No-one can ever please everyone all of the time. That's life.
However, my dislike of the new look is genuine and not simply a bash the BBC attitude. BBC News and Footy are staple sites for me. And trust me, I'm very selective.
I can't see it on the homepage, you need to click further into the site before the old style links come up on the top. Are the Beeb being naughty and trying to hide those nasty message boards away from the casual browser .
I still hate it. I'm not visiting that often at all now, I hadn't bothered with google news for ages, but that's where I go now.
I know what the BBC's website reminds me of .... Rapidweaver! It's like some shiny, washed out, formulaic, lowest common denominator, site -- but it's the BBC! and it was so great
Honestly, IMO The Guardian showed how to change things well. I liked their site before and I love it now. It doesn't look like it was made with a couple of Rapidweaver templates! Even The Times relaunch was well done.
Oh and I tried ITN earlier for the first time. What a waste of a mouse click that was. Abysmal.
One of the main gripes that people have is that they don't have their browsers maximised.
How are the BBC supposed to know that. The easy solution is to work on a % of the browser width but then the same people would come back complaining about the about of vertical scrolling needed.
exactly. speaking with my web designer hat on, it's difficult enough catering for different browers across PCs and Macs, but to start taking into account what size users have their windows open is taking it too far.
i know you can have your variable width styles, but that only really works well with simple layouts, whereas the BBC news site is structured in such a way where it really needs to make use of the width with four columns to lay the content out.
i was originally surprised that they were using 1024px as a minimum, but glad they are, especially if this means that it's become the accepted minimum width, and that 800x600px users have become vanishingly small.
the extra width definitely gives the layout more room to breathe, which the site benefits from enormously.
and i think they've done a great job on revamping the site, whilst keeping it largely familiar. it's easy to look at and criticise, but it's actually much harder than people realise to take such an amount of content, and lay it out on a page effectively and clearly, balancing simplicity with striking elements.
so this site has a strong banner at the top for emphasis and branding, and the simple, less striking, but effective layout below.
off the top of my head, a couple of little things i'd change :
1. make (at least some of) the sections within the main body a bit more prominent, eg 'video and audio news', 'around the UK now', 'other top stories' etc
ie more like the old red 'show/hide' breaks here :
2. make the secondary banners (eg News, Sport) more consistent. ie the positioning of the text (news is left justified, sport is centred) and the link to video (different style, and position).
exactly. speaking with my web designer hat on, it's difficult enough catering for different browers across PCs and Macs, but to start taking into account what size users have their windows open is taking it too far.
i know you can have your variable width styles, but that only really works well with simple layouts, whereas the BBC news site is structured in such a way where it really needs to make use of the width with four columns to lay the content out.
i was originally surprised that they were using 1024px as a minimum, but glad they are, especially if this means that it's become the accepted minimum width, and that 800x600px users have become vanishingly small.
the extra width definitely gives the layout more room to breathe, which the site benefits from enormously.
and i think they've done a great job on revamping the site, whilst keeping it largely familiar. it's easy to look at and criticise, but it's actually much harder than people realise to take such an amount of content, and lay it out on a page effectively and clearly, balancing simplicity with striking elements.
so this site has a strong banner at the top for emphasis and branding, and the simple, less striking, but effective layout below.
Iain
the new web layout is great, cleaner and easier to use so well done to them.
Yes, all very well for those that have the room and cash.
Auntie is still out of order to presume anything about anyone's screen sizes and resolutions. It's sad to see the Beeb's formerly high technical standards slipping.
they're not slipping tho' - the simple fact is that as time goes on, the minimum reasonable standard you need to cater for changes.
in this case to the point where the 800x600px user base is becoming vanishingly small.
No matter what the argument with "impoverished people using old VGA screens" no website can carry on catering for the lowest common denominator indefinitely, especially as over time that user base will be shrinking and shrinking.
Otherwise if there would be little progress anywhere.
i don't think any reasonable person could really disagree with that.
Well I know you didn't ask me... and I know it has the same amount of content per page but it's too wide on my screen.
The 800x600 one was better for me purely because your eyes have to move less and you don't have to scroll as much. I use 1280 x1024 resolution but I like websites that are more compact in the middle of the screen! The place where I sit on relative to my screen it's like holding up a broadsheet close to my face! Maybe I could move my chair back or something.....
I'm not really concerned how it looks aesthetically it's about usability.
Well I know you didn't ask me... and I know it has the same amount of content per page but it's too wide on my screen.
The 800x600 one was better for me purely because your eyes have to move less and you don't have to scroll as much. I use 1280 x1024 resolution but I like websites that are more compact in the middle of the screen! The place where I sit on relative to my screen it's like holding up a broadsheet close to my face! Maybe I could move my chair back or something.....
I'm not really concerned how it looks aesthetically it's about usability.
Who cares about filling up the browser window!?
The design looks okay though imo.
But their idea was that 95% of people had larger resolutions than 800x600, and for me the page is much easier to look around because it fills more of the screen and is centred.
Oh yes, so it is. To be fair I only ever use the footy page, but I see what you mean. Let's hope the full design adds some space between those hot spots.
I'm not a fan of the new look. It's a bit garish and playschoolish for me. Rather than fill up the unused space to the right with more stories, they seem to have opted for a massive font which looks a bit silly.
the font is hardly massive, and i prefer higher res, smaller fonts. i'd have thought there are already several stories on a page, and adding even more would potentially just make it too cluttered.
it reminds me of the sky sites. Sprawling and garish and difficult to see where things are.
I think just after a vote on another forum about bad web sites, where we voted sky footy as being the worst, it actually won an industry prize for it's design.
What do we know eh.
strange that you think it's garish, and others have described it as wishy washy....
what would you say were the most garish parts, or most garish colours used?
But their idea was that 95% of people had larger resolutions than 800x600, and for me the page is much easier to look around because it fills more of the screen and is centred.
Yes i realise that, I've stated above I use higher res than 1024x768, but i personally preferred it when my eyes had to move less, i don't really like websites that take a lot of room on the screen or fill up the browser window. I often have a lot of windows open at the same time and so don't often have my browsers maximised so I'd argue smaller sized websites please the most people most of the time....since the disadvantage of it being too big outweigh the slight advantage that some people prefer their sites larger, fair enough, but it's not as annoying to look at the other way around i'd say.
My res won't go above 1280x1024 on my monitor if it did it wouldn't be so bad.
Some prefer it some don't i guess, I don't have an issue with the styling though, just the size, looks pretty good to me.
Yes i realise that, I've stated above I use higher res than 1024x768, but i personally preferred it when my eyes had to move less, i don't really like websites that take a lot of room on the screen or fill up the browser window. I often have a lot of windows open at the same time and so don't often have my browsers maximised so I'd argue smaller sized websites please the most people most of the time....since the disadvantage of it being too big outweigh the slight advantage that some people prefer their sites larger, fair enough, but it's not as annoying to look at the other way around i'd say.
My res won't go above 1280x1024 on my monitor if it did it wouldn't be so bad.
Some prefer it some don't i guess, I don't have an issue with the styling though, just the size, looks pretty good to me.
fair enough - but to say it's a hassle to scan your eyes over an extra 200 or so pixels is being a bit picky IMO.
strange that you think it's garish, and others have described it as wishy washy....
what would you say were the most garish parts, or most garish colours used?
Iain
Heh heh, actually in an early post I also complained about the wishy washy blues used.
The garishness comes from that ludicrous header. For me it's just dead space. I guess you have VM tv? It's quite similar to the digital text offering on there. Almost 2/3 of the screen is taken up with banners, advertising and a ludicrous little inset tv pic.
It's just something that annoys the hell out of me. I don't need 25% of the news home page(the bit you can see at first) to be taken up with a banner telling me I'm on the BBC. I already know that. Then you have to slide down miles to see actual content.
Also I just find the font size garish. I think I said in the earlier post it gives me the impression that it's been designed for children. Or for people who need large buttons to slap their sausage fingers onto(hence my Sky comment ). It just seems cluttered to me. Actually I've just adjusted the font size on my browser and it instantly looks better.
The one thing I do like is that they've filled out to the right and used the dead space out there.
Heh heh, actually in an early post I also complained about the wishy washy blues used.
The garishness comes from that ludicrous header. For me it's just dead space. I guess you have VM tv? It's quite similar to the digital text offering on there. Almost 2/3 of the screen is taken up with banners, advertising and a ludicrous little inset tv pic.
on that i will agree completely, and is one thing that really puts me off using it, and will be glad when they finally get around to revamping the BBCi stuff on VM.
i don't think the header is particularly garish tho' - wouldn't garish be bright pink and yellows that clashed horribly?
size wise, i don't think it's particularly big compared to other websites, and as i mentioned earlier, where the content of much of the site is fairly limititing in terms of offering visual style, ie news text, and images, then a strong title banner helps to give the site / pages some focus and emphasis.
It's just something that annoys the hell out of me. I don't need 25% of the news home page(the bit you can see at first) to be taken up with a banner telling me I'm on the BBC. I already know that. Then you have to slide down miles to see actual content.
Also I just find the font size garish. I think I said in the earlier post it gives me the impression that it's been designed for children. Or for people who need large buttons to slap their sausage fingers onto(hence my Sky comment ). It just seems cluttered to me. Actually I've just adjusted the font size on my browser and it instantly looks better.
The one thing I do like is that they've filled out to the right and used the dead space out there.
i'm not really keen on large font sizes either as a preference, but i usually notice it when i look at something on an older CRT monitor at lower resolution compared to my laptop.
but this doesn't seem to jar very much compared to other sites on the same display - it can't be more than about one font size larger than it was.
i think you might be guilty of thinking that anyone who doesn't have a preference for smaller than average text as children. i'd suspect that many adults, particularly older who aren't typically the demographic who would be into tech, won't necessarily share our preference for small text.
often when i do websites, one of the first things my clients ask is if i can increase the font size a bit.
Yeah, I think there is an element of misuse of garish on my part. It is generally directed at the brightness of colours. Garish just seemed a better word than oversized, in your face etc I suppose. A mixture of a too large black and red banner standing out against all that wishy washy blue.
No you can see why I summarised as garish!
There's no guilt. It's just that I associate large clunky looking things with bright colours as being aimed at children.
And being from mainframe stock I'm automatically suspicious of things that appear to put presentation ahead of functionality. Systems that look great but don't work for **it. Grrrrrrr.
Mind you, I used to look after a system where we sent out updates via email. the user then had to press a button to run an update. We made the button around 6 x 6 inches and added Press This into the button label. We still had people unable to fathom what to do.
i just disagree that it's necessarily that clunky or that bright per se, just relatively so to you, based on your preference for, i imagine, unusually small type - because the type size on the new site isn't particularly larger than any type used on most other websites aimed at a large and varied audience.
i was originally surprised that they were using 1024px as a minimum, but glad they are, especially if this means that it's become the accepted minimum width, and that 800x600px users have become vanishingly small.
Problem is that 800 x 600 users are going up, pretty quickly, as a result of portable browsing devices increasing popularity.
And I do think it's entirely reasonable to note that most people using 1024 width resolutions do not have 1024 pixels of resolution, because I'd wager the majority of people browse with their favorites bar open. I'd never use anything but fluid width on webdesign (and haven't done for a *very* long time, for exactly that reason). Heck, even before CSS I'd never use fixed page widths.
I'm afraid there's also no excuse for terrible programming like specifying the font size in pixels - that in particular breaks the site in many browsers, including the iPhone one.
That really, really should not have reached the launch.
Problem is that 800 x 600 users are going up, pretty quickly, as a result of portable browsing devices increasing popularity.
I would have thought that very few websites are designed with those portable devices in mind though (even if 800x600 is the actual size). This is presumably why specifically-tailored sites are also available for WAP and PDA devices
Comments
IMO BBC can't win though what ever they do.
No-one can ever please everyone all of the time. That's life.
However, my dislike of the new look is genuine and not simply a bash the BBC attitude. BBC News and Footy are staple sites for me. And trust me, I'm very selective.
I can't see it on the homepage, you need to click further into the site before the old style links come up on the top. Are the Beeb being naughty and trying to hide those nasty message boards away from the casual browser .
It won't stop me, I've made Talk my home page.:p
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/news_and_sports_website_refres_1.html
If it's just me, would anybody be so kind as to allow me to PM them a comment I'd like to post and post it under my name?
I know what the BBC's website reminds me of .... Rapidweaver! It's like some shiny, washed out, formulaic, lowest common denominator, site -- but it's the BBC! and it was so great
Honestly, IMO The Guardian showed how to change things well. I liked their site before and I love it now. It doesn't look like it was made with a couple of Rapidweaver templates! Even The Times relaunch was well done.
Oh and I tried ITN earlier for the first time. What a waste of a mouse click that was. Abysmal.
exactly. speaking with my web designer hat on, it's difficult enough catering for different browers across PCs and Macs, but to start taking into account what size users have their windows open is taking it too far.
i know you can have your variable width styles, but that only really works well with simple layouts, whereas the BBC news site is structured in such a way where it really needs to make use of the width with four columns to lay the content out.
i was originally surprised that they were using 1024px as a minimum, but glad they are, especially if this means that it's become the accepted minimum width, and that 800x600px users have become vanishingly small.
the extra width definitely gives the layout more room to breathe, which the site benefits from enormously.
and i think they've done a great job on revamping the site, whilst keeping it largely familiar. it's easy to look at and criticise, but it's actually much harder than people realise to take such an amount of content, and lay it out on a page effectively and clearly, balancing simplicity with striking elements.
so this site has a strong banner at the top for emphasis and branding, and the simple, less striking, but effective layout below.
off the top of my head, a couple of little things i'd change :
1. make (at least some of) the sections within the main body a bit more prominent, eg 'video and audio news', 'around the UK now', 'other top stories' etc
ie more like the old red 'show/hide' breaks here :
old style page.
2. make the secondary banners (eg News, Sport) more consistent. ie the positioning of the text (news is left justified, sport is centred) and the link to video (different style, and position).
Iain
the new web layout is great, cleaner and easier to use so well done to them.
they're not slipping tho' - the simple fact is that as time goes on, the minimum reasonable standard you need to cater for changes.
in this case to the point where the 800x600px user base is becoming vanishingly small.
Iain
i don't think any reasonable person could really disagree with that.
Iain
this really does beg the question :
'what would you do differently then?'
Iain
Well I know you didn't ask me... and I know it has the same amount of content per page but it's too wide on my screen.
The 800x600 one was better for me purely because your eyes have to move less and you don't have to scroll as much. I use 1280 x1024 resolution but I like websites that are more compact in the middle of the screen! The place where I sit on relative to my screen it's like holding up a broadsheet close to my face! Maybe I could move my chair back or something.....
I'm not really concerned how it looks aesthetically it's about usability.
Who cares about filling up the browser window!?
The design looks okay though imo.
But their idea was that 95% of people had larger resolutions than 800x600, and for me the page is much easier to look around because it fills more of the screen and is centred.
the font is hardly massive, and i prefer higher res, smaller fonts. i'd have thought there are already several stories on a page, and adding even more would potentially just make it too cluttered.
Iain
strange that you think it's garish, and others have described it as wishy washy....
what would you say were the most garish parts, or most garish colours used?
Iain
Yes i realise that, I've stated above I use higher res than 1024x768, but i personally preferred it when my eyes had to move less, i don't really like websites that take a lot of room on the screen or fill up the browser window. I often have a lot of windows open at the same time and so don't often have my browsers maximised so I'd argue smaller sized websites please the most people most of the time....since the disadvantage of it being too big outweigh the slight advantage that some people prefer their sites larger, fair enough, but it's not as annoying to look at the other way around i'd say.
My res won't go above 1280x1024 on my monitor if it did it wouldn't be so bad.
Some prefer it some don't i guess, I don't have an issue with the styling though, just the size, looks pretty good to me.
It was dated, and had loads of white space with older resolution.
fair enough - but to say it's a hassle to scan your eyes over an extra 200 or so pixels is being a bit picky IMO.
Iain
It's not that it's a hassle, it's just that it's better my way..:p;)
Heh heh, actually in an early post I also complained about the wishy washy blues used.
The garishness comes from that ludicrous header. For me it's just dead space. I guess you have VM tv? It's quite similar to the digital text offering on there. Almost 2/3 of the screen is taken up with banners, advertising and a ludicrous little inset tv pic.
It's just something that annoys the hell out of me. I don't need 25% of the news home page(the bit you can see at first) to be taken up with a banner telling me I'm on the BBC. I already know that. Then you have to slide down miles to see actual content.
Also I just find the font size garish. I think I said in the earlier post it gives me the impression that it's been designed for children. Or for people who need large buttons to slap their sausage fingers onto(hence my Sky comment
The one thing I do like is that they've filled out to the right and used the dead space out there.
i must just have amazing super power eyesight that it's never really bothered me!
Iain
on that i will agree completely, and is one thing that really puts me off using it, and will be glad when they finally get around to revamping the BBCi stuff on VM.
i don't think the header is particularly garish tho' - wouldn't garish be bright pink and yