Taylor's New Website Q&A

[not darth]

Thanks for taking interest in our input!

One thing I found confusing is that it took me more clicks to get to, for example, the 12-fret guitars page than on the old site.
Now, you hover over Guitars, then carefully slide over to "All guitars" (if you're not careful the menu collapses) and click on that, then instead of that going right to the 2 12-fret choices it just goes to a page that lists the 12-fret, the 12-string, the baritones, etc.  Then you click on 12-fret and then it finally shows you the two choices. 
Just seemed more 'busy' than before.  More flash, less substance.  At least, that's my first impression. 
But, I don't want to complain too much, the site did need an update and I'm glad it's a work in progress, thanks!

-Kris

[S MS Picker]

I really miss access to past issues of W&S. There is more info there than 1 brain can hold.

[Shannon McGlathery]

I really miss access to past issues of W&S. There is more info there than 1 brain can hold.

Adding back issues of W&S is on our to do list.

[Shannon McGlathery]

Hello again Shannon I  just found  some short articles under  the Home tab and then Support instead of the Support tab on the top banner. They are not the same as the original Tech sheets which had much more detail.  They were great.

We will be continuing to add old and new content to the support section including tech sheets that are not out of date.

[Shannon McGlathery]

In terms of improvement, there are a few things that are a little awkward to me. First is the navigation. It's kind of odd that it's in the middle of the home page and then goes to the top everywhere else.

Overall I think the site is a nice aesthetic improvement over the previous version. I agree with ataylor regarding the navigation. I think it'd be better to stick it at the top and leave it there. Right now when I load the page the nav bar shows up at the bottom of the viewing area. To actually interact with it I'm forced to scroll way down because the drop down menus disappear off the screen otherwise.

If you click on the thumbnails below, I don't like the first one which is what how it loads by default, I prefer the latter which is how it appears elsewhere or when scrolling down the page a bit.




If the nav bar menus were to pop-up on lieu of dropping down on the index page that'd be one way to fix that in lieu of moving it to the top if that's not the desired location on the home page.

Good point. We are aware of this usability issue and have a couple solutions in mind. But it's too early to say for sure how we'll fix it.

[Shannon McGlathery]

Can add one more suggestion?   

I'd love a virtual guitar maker...not sure what you'd call it but where you could plug in your specs like your typical BTO and it would show you what it would look like instantly.

+1. This is a great idea.

We would love to do this. In fact we did it for the SolidBody: http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/electric/solidbody/configurator

The problem with doing these virtual builders is the sheer number of options. You wind up having to photograph and/or photoshop every combo of every option. You can see how that quickly becomes a massive undertaking. Then you have to maintain it and account for changes.

I'm not saying we'll never do it. It's a great idea. Just don't hold your breath.

[Go Navy]

Thanks for seeking feedback.  This is very much appreciated.  Follow this path:

Home > Guitars > Acoustic Guitars > By Series > 500 Series > can't find 512 ?

I found the 512ce by using the Search function on the website.  I followed the path above because it was the only intuitive thing for me, not being real familiar with the website.

Graphics are great.  Don't much like the automatic magnifying glass effect, though.  It's kinda distracting when you don't want it, but it does work nicely and the photo resolutions are fine.

[leeasam]

- What could be improved?
1) It seems to be better suited to a larger screen.  I had to zoom it out a bit when viewing.  The main page doesn't even fit on my laptop screen (1366x768 pixels). The menu is cut off at the bottom of the screen.

- Anything missing?
1)  I wish string spacing info was included in the guitar specs (spacing @ nut, spacing @ saddle).  I had a 314ce for a short while and now have a 714ce.  The nut width is the same, but the string spacing is different.  I think this is good info to have readily available, and it seems to be a frequently asked general question.
 

that is odd as the 300 series and up have always had the same nut and string spacing since at least 2000.  And I have played way to many Taylors since 2000 to say and never felt any difference either in ther neck feel of the 300s and up.

[michaelw]

- What could be improved?
1) It seems to be better suited to a larger screen.  I had to zoom it out a bit when viewing.  The main page doesn't even fit on my laptop screen (1366x768 pixels). The menu is cut off at the bottom of the screen.

- Anything missing?
1)  I wish string spacing info was included in the guitar specs (spacing @ nut, spacing @ saddle).  I had a 314ce for a short while and now have a 714ce.  The nut width is the same, but the string spacing is different.  I think this is good info to have readily available, and it seems to be a frequently asked general question.
 

that is odd as the 300 series and up have always had the same nut and string spacing since at least 2000.  And I have played way to many Taylors since 2000 to say and never felt any difference either in ther neck feel of the 300s and up.

once the NT was completely phased in, the standard nut width on the DN & JM went from 1 11/16" to 1 3/4" (2001) -
i can't recall seeing string spacing specs listed, but i think on some acoustic guitar video reviews in the past have
mentioned the string spacing on the 25.5" scale neck with 1 3/4" nut as being 2 3/16" at the saddle (specs at 0:25)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkMPOaP4yro
i had a 02 514ce that had the neck replaced due to transit damage & it had slightly different profile (feel) than an 814ce,
made the same year, with the same scale, nut width, string spacing at the saddle & with both necks having 'standard carves'

[ColinWright]

Another thing I'd like to see is the return of the wallpapers.  I can find a hint about a January wallpaper on Google, but I can't seem to find it on the Taylor Guitars site.  I *love* having Taylor guitars on my workspaces at home.  In fact, with me coming late to the party (I've only been playing for 18 months or so, and have only been focusing on Taylors since the summer), I'd love see access to the older wallpapers added to the new site; I'm not sure these were even available on the old site.  The photography of these featured guitars is truly amazing!!!

[Bill Evans]

?? Back issues of W&S...

Not sure if it's been covered elsewhere here, but where are all the back issues please? I can find only a few.

Ta.

Bill

[Bill Evans]

Dr. Martens Airwair website http://www.drmartens.com/. Look familiar? lol

Bill

[byrd]

1) It seems to be better suited to a larger screen.  I had to zoom it out a bit when viewing.  The main page doesn't even fit on my laptop screen (1366x768 pixels). The menu is cut off at the bottom of the screen.

We did design the site for larger screens (1280 x XXX) but it should look okay on (1024 x 960) as well. We are working to make sure it looks okay on an iPads and tablets.

As you mentioned, the width on my screen is fine.  The problem I have is that more and more screens are going to a "true HD" pixel ratio (16:9).  So, my 1366pixel wide screen is only 768pixels tall.  That's almost 200pixels shy of the minimum standard you mentioned (1024 x 960).  Just something to consider.  I've done a little web design in the past, and I certainly realize that it can be difficult to plan for EVERY hardware configuration... not to mention the browser and screen layout that every user is using. 

1) It would be cool if you could select more than one spec to be used to build the list of results (for instance if I wanted to see all rosewood bodied, GS guits, etc).

The reason you can only choose 1 filter (Shape, Wood, Series or Category) at a time is that it ensures there will always be at least one guitar in the results. If we allowed 2 filters (for example, a shape AND a wood) it would often return no results which is very frustrating to users. So we did the next best thing which is a sort of the results.

I can ONLY speak for myself here, but I would have to say that I would prefer to see a set of empty results, or some message that says that Taylor does not currently build a guitar that meets the filter criteria that I've specified (then maybe point to the BTO page?).  Otherwise, I might spin my wheels for a long period of time searching for something that really isn't there.  However, if I wanted to search for, say an Acoustic GS, I could do that.  Right now this cannot be done, and if I search for GS body shape, I have to sift though pages of xxxCE guitars in order to view the GS3 through GS8 models. 

2)  I wish, when displaying the lists of results, they could have a selectable format (like small icons).  This could allow many more guitars to be displayed on a single screen.  There would be less pages to of results to click through.

Would allowing you to select the number of guitars to show per page work? For example a dropdown with 9,12,15,18,21 options?

I think this would be a reasonable compromise, since I'm sure my suggestion would be more involved to implement.  However, going back to my short screen height, this leads to a lot of scrolling that smaller images would reduce (maybe I just lazy!).  But then again, multiple filters might also reduce the number of search results. 

Thanks again for the great opportunity share our opinions!! 

[byrd]

The problem with doing these virtual builders is the sheer number of options. You wind up having to photograph and/or photoshop every combo of every option. You can see how that quickly becomes a massive undertaking. Then you have to maintain it and account for changes.

I'm not saying we'll never do it. It's a great idea. Just don't hold your breath.

This does sound like a lot of work.  Rather that have a full virtual builder, it might still be helpful to at least have basic example images of the various options.  I've looked through one of the BTO worksheets before.  It's a little overwhelming.  It would be very helpful to be able to see examples of options like the purfling combos, rosettes, fretboard/peghead/bridge inlays, etc.  This might also be beneficial to Taylor from a sales standpoint.  If I can't see it, my G.A.S. level is held to a minimum.  Seeing what I could have might exponentially increase my desire for a BTO.

[sstaylor58]

I like the website, and understand that the kinks are being worked out...also, thank you for asking for input!  One thing I would like to see is the ability to find information on all the past limited edition guitars that have been put out previously.  I own a 2005 512-L10 fall ltd, and a 2009 710ce-ltd spring ltd - it would be great to be able to find spec info on these models as well as the other LTD's that Taylor has produced over the years.

I know this is probably not a high priority, but please keep in mind for the future because a lot of us look for the LTD models on the used market, and this info would be very helpful.  Keep up the good work - thank you for asking!