4 ms·
> Essentially the BBC is not confident in its own ability to design something which communicates a simple message ("This content is produced by a BBC subsidiary
by aes256 14y ago
> Essentially the BBC is not confident in its own ability to design something which communicates a simple message ("This content is produced by a BBC subsidiary which is not funded by the licence fee, and we therefore have to pay for it by placing adverts on this page").
On the contrary, I would argue it is more a case of the BBC lacking confidence in the ability of the general public to understand such a message.
The problem is exacerbated here (unlike in the case of Top Gear magazine, the BBC Good Food website, etc.) because the /future page is not an obviously distinct entity.
- georgespencer 14y ago> I would argue it is more a case of the BBC lacking confidence in the ability of the general public to understand such a message. Whichever it is, they're going about it entirely the wrong way. Is there a solution which most people could understand? I bet there is. Farm it out to five or six top UX people and I don't doubt that they would come up with a dozen beautiful and workable solutions. The BBC shouldn't be censoring its/its subsidiary's output because of the stupidity of the general public.