateurish and even outdated. It does not look as if it has been designed by a website company (no offense to this company, I have looked at their portfolio and like other sites they have done), rather it looks like it has been done by someone with some computer skills and no design background. For a creative and artistic business the whole look and lack of style and flair is terrible.

The main page, where consumers will first enter the site looks far to busy and disorganised for my liking. I think there should be a basic block of text explaining what the guild do, then a simple 'find a framer' or 'artist/restorer/gallery' etc button, which would take you to a page with a simple, stylish looking search facility. My biggest grumble is with search system.

The search page looks awful, and is far from straightforward, this should surely be one of the best looking pages and to me it looks like an afterthought. The magnifying glass search prompt also looks rather amateurish in my opinion. The whole thing looks as if it has been done on a very tight budget. Pretty much everything about the layout and general look does not appeal to me.

I would expect high quality photos throughout, taken by a professional; close ups and detail shots, just stylish looking and well shot. I would just have one image at the top which changes from examples of paintings to frames, and framing activities etc. I would also get rid of the advertising space smack bang in the middle of the main page and also the 'news & events' banner which should just be on a separate page, with a link on the left hand menu, unless the news listing changes regularly and are more active, in which case it could go on the main page. (I see that this content can be uploaded by members which is a good idea)

The bookshop is small and no online ordering is not what I would expect from a brand new website, also membership applications should be able to be done online.

This website: guildmc is well laid out, simple to use, easy to look at and understand (the complete opposite to the FATG website)

I am truly disappointed by the whole thing, I was hoping for a world class website. By that I mean something like:

Tate online, (great art site although I find the main page a little crowded!),

State Hermitage (I think this is an outstanding site)

National Portrait Gallery

Institute of Conservation (this is more like how it should have been)

I could list any number of websites that I think are good but that is not going to change the fact that I think the FATG website looks poor.

I do like the idea of the Artist's exhibition page with images of artists works which link to their details. I also like the archive of ABT articles and the text content is good and something to build upon and I believe members can submit articles and content which is a great idea. I like the Google map on the searches. I like the idea of the members able to add info to their listing which is displayed in the search results but I think the bizarre search system cancels out any usefulness.

For example a member of the public finds the site, clicks on find a framer, enters 'Worcestershire' in the search box and one result comes up for a framers in Kent. (this has now changed to 0 results)

If you then enter 'framer Worcestershire' you get 227 results. Now it is possible to find 11 framers in Worcestershire via the advanced search but in my opinion the system is greatly flawed and far from easy to use for the general public.

My second example is to enter 'frame restoration Worcestershire' which seems like a perfectly reasonable search, this produces 18 categories, with 'Restorer - Frame' at the top, followed by details of 423 results. (top of this list is a printers in Russia!) If you click on the 'Restorer - Frame' link you are taken to another page which lists 42 results all over the UK.

Now I do know that if you go directly to the 'Advanced search' and enter 'Worcestershire' in the address and select 'Restorer - Frame' from the vast drop down box you will get only one result. But I feel that most members of the public would have given up after the first search result and gone to Google instead.

I simply cannot understand how anyone could think this system is good. Either have a search box where you enter your location or postcode and then select from a drop down the service you need such as 'framer/artist/whatever or even better have separate search boxes such as 'Find a Framer in' and then enter your location, even a separate search box for 'Find a GCF' or 'Find a Artist'

I could go on listing things I feel let it down but really what is the point?

I really don't see how anyone can think this is a great looking or user friendly site. But maybe my expectations were far to high and I am being unreasonable. Perhaps the testing and ironing out of the problems with the search facility is ongoing, but really I feel totally let down by the whole thing and I will be very interested to know how much money has been spent on the new site.

Anyway for what its worth thats my opinion of the "Best website in the world"

that's wot u get when web sites are designed by a committee

Just had a closer look and I agree with all the comments. Very poor design. Much too cluttered. Also, it does not fill the width of my browser (IE6). I get lots of dead space on the edges. What's that all about then?

In total agreement with the comments above, I got some human guineapigs one of whom is a software specialist to look at the new site as consumers & the comments were very uncomplimentary, the kindest being "pants" medium, looks like a 12 year olds effort & the worst unwritable in polite society.

I think you have to remember that this site went out for consultation with court members for several months - and yet when it was launched was riddled with errors - still is, in places - although some of the more embarrassing ones where fixed the day after I commented here.

It has no design merit whatsoever - and the technical expertise shown seems to be very poor. Has anyone actually logged into the site and explored the members only areas - or did they completely cock up sending out passwords?

I'm not a member - so why should I care. Well its simple - I think the Guild is an important part of our Industry, and were it run properly I would be part of it. Organising the design and building of this website should have been easy - It was going to be the best, and at best its about as good as an inexperienced person using a copy of Front Page.
To me this is yet another example of bad decision making and totally inept management - a membership that had a true voice in the guild would be able to ask some embarrassing questions - and when the answers were not forthcoming be able to demand that heads rolled. My advice for members - email Rosie and tell her what you think - You might want to copy in some of the other court members just to make sure the message gets through.

markw wrote: I'm not a member - so why should I care. Well its simple - I think the Guild is an important part of our Industry, and were it run properly I would be part of it. .

I couldn't agree more.

Its very easy to sit back and criticise but I really feel with the size of budget and the time taken the new web site is to say the least dissapointing.

It dosen't make me want to rush out and become a member again which I've always hoped it would.
If I'm honest, unless some fairly major changes are made I think current members will vote with their feet.