Sep 9, 2016, 9:35 pm
Last edit by: jaysona
Update: 14-Jan 2016, 00:50
The old website is in the process of being "retired"
Leaving the below here for now for the sake of posterity and reference.
Most of the old website URLs now redirect to the new "beta" website.
The old website is in the process of being "retired"
Leaving the below here for now for the sake of posterity and reference.
Accessing the "old" website.
At the moment (09-Sep-2016) accessing the old and functional website is still possible.
The procedure to access the old website requires a few steps.
1. Clear all aircanada.com related cookies and browser cache.
2. Go to this URL. https://www.aircanada.com/en/go-beta.html
3. Click on book travel Button at the top left of the screen.
Alternatively for some clicking on one the following links will work for some as well.
https://www.aircanada.com/aco/flights.do or;
https://www.aircanada.com/en/home.ht...ialSignon=true
"A digital transformation underway at Air Canada is reshaping the customer experience in almost every way"
At the moment (09-Sep-2016) accessing the old and functional website is still possible.
The procedure to access the old website requires a few steps.
1. Clear all aircanada.com related cookies and browser cache.
2. Go to this URL. https://www.aircanada.com/en/go-beta.html
3. Click on book travel Button at the top left of the screen.
Alternatively for some clicking on one the following links will work for some as well.
https://www.aircanada.com/aco/flights.do or;
https://www.aircanada.com/en/home.ht...ialSignon=true
"A digital transformation underway at Air Canada is reshaping the customer experience in almost every way"
New Air Canada Website!
Sep 5, 2016, 11:19 pm
#616
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,779
I'm not offended, more amused. You're right that technology moves fast, but I think the differences you're thinking about are less applicable to this discussion. Sure, I know very few people my age (31, by the way) who Snapchat, which I think is popular with a lot of people in their 20s, whereas perhaps kids like you who are still at university already think Snapchat is for lame old people.
And if you wanted to tell me no one under 25 wants to use a desktop anymore and want everything to be done through an app on their phone, so AC shouldn't even have bothered with a new website, that would be an interesting discussion.
But the complaints I have about the website (and I think you'll find many others have expressed the same elsewhere in this thread) are much more fundamental. They're basics of design, in terms of clear presentation of information, that have been poorly executed in this case.
And I know how old (exactly or roughly) some of the other people who've said the same thing are (either in this thread or offline), and the range, relative to my age, is about -5 to +35...
And if you wanted to tell me no one under 25 wants to use a desktop anymore and want everything to be done through an app on their phone, so AC shouldn't even have bothered with a new website, that would be an interesting discussion.
But the complaints I have about the website (and I think you'll find many others have expressed the same elsewhere in this thread) are much more fundamental. They're basics of design, in terms of clear presentation of information, that have been poorly executed in this case.
And I know how old (exactly or roughly) some of the other people who've said the same thing are (either in this thread or offline), and the range, relative to my age, is about -5 to +35...
Sep 5, 2016, 11:22 pm
#617
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Do they at least adjust the brightness based on your destination to help prevent jet lag?
Sep 5, 2016, 11:28 pm
#618
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,779
By the way, Jack, go check out the UA and DL websites. Search for a flight and see how they compare to AC. I'd argue each presents the information in a way that's clearer and easier to assimilate than AC's. UA also offers filters right there on the side. Even the AA site, which I don't think is great, is better than AC's.
And none of their are laggy like AC's.
And none of their are laggy like AC's.
Sep 5, 2016, 11:49 pm
#619
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: Only J via Peasant Points, 777HDPeasant or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and Narcissism.
Posts: 5,957
I'm not offended, more amused. You're right that technology moves fast, but I think the differences you're thinking about are less applicable to this discussion. Sure, I know very few people my age (31, by the way) who Snapchat, which I think is popular with a lot of people in their 20s, whereas perhaps kids like you who are still at university already think Snapchat is for lame old people.
And if you wanted to tell me no one under 25 wants to use a desktop anymore and want everything to be done through an app on their phone, so AC shouldn't even have bothered with a new website, that would be an interesting discussion.
But the complaints I have about the website (and I think you'll find many others have expressed the same elsewhere in this thread) are much more fundamental. They're basics of design, in terms of clear presentation of information, that have been poorly executed in this case.
And I know how old (exactly or roughly) some of the other people who've said the same thing are (either in this thread or offline), and the range, relative to my age, is about -5 to +35...
And if you wanted to tell me no one under 25 wants to use a desktop anymore and want everything to be done through an app on their phone, so AC shouldn't even have bothered with a new website, that would be an interesting discussion.
But the complaints I have about the website (and I think you'll find many others have expressed the same elsewhere in this thread) are much more fundamental. They're basics of design, in terms of clear presentation of information, that have been poorly executed in this case.
And I know how old (exactly or roughly) some of the other people who've said the same thing are (either in this thread or offline), and the range, relative to my age, is about -5 to +35...
I dont know about NA demographic enough to comment regarding "No one under 25 wants to use desktop anymore"
But I do know... No one(well.. almost no one) under 30 wants to use a desktop in China outside of work as most site's ecommerce revenue today are at least 80-20 split on PC-Mobile, PC side heavily skewed to 40+ age demo
That trend may or may not have started in NA - it just might not be strictly shift to mobile site
But who knows what comes tomorrow. I was at a BBQ event at UBC today and everyone is messaging each other on Wechat/WatsApp/FB. (With facebook bot feature coming.. I suspect that's where people will book tickets in the next three to five years - AI bots in messenger)
By the way, Jack, go check out the UA and DL websites. Search for a flight and see how they compare to AC. I'd argue each presents the information in a way that's clearer and easier to assimilate than AC's. UA also offers filters right there on the side. Even the AA site, which I don't think is great, is better than AC's.
