4 ms·

I think it's fairly easy to come up with reasons after the fact why a design is bad, but it certainly didn't look bad and many people in the more tech community

I think it's fairly easy to come up with reasons after the fact why a design is bad, but it certainly didn't look bad and many people in the more tech community felt it was better than the new redesign: in particular the guy who wrote the article to which this one is a response to.

fastseoservice 13y ago
Buy exclusive collection of medieval costume, women clothes, renaissance bodices, renaissance clothing, medieval dress with high quality style & design. http://www.tudordressing.com http://www.tudordressing.com
nnq 13y ago
Maybe I exaggerated a bit and I wouldn't have considered it "incredibly bad" before having the latest version to compare it to, I agree. But the "photo/visual" vs "text/reading/verbal" switching it imposed on you was obvious in it at the beginning. I know, this is not something that pops up as a "big red flag" to most other UI/X people, but to me it really does. Take HN as an example: the text only interface keeps you in the zone and focused on actually reading peoples' comments and replying meaningfully to the. Take http://www.microsoft.com/ http://www.microsoft.com/ as another one: the pictures swallow your focus and they make it very hard for you to actually read the link texts and decide what to click on to get to what you wanted. Also http://www.bing.com/ http://www.bing.com/ - you use it to search for text, but it bombards you with pictures, so you may actually end up getting worse search results not (only) because the search engine is worse, but because you mind is not "words focused" anymore and you fail to come up with more appropriate search phrase. Also compare https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ and https://www.python.org/ https://www.python.org/ on one side vs. http://www.scala-lang.org/ http://www.scala-lang.org/ on the other side (the picture and design totally "unfocus" and disorient your mind so it takes you longer to find the relevant content, like "top language features" even if they are right there on the landing page and very well explained too).
calinet6 13y ago
Irrelevant. The tech community is not a representative sample of Facebook's user-base. And looking good and working well are two completely different things.
- kosievdmerwe 13y ago
  > Irrelevant. The tech community is not a representative sample of Facebook's user-base. Indeed they aren't, but who do you think designers interact with on a day to day basis? I think that the tech community's thoughts are important as they influence other tech people's thoughts and, therefore, might shift them away from reality. > And looking good and working well are two completely different things. Again agreed, which is why using metrics is a sound approach. You just have to make sure you're using the right ones.

fastseoservice 13y ago

Buy exclusive collection of medieval costume, women clothes, renaissance bodices, renaissance clothing, medieval dress with high quality style & design. http://www.tudordressing.com http://www.tudordressing.com

nnq 13y ago

Maybe I exaggerated a bit and I wouldn't have considered it "incredibly bad" before having the latest version to compare it to, I agree. But the "photo/visual" vs "text/reading/verbal" switching it imposed on you was obvious in it at the beginning. I know, this is not something that pops up as a "big red flag" to most other UI/X people, but to me it really does. Take HN as an example: the text only interface keeps you in the zone and focused on actually reading peoples' comments and replying meaningfully to the. Take http://www.microsoft.com/ http://www.microsoft.com/ as another one: the pictures swallow your focus and they make it very hard for you to actually read the link texts and decide what to click on to get to what you wanted. Also http://www.bing.com/ http://www.bing.com/ - you use it to search for text, but it bombards you with pictures, so you may actually end up getting worse search results not (only) because the search engine is worse, but because you mind is not "words focused" anymore and you fail to come up with more appropriate search phrase. Also compare https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ and https://www.python.org/ https://www.python.org/ on one side vs. http://www.scala-lang.org/ http://www.scala-lang.org/ on the other side (the picture and design totally "unfocus" and disorient your mind so it takes you longer to find the relevant content, like "top language features" even if they are right there on the landing page and very well explained too).

calinet6 13y ago

Irrelevant. The tech community is not a representative sample of Facebook's user-base. And looking good and working well are two completely different things.

kosievdmerwe 13y ago
> Irrelevant. The tech community is not a representative sample of Facebook's user-base. Indeed they aren't, but who do you think designers interact with on a day to day basis? I think that the tech community's thoughts are important as they influence other tech people's thoughts and, therefore, might shift them away from reality. > And looking good and working well are two completely different things. Again agreed, which is why using metrics is a sound approach. You just have to make sure you're using the right ones.