|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: October 17, 2002 Love It or Hate It? -- "I've been at HotWired for six years now, and the flaming negative hate messages which spew our way after a new redesign are not new for me."
Reader Comments...
"As designers, we make conscious decisions to use elements from a visual language to communicate a message or facilitate interaction." HAHAHAHA! Yes, I actually released an audible guffaw when I read that line. Sounds like a stock excuse from a Web Artist when his design has failed. Translation: "You're just an ignorant user. You're not sophisticated enough to appreciate the masterpiece I have created for you." Did Wired do _any_ audience research before foisting this new, terribly ugly, design on us? Do they design in a bubble? Most important, the new color scheme is so child-like that I am forced to stop referring coworkers to Wired articles in my discussion of issues. My less-savvy coworkers would simply not take Wired seriously. It no longer matters what Wired has to say; the design lacks credibility. It's a gumball machine.
Correction: It's a goth gumball machine. They reluctantly accepted that they couldn't present an all-black design. So, if they had to use color, they decided to at least make it hauntingly disturbing. Posted by: Contrarian on October 17, 2002 08:58 AM
http://www.wired.com/news/explanation.html They tell us that 14% of their users will see crud (sorry, "stripped down design"). That's a LOT of people they're pissing off. Idiots! Do standards come before users? Posted by: (Edited to protect the monkeys.) on October 17, 2002 11:33 AM
I wonder if it complies with the W3C standards for accessibility? And the standards they are hanging their hat on are not design standards but technical - so user be damned they say, we comply with W3C!
As a reader, I don't care that they comply with W3C web standards. I just want it to look nice, be readable, and work. However they do it is fine by me. The site is noticibly faster and not so glitchy. The colors don't bother me, since what I care about is the content. However, their explanation (thanks, C) makes a good point: "This isn't the first website to be converted to XHTML and utilize CSS in such a powerful way... but the well-designed example that Wired News now provides can hopefully embolden other large content sites..." It sounded really good up to that point. I thought - yeah, people read Wired and they've been around the block. It's a good example of how CSS can be used site-wide and what a difference it can make. It will make sites take notice. Then I read it: "... to follow and join the Web Standards Project in the campaign encouraging users to upgrade their browsers. Doing so will help pull the Web out of the Dark Ages, and allow us all to progress forward." Sigh. What will pull us out of the dark ages is people upgrading their browsers to a new version. This isn't accomplished by forcing them to do it by shoving web standards down their throat so they can view your site. That just pissed people off so that they go somewhere else. If Netscape and Microsoft would do something like what Netscape did with their browsers before 4.7 (which were rendered useless in Y2K and had to be upgraded to at least 4.7) every year, the problem would be well on the way to a fix. Build in a required upgrade, make it painless for the user, and people will, by default, design better sites. During my last job search, I interviewed with a government agency. Their IT department was so underfunded, they were all using 3.0 browser versions. Their audience (according to statistics, most of which were for their Intranet that spanned several agencies) were also using 3.0 over 50 percent of the time. That is a huge, huge number for just two years ago. It does happen, it just doesn't tend to happen in the mainstream. Posted by: Lydia on October 17, 2002 07:27 PM
John, I still read this site, but I do not post. Please remove the above post -- that I did not author -- and any future posts made by a "Jack" using my yahoo.com address. Thanks. Posted by: Jack on October 17, 2002 10:05 PM
"This isn't accomplished by forcing them to do it by shoving web standards down their throat so they can view your site." It isn't a prerequisit, its accesable in everything down to palm and lynx, precilely because it uses web standards. It's also easier on the disabled and faster which is a usability plus. Hell the stripped down version looks like webword and useit.com. They seem to be comfy with giving the user an uglier experiance in exchange for simplicity and speed. The new design is much more visually attractive, I couldn't stand to read the older version (also by the same design team). Its colors are much more vibrant and alive without being overwheling. "As designers, we make conscious decisions to use elements from a visual language to communicate a message or facilitate interaction." Is exactly what designers do, they are VISUAL usability and marketing specialists. We dictate things like readability, emotional response and a dozen other important factors to a sites experiance. They are an important part of any website just as usability professionals are. We know we can't please anyone so we make the best value call giving the information, target audience and business/brand requirements. I'm shocked at the quantity of poorly informed comments on this thread and jabs at designers in general. There should be a mutual respect from both fields, design AND usability. Did anyone notice its easier to navigate or that you can adjust your text size easily when viewing articles? That the eye flows smoothly through an article now? Instead of bitching about user testing, why not ask the man directly. Get some hard data. One of the problems with most people is they don't relize someone has to take the first step, try new things and take risks. Posted by: James on October 17, 2002 10:15 PM
Instead of bitching about user testing, why not ask the man directly. Get some hard data. Bitch = easy Get Data = hard Posted by: Annoying Puff Cat on October 17, 2002 11:13 PM
Readers who have been with us for a while understand our design history Ahh, that's OK then. If I have comments that are anything less than positive then I am just a 'johny come lately' who is too 'stupid' to appreciate the changes. In that case I am 'stupid and proud', and will keep my comments about wired to myself. That should be much more acceptable. Posted by: Mac on October 18, 2002 07:14 AM
James, you misunderstand. I am critcising the Web Standards Project, not Wired. I personally don't have a problem with their design (other than that the page is choked with text, between ads, sidebars, and columns), and I like their move to CSS. What I don't like is that they have to announce it under the banner of the Web Standards Project. I don't like an idea that attacks the symptom when they should be addressing the cause (non CSS sites are a symptom of the cause, which is poor browser update control). In other words, don't put the problem at the feet of the people who use it. Change it at the source. Posted by: Lydia on October 18, 2002 12:58 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |