New RCVS website / logo

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:07:54 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

I have the tie with the old badge - the 007 one - my licence to - oh what's the point....

[/quote]

License to Bill?

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Richard Carter — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:32:52 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Someone humour me! Bolder colours, incorporate the coat of arms and be proud of the title The Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons!

Not going to hold my breath as I am only one voice!!!

[/quote]

When I was newly qualified and proud to be so, I ordered a car badge of the RCVS crest. In fact it was poor quality so I sent it back but that is actually by-the-by. My point is that who would want a car badge or similar of the new website logo? Anyone?

[/quote]

I have the tie with the old badge - the 007 one - my licence to - oh what's the point....

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Julian Earl — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:49:41 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Someone humour me! Bolder colours, incorporate the coat of arms and be proud of the title The Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons!

Not going to hold my breath as I am only one voice!!!

[/quote]

Re: New RCVS website / logo

plantagenet — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:22:33 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Someone humour me! Bolder colours, incorporate the coat of arms and be proud of the title The Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons!

Not going to hold my breath as I am only one voice!!!

[/quote]

I'm with you - perhaps its age?

Re: New RCVS website / logo

plantagenet — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:11:10 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]What it does give on the front page is : guff. Who said we needed a new "corporate identity"? It's true that the old "strapline" was not good, but who said we need a "strapline" at all? What's the point? [/quote]

We don't need a strapline. We are a profession and do not have a corporate identity. I strongly object to my retention fees being spent on this sort of stuff. They say 'we' do not wish to be seen as old fashioned - actually I think being old fashioned in many aspects is a virtue.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Bob Russell — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:53:42 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

RVC did something similar - at least they tell you what it stands for!

From:

To:

What is wrong with a sense of history and that an organisation has been there for a long time rather than dreamt up by a spotty web designer with no girlfriend.

[/quote]

I suspect the web designer was neither spotty nor lacking in the girlfriend department. It is a professional website with an extremely basic (much too basic) logo and wishy-washy colours. It does seem to function better than the old one although I have hit a few pages no longer in existence!

I am starting to think it may summarise the RCVS after all. Basic and wishy-washy.

I prefer to believe my regulators are solid, reliable with a proud history.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Julian Earl — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:25:37 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Must say, I find the some of the fiercer criticism hard to understand.[/quote]

My criticism concerned RCVS priorities, not the logo itself. To be frank I don't give a monkey's what the logo is like and I don't believe the public does either probably. The idea that any prospective vet or vet nurse student is going to be put off their career choice because the logo is a bit dark is ridiculous. The public impression of the profession has nothing to do with the logo either, it has to do with professional standards, ethics, how complaints are dealt with and whether or not we can be trusted with the care of animals and to charge a fair fee for a good job. In these days of brutal press exposes, vet fees either sky rocketing at one end of the scale or plummeting at the other, stack-em-high-sell- em- cheap, end of the spectrum, vet businesses getting ever more cut throat just to keep afloat, the "blame culture" not to mention the profession tearing itself apart from within by the likes of Tom Lonsdale and Mathew Watkinson no member of the public is going to give a jot about what the logo looks like.

Equally when the profession is subject to increasing competition from non-vets, cut-throat marketing by neighbouring practices and ever increasing risk of legal action from both the public and employees while at the same time being subject to increasingly onerous and intrusive regulation and hoop jumping from the RCVS as well as increased professional fees it is offensive to me at least to hear that said RCVS is wasting its time and MY money on designing a pointless new logo during the biggest global and national depression since the 1930's!

Oh dear, I'm going to have to have a lie down now.

Hopefully I have explained that, behind my pithy, one liner was actually a great deal of thought - pity the RCVS didn't express any interest in it earlier (or indeed at all).

Niall

[/quote]

Are you standing in the elections Niall? Because you've got my vote.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:25:37 GMT

RVC did something similar - at least they tell you what it stands for!

From:

To:

What is wrong with a sense of history and that an organisation has been there for a long time rather than dreamt up by a spotty web designer with no girlfriend.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:29:06 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Someone humour me! Bolder colours, incorporate the coat of arms and be proud of the title The Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons!

Not going to hold my breath as I am only one voice!!!

[/quote]

Two.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Bob Russell — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:57:36 GMT

Someone humour me! Bolder colours, incorporate the coat of arms and be proud of the title The Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons!

Not going to hold my breath as I am only one voice!!!

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:34:29 GMT

[quote user="Laurence Webb"] All that is overshadowed by the lack of the words 'Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon's on the homepage. The only place I can see it is in one of the banners, which only appears for 20% of the time. When you log onto the page it appears for less than half a second then you have to wait for the other 4 to run through before you see it again.

Most members of the public would have no idea what the RCVS is so, unlike the NHS, I feel it needs spelling out more[/quote]

I rather agree.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Laurence Webb — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:22:12 GMT

I do like the new layout - much less busy and easier to navigate.

Mixed feelings about the new logo and colour scheme - it is less imperious (is that good or bad?) but the pastel shades are perhaps a bit too wishy washy for my taste. The NHS logo was shown elsewhere on this thread - they use similar tones lower down the page but the colour of the NHS logo is darker and bolder.

All that is overshadowed by the lack of the words 'Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon's on the homepage. The only place I can see it is in one of the banners, which only appears for 20% of the time. When you log onto the page it appears for less than half a second then you have to wait for the other 4 to run through before you see it again.

Most members of the public would have no idea what the RCVS is so, unlike the NHS, I feel it needs spelling out more

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Bob Russell — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:13:06 GMT

I have to admit I do find the website better to use and is a step forward (on reflection and exploration). I still hate the logo and the turquoise colour scheme. There is nothing wrong with incorporating tradition (such as coats of arms etc) the Royal College has a long and prestigious history and the first image the public sees should reflect this.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Vikki Halliday LLB — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:27:25 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But what about Gillian's point that the old one looked imperious?[/quote]

erm......that was Vikki actually!

[/quote]

Guilty as charged yer Honour!

But I think it was.

The new one does give the impression of a less backward organisation, by doing away with the dark colours and coat of arms. I mean, even the Queen doesn't give royal charters anymore, and it is a little outdated to rely on a logo to impress upon the public the high office that the RCVS hold themselves in.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

As far as the money spent on it - these days, the internet is probably the first point of contact for many people. I'd say that making the website fit for purpose is exactly what we pay our RCVS fee for.

[/quote]

Totally agree m'Lady.

And if this is really the first step to sweep the skeletons out of the cupboards and the dinosaurs out of the RCVS, then it has indeed been a worthwhile exercise IMHO.

However I will watch the election debates with interest.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:05:34 GMT

Great stuff. One thing I have noticed is the relative silence on this forum from our elected representatives. I understand it takes a brave person to put a head above the parapet to be shot at but until they do we can only grumble in the background!

Hopefully once members of the profession can interact more directly with candidates, more will vote and it will be our RCVS, regulating us in a fair and balanced manner and in doing so protecting the profession and our clients/patients as a good regulator should.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:02:06 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But what about Gillian's point that the old one looked imperious?[/quote]

erm......that was Vikki actually!

I think the new website 'does what it says on the tin' - it makes it easier for members of the public, as well as ourselves, to contact the RCVS and get the information they are looking for. The old website was awful for that. I'd say that's a job well done. If you want to compare to the website that DOES set itself up as the representative of the profession:

http://www.bva.co.uk

I know which webite I prefer - and it isn't the one with the 'funny looking horse'!

I'm not sure why some vets think that people's opinion of us, as a profession, is so influenced by colours and logos on a website?

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:46:23 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"] People who we pay out of our not inconsiderable retention fee, which I think explains some of the particularly bad feeling - when it's your money being spent?[/quote]

I'm sure the people who put all the time and work into the new website are not the same people who allocated the budget.

I've just emailed you all about the RCVS Elections which have just started, and the opportunity you have, via this site, to put your questions to candidates. If you feel things aren't being done right, surely it is encumbent on you to ask some searching questions, and vote the right people in!

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Rob Loxley — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:33:32 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The consultation process was limited to versions of what the college wanted. [/quote]

Hoson's Choice

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]your posts are read by people who've put a lot of work into the new look and the new website. You may not like what they've done.[/quote]

People who we pay out of our not inconsiderable retention fee, which I think explains some of the particularly bad feeling - when it's your money being spent?

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:07:52 GMT

Niall, I wasn't really talking about your comment - seems reasonable enough to me to question priorities.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]The idea that any prospective vet or vet nurse student is going to be put off their career choice because the logo is a bit dark is ridiculous. [/quote]

Did anyone suggest that would be the case?

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]The public impression of the profession has nothing to do with the logo either[/quote]

You don't think the impression of the profession formed by a member of the public is to some degree affected by what they see when they interact with the regulator? We'll have to agree to disagree there!

But I think we are talking slightly at cross purposes here. Sure if you ask a member of the public if they care what a logo looks like, the answer will be no. Why on earth should they care? But that's not the point. The point is that appearances DO affect us all to a greater or lesser degree. That's scientifically proven fact. If the president were to routinely appear in public dressed as a clown, the public impression would be that the profession is a joke, and it would affect how they interacted with the RCVS. A logo may not have quite the same dramatic impact, but the same rule applies.

The point is that whether or not the public cares about the logo is actually quite irrelevant.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"] Equally when the profession is subject to increasing competition from non-vets, cut-throat marketing by neighbouring practices and ever increasing risk of legal action from both the public and employees while at the same time being subject to increasingly onerous and intrusive regulation and hoop jumping from the RCVS as well as increased professional fees it is offensive to me at least to hear that said RCVS is wasting its time and MY money on designing a pointless new logo during the biggest global and national depression since the 1930's![/quote]

Well, as I've already tried to argue, the change of a logo is most certainly NOT, by definition, pointless. Your right to question priorities, or how your money is spent, is altogether another thing! I don't disagree with you for a moment on that score.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Niall Taylor — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:28:58 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Must say, I find the some of the fiercer criticism hard to understand.[/quote]

Oh dear, I'm going to have to have a lie down now.

Hopefully I have explained that, behind my pithy, one liner was actually a great deal of thought - pity the RCVS didn't express any interest in it earlier (or indeed at all).

Niall

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:23:14 GMT

Constructive criticism then.

Tell the general public that this is the website of The Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons.

Stronger distinctive colours to make it distinct and professional. it does not need to be dark as it was previously.

The criticisms were made in previous threads. The consultation process was limited to versions of what the college wanted.

No one in the practice thinks much of the impressions that the site gives. How the site works is not coming in for a lot of comment but a lot of the time (such as trying to alter registration) tells you to contact such and such a department so few working links to do things on-line. This may improve with time and would make our lives easier!

Not bad mannered IMO - I hate it, did take part in the consultation exercise and as I have paid for it feel I am allowed to discuss it even if others don't like what I say.

I am proud to be a member of the Royal College even if I have grave concerns about the direction some of the politics seem to be going. The immediate impression I got when I first saw the site was cheap and commercial not serious and important.

I have shown the site to a number of people (all female I admit) and none are impressed (even before knowing my views).

Try looking at the websites for The Law Society, Institute of Chartered Accountants etc - much more in keeping with a regulator!

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:03:24 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

Vet 1: "I hear the RCVS learned to walk on water!"

Vet 2: "I knew it, they don't know how to swim!"

(just trying to lighten the tone a bit in the topic. ) :)[/quote]

God, isn't this the truth!

Must say, I find the some of the fiercer criticism hard to understand.

Those of you who are most damning must surely accept that your criticism thus far has been completely subjective. Words like 'cheap', 'nasty', 'wet' and 'feeble'. OK, so you think so. But there's no recognition in your posts that you might very well be in the minority. Particularly when you bear in mind that the RCVS website and branding is not just for vets, but for the general public.

What gets up my nose rather more is that you know your posts are read by people who've put a lot of work into the new look and the new website. You may not like what they've done. But I still think it's quite bad mannered to come and slag it all off in such subjective terms.

It would be nice to see some proper, constructive criticism going on, and perhaps some more balanced posts. OK - so you may think the new logo is weak. But what about Gillian's point that the old one looked imperious? Isn't it a good thing for a regulatory organisation to be more approachable. And those of you who have criticised the light colours have notably all been men. Men tend to prefer bolder colours, I think.

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Chris Barker — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:47:20 GMT

But doesn't all this refer to immigrants from outwith the EU? As drafted the proposed GTPC would refer to ANYONE, even EU nationals, and that would surely put the RCVS in a direct fight with the Eurpean Commission/Court etc.

If I wanted to work in, say, Italy as a vet the EU rules would allow this. The fact that I speak not one word of Italian would mean I would fail unless I could find a wealthy English speaking enclave. But the RCVS would seek to forbid this for someone coming from Italy who is similarly linguistically challenged. And this I doubt they have the right to do.

Chris B

Re: New RCVS website / logo

J G Wray — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:46:36 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]I really doubt that they have this power I foresee an expensive legal test case a'coming I fear…[/quote]

Hmmm there may be some wriggle room:

The United Kingdom will begin introducing a new points based immigration system at the end of February for those wishing to work, study, or train in the UK. In addition to points scored for such factors as age, education, previous earnings, and ability to support oneself, English language ability will play an important role.

According to documents about the upcoming Tier 1 system released by the Border and Immigration Agency, applicants will have to prove one of three requirements in the General Highly Skilled Migrants (GHSM) and the Entrepreneur sub-categories:

By passing a test equivalent to C1 of the Council of Europe's Common European Framework for Language Learning (CEFR)
Come from a majority English speaking country
Have taken a degree taught in English from select countries which can be verified by using National Academic Recognition Information Centre data.
(Updated) If the degree was taken in another country, information provided by UK NARIC can verify if the English-taught degree is acceptable enough to satisfy the English language requirement.

For migrants applying under Tier 1 as Investors or for Post-Study work, the English language requirement is waived.

The following is a basic description of the three paths to satisfying the English language requirements under Tier 1 for General Highly Skilled Migrants (which will replace the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme) and Entrepreneurs.

The Common European Framework for Language Learning

The CEFR, implemented by the Council of Europe, is designed to describe the language proficiency of an individual for any language used in Europe. The system is split into three main categories, each with two sub-categories:

A: Basic User
A1 - Breakthrough
A2 - Waystage
B: Independent User
B1 - Threshold
B2 - Vantage
C: Proficient User
C1 - Effective Operational Proficiency
C2 - Mastery

C1, the level needed to qualify for Tier 1's English language requirement, is described as being able to read and understand a wide variety of lengthy texts, having the ability to express oneself fluently and spontaneously without the need to search for words and expressions, having the ability to write well, and using the language with skill in professional, social, and academic situations

Under the current Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP), an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score of 6 is required for passing the English language requirement. According to British Council conversion tables, those who have taken or plan to take an examination under the IELTS must attain at least an overall band score of 6.5 to successfully map to a C1 under the CEFR. This means that the new Tier 1 rules are a bit more stringent in regards to English language proficiency.

Citizens of a majority English-speaking country

Applicants under Tier 1 for the GHSM and Entrepreneur sub-categories can also claim English language proficiency if they are citizens of a majority English-speaking country. The following countries are considered majority English-speaking countries by the UK Border and Immigration Agency:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
New Zealand
St Kitts and Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of America

Degrees taught in English

Applicants under Tier 1 for the GHSM and Entrepreneur sub-categories can also satisfy the English language requirement if they attained a degree that was taught in English from a list of countries below. This is verified by using National Academic Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) data.

This list of countries includes:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana
Ireland
Jamaica
New Zealand
St Kitts and Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent and The Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
the UK
the USA

...."

JGW

Re: New RCVS website / logo

Niall Taylor — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:14:13 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

What does everyone else think?

[/quote]

I think they should get their bl@#dy priorities right.

Niall