5 ms·

Are we looking at the same thing? I've got the new site open side-by-side with the last, and the total amount of content looks the same.

afandian 13y ago
I counted the number of items on each page (links to news stories) and came up with 38 vs 75. I make that approx half the amount of 'stuff'. Here's a side by side screenshot of what I see. http://imgur.com/HmiHhe2 http://imgur.com/HmiHhe2 EDIT: I was counting items in the whole page. In that screenshot I count 11 vs 51, which is a greater difference.
- callum85 13y ago
  Ah ok fair enough. There's no less content on many other pages I compared though. And as for the amount of stuff on the homepage, I wouldn't say the old site necessarily had the 'right' amount. I find the new design a bit easier on the eye, easier to scan, and more conducive to delving into specific topic pages that interest me. I don't know though, I might just be subconsciously overcompensating for all the negative comments because I feel they're overly harsh. It's impossible to really know how good a redesign is until you've lived with it for a while.
  - Nagyman 13y ago
    Agreed. Looking at old and new is striking. I much prefer the new as it focuses on the important content. The old looks like a product of organic growth (understandable) that seeks to pack in as much on the homepage as possible (and "Above the Fold"). The homepage isn't the be-all, end-all of a website and should pull you in to other areas for exploration. Calling it "lazily" designed is condescending and disrespectful of those who put their time and effort into this. Thick skins are required for web design/dev, but some professional courtesy is appropriate, I think. The developers themselves are here. How about something more constructive? What would YOU change? (OP, not callum85)
    - afandian 13y ago
      Hi there. Yes, always a balance between objective comments and what I would say to someone's face (although the word 'lazy' is on the mild end of things). I love the BBC, feel that their news reporting is broadly trustworthy, and would gladly pay a license fee. I'm talking about the homepage here. Why did I use the word lazy? My first impression is that the new version feels more in the direction of a news aggregation site. Looking at it, the structure is much simpler and the hierarchy is shallower. It feels like the relationship between content and layout doesn't require any editorial input, like the headlines could have been drawn from any aggregation source (I'm talking about the layout not the content). Looking back at the current site, it appears that editorial input has gone into the structure of the layout. The Ukraine story leads with a headline and then has various other pieces looking at the story from different angles. Similarly, it feels like for the Clegg vs Farage bit the editor has said "we want to do something about this subject, let's have a headline and some other items about it". That's the reason I used that particular word. It feels to me that the new layout could be automatically generated current one couldn't, at least not quite so easily. Ergo it feels like someone has put effort into a curated news experience vs an automatic one. So I think I stand by using the word for that reason. The above is my personal impression. I may be factually wrong. But we all respond to immediate experience don't we? And then there's the principle of mobile first, and what happens when it meets a site like this. There is no question that responsive is difficult to do. Maybe I do want to see less on my mobile, and maybe that's suitable for that medium. Allowing that to impinge on the desktop version, however, isn't something that sits well with me (or with others by the looks of things), especially if it means I am presented with a narrower view (one story on subject X presented to me on the front page rather than more than one). Different audiences exist on different mediums. I listen to BBC Radio 4 news and the news team puts together a programme in a certain way. I've heard the news on other less wordy BBC Radio stations and it's tailored to that audience. I'm glad that they acknowledge that different audiences want to consume news in different formats. It's not just the length of the story that differs, it's the style of presentation, selection of stories, and form of analysis. That feels like a very good analogue for the comparison here. The argument that you should see the same content in both cases (mobile, tablet, desktop) isn't open and shut. I see a huge disadvantage in the new homepage on a desktop, and I can't assume that the same idea hasn't at least occurred to some of the BBC people. To say "we need to make it work on mobile" is a laudable aim, but to then say "and we'll make sure that looks nice on the desktop too" feels lazy. What would I change? I'd have an explicit conversation about mediums and formats. And I'd have my point of view, because I'm me. I'd keep the desktop site as it is. Mobile is important. You can drop bits from the desktop site to make it work on mobile. You could even do it responsively, although that would increase the overhead.

afandian 13y ago

I counted the number of items on each page (links to news stories) and came up with 38 vs 75. I make that approx half the amount of 'stuff'. Here's a side by side screenshot of what I see. http://imgur.com/HmiHhe2 http://imgur.com/HmiHhe2 EDIT: I was counting items in the whole page. In that screenshot I count 11 vs 51, which is a greater difference.

callum85 13y ago
Ah ok fair enough. There's no less content on many other pages I compared though. And as for the amount of stuff on the homepage, I wouldn't say the old site necessarily had the 'right' amount. I find the new design a bit easier on the eye, easier to scan, and more conducive to delving into specific topic pages that interest me. I don't know though, I might just be subconsciously overcompensating for all the negative comments because I feel they're overly harsh. It's impossible to really know how good a redesign is until you've lived with it for a while.
- Nagyman 13y ago
  Agreed. Looking at old and new is striking. I much prefer the new as it focuses on the important content. The old looks like a product of organic growth (understandable) that seeks to pack in as much on the homepage as possible (and "Above the Fold"). The homepage isn't the be-all, end-all of a website and should pull you in to other areas for exploration. Calling it "lazily" designed is condescending and disrespectful of those who put their time and effort into this. Thick skins are required for web design/dev, but some professional courtesy is appropriate, I think. The developers themselves are here. How about something more constructive? What would YOU change? (OP, not callum85)
  - afandian 13y ago
    Hi there. Yes, always a balance between objective comments and what I would say to someone's face (although the word 'lazy' is on the mild end of things). I love the BBC, feel that their news reporting is broadly trustworthy, and would gladly pay a license fee. I'm talking about the homepage here. Why did I use the word lazy? My first impression is that the new version feels more in the direction of a news aggregation site. Looking at it, the structure is much simpler and the hierarchy is shallower. It feels like the relationship between content and layout doesn't require any editorial input, like the headlines could have been drawn from any aggregation source (I'm talking about the layout not the content). Looking back at the current site, it appears that editorial input has gone into the structure of the layout. The Ukraine story leads with a headline and then has various other pieces looking at the story from different angles. Similarly, it feels like for the Clegg vs Farage bit the editor has said "we want to do something about this subject, let's have a headline and some other items about it". That's the reason I used that particular word. It feels to me that the new layout could be automatically generated current one couldn't, at least not quite so easily. Ergo it feels like someone has put effort into a curated news experience vs an automatic one. So I think I stand by using the word for that reason. The above is my personal impression. I may be factually wrong. But we all respond to immediate experience don't we? And then there's the principle of mobile first, and what happens when it meets a site like this. There is no question that responsive is difficult to do. Maybe I do want to see less on my mobile, and maybe that's suitable for that medium. Allowing that to impinge on the desktop version, however, isn't something that sits well with me (or with others by the looks of things), especially if it means I am presented with a narrower view (one story on subject X presented to me on the front page rather than more than one). Different audiences exist on different mediums. I listen to BBC Radio 4 news and the news team puts together a programme in a certain way. I've heard the news on other less wordy BBC Radio stations and it's tailored to that audience. I'm glad that they acknowledge that different audiences want to consume news in different formats. It's not just the length of the story that differs, it's the style of presentation, selection of stories, and form of analysis. That feels like a very good analogue for the comparison here. The argument that you should see the same content in both cases (mobile, tablet, desktop) isn't open and shut. I see a huge disadvantage in the new homepage on a desktop, and I can't assume that the same idea hasn't at least occurred to some of the BBC people. To say "we need to make it work on mobile" is a laudable aim, but to then say "and we'll make sure that looks nice on the desktop too" feels lazy. What would I change? I'd have an explicit conversation about mediums and formats. And I'd have my point of view, because I'm me. I'd keep the desktop site as it is. Mobile is important. You can drop bits from the desktop site to make it work on mobile. You could even do it responsively, although that would increase the overhead.