There's a section for general info, a section for health professionals, a section about membership. Where's the section for patients and members on the new site?
Why weren't members allowed to comment on a preview of the site? We could probably have dealt with this before launch, before we lost valuable information.
Well, I'm very frustrated by it and the more I look, the worse it gets. All my bookmarks are broken and patients have different questions to the general public and I can't find the information I need any more.
For example, I was trying to find details on diagnosing FH for a question on this site today, I tried heartuk.org.uk/cholesterol-... which actually says "I’m scared I have inherited high cholesterol from my family!" but the link does nothing unless you allow javascripts (a bad idea, security-wise) and the answer doesn't contain any useful links (although it does say "(link to FH page)" in the answer, it's not a link!). Then I tried the "What is FH?" in the left side bar and got a page with a rather Noddy explanation and an invitation to ORDER A PAPER BOOKLET. Oh, cool, a website that leaves me waiting for paper in the post. Why don't I go right back to Victorian times and send a footman to fetch a copy?
Sorry for shouting, but I feel this is embarrasingly bad and leg-chewingly frustrating for patients who are looking for information. I'm sure there must be some website developers among the HEART UK membership who could have helped manage the development, or maybe even have done a deal to deliver a better website than Fusion Design have. Probably not me, because I'm of the opinion that you don't let design studios lead website development, else you end up with this sort of mistake.
I would like to see more links to evidence based research. Also statins for all over 50 was on the front page of nearly every newspaper in this country, but there was absolutely no comment on the HEART UK website. Why?
To illustrate the point about references, the FH leaflet from the BHF which DAK mentioned in another post has lots of further reading references suggested.
This is what I would want if I went to a website for information, not advice to "speak to my doctor".
I agree with this and the earlier comment. Pointing to further information is what the old site was good at, informing patients without waiting for an appointment with a (sometimes random quality, sadly) doctor. Tracking the evidence and either confirming or debunking news items would be a really good addition to the site. I'd settle for being able to find the information that was on the old site as a first step now!
The new site looks a bit better but seems to work a lot worse, which is what design studios often deliver if there isn't a clued-up buyer riding them like a pony. This morning's example, I wanted to see where the lipid clinics are, before seeing a new GP tomorrow (I've moved), but I can't find the text list of clinics by region on the new site and the map link heartuk.org.uk/health-profe... ("» Click here to find a lipid clinic near you" on heartuk.org.uk/health-profe... ) is giving me an empty page! So I guess I get to phone HEART UK or try looking at local hospital websites to see if they say.
Thanks. I'd love to know what the plan is for fixing this and I feel it must be better than keep asking Fusion Design to do what they should have done before launch. Maybe they could give some HEART-UK members logins so we can fix all the missing and broken links as we find them?
Cool. Thanks. Can I ask followups?
1. Why did it display a white page instead of a sensible "404 Not Found" page?
2. Have you run a link-checker over the site?
3. How can I get a text list of clinics? Google maps are very very fiddly to use because my hand shakes a bit (maybe a result of Atorvastatin but I doubt it) and the little flags are rather small click targets, not accessible with the keyboard (usually the tab key) as far as I can tell and don't get much bigger when you use View: Zoom: In
Thanks Traci and Tina. These days, websites are my main link to HEART UK, so it's really disconcerting to have all my bookmarks break and have such difficulty finding my way around.
Didn't need the lipid clinic info anyway. New doctor won't refer me until my notes arrive from my previous practice anyway. Wants to do his own blood test, too. Says my (medicated) level is too low to be worth referring. I'm tempted to stop taking my statins for a bit before that test, to encourage a referral.
Who is this reply to? I don't feel that this is a reply to me. I like the look but really dislike that I can no longer find key information. My key feedback would be: give members a chance to submit updates easily.
'No evidence' having high levels of bad cholesterol causes heart disease. Where do we go now?
Statins
New to stenting