And none of their are laggy like AC's.
And none of their are laggy like AC's.
But I think design is such a controversial element as In user testing I have had one user who love the layout while the other said its a POS and hated it so much she said just give me the old site
. As for me, UA flight display page maybe slighter better vs what AC has now design wise, I do think you have a point at price font size being overkill.
But I believe I got all of the information equally fast on both sites.
There are also certain aspects of UA site I think is worse VS AC
1. Specials
2. Mileage Plus
3. Flight Status and Information page
That said however , we are completely in sync on laggy issue.
Performance is inexcusable... you are 100%.. positively.. absolutely spot on that. AC's lagginess is just as pathetic on PC as it is on Mobile.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
Maybe some others who work in the industry who knows much more than me- a noob in training , can share some deep insights as well.(You know who you are :P)
Last edited by Jumper Jack; Sep 6, 2016 at 12:01 am
Sep 6, 2016, 8:21 am
#620
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
I really like the flight search engine from the UA website.
I like the old AC page design for flight option display, but it can't beat UA's because the latter shows much more useful information.
But it's just so dumb.
Even things like "check in" on the new website is just a redirect to the old website check in page. To me that shows that the initial idea for the website remodel was a marketing / design one, with no useful ops / IT considerations.
I like the old AC page design for flight option display, but it can't beat UA's because the latter shows much more useful information.
But it's just so dumb.
Even things like "check in" on the new website is just a redirect to the old website check in page. To me that shows that the initial idea for the website remodel was a marketing / design one, with no useful ops / IT considerations.
Sep 6, 2016, 9:15 am
#622
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: YVR
Programs: AC S100K
Posts: 978
I note that much of the discussion here uses the word "design" to discuss the aesthetic elements of the UI. That's too bad.
When engineers are taught "design matters", I'm hopeful that the relative size of typefaces isn't the foremost consideration.
Frankly, at this point, I care little about all that. I'd just like to be able to capably plan, book and manage flights--three things at which that the "beta" is less functional than its predecessor.
Not that UIs aren't important. They certainly are. But a great UI does little if the underlying content and functionality fails the user.
When engineers are taught "design matters", I'm hopeful that the relative size of typefaces isn't the foremost consideration.
Frankly, at this point, I care little about all that. I'd just like to be able to capably plan, book and manage flights--three things at which that the "beta" is less functional than its predecessor.
Not that UIs aren't important. They certainly are. But a great UI does little if the underlying content and functionality fails the user.
Sep 6, 2016, 9:42 am
#623
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,691
Just don't try to print the summer from the website once you complete your booking
Sep 6, 2016, 12:30 pm
#624
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,354
Sep 6, 2016, 3:49 pm
#626
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: YVR
Programs: AC S100K
Posts: 978
Sep 6, 2016, 4:51 pm
#627
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Plat, WS Plat, BA Silver, DL GM, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,779
I note that much of the discussion here uses the word "design" to discuss the aesthetic elements of the UI. That's too bad.
When engineers are taught "design matters", I'm hopeful that the relative size of typefaces isn't the foremost consideration.
Frankly, at this point, I care little about all that. I'd just like to be able to capably plan, book and manage flights--three things at which that the "beta" is less functional than its predecessor.
Not that UIs aren't important. They certainly are. But a great UI does little if the underlying content and functionality fails the user.
When engineers are taught "design matters", I'm hopeful that the relative size of typefaces isn't the foremost consideration.
Frankly, at this point, I care little about all that. I'd just like to be able to capably plan, book and manage flights--three things at which that the "beta" is less functional than its predecessor.
Not that UIs aren't important. They certainly are. But a great UI does little if the underlying content and functionality fails the user.
My complaints above related specifically to the UI, which is more of an aesthetic issue.
There are plenty of complaints about the content and functionality of the website, but a website can function terribly and look great. Or it can look terrible but work wonderfully.
Sep 6, 2016, 5:29 pm
#628
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
Previous posters should have explicitly referred to *graphic* design. Which is a relatively minor subset to design in general. Although often themost visible to non-engineers.
But yes, one designs a wing, a plane, an automobile. Including what's under the hood.
Sep 6, 2016, 5:50 pm
#629
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,354
While I personally amnot convinced that engineering design can be taught in a university environment, fact is, it's an important component of the curriculum. And taken quite seriously by accreditation bodies. Mind you, one probably can make a case that these bodies take themselves way too seriously, but then that's another story.
Previous posters should have explicitly referred to *graphic* design. Which is a relatively minor subset to design in general. Although often themost visible to non-engineers.
But yes, one designs a wing, a plane, an automobile. Including what's under the hood.
Previous posters should have explicitly referred to *graphic* design. Which is a relatively minor subset to design in general. Although often themost visible to non-engineers.
But yes, one designs a wing, a plane, an automobile. Including what's under the hood.
In Android terms (because I'm most familiar with it), that means creating layout XML files, and dependencies, such that they can be successfully run through aapt.
Typical designers provide mocks, that I then turn into the aforementioned XML, but I'm still not "controlling" the design.
It's generally not my job to figure out where a text field should appear, or how big the text should be. I'll certainly provide feedback if I think the design is stupid, but I am not doing "UI design".
I definitely "design" software, but I don't think that's the definition of "design" we're discussing.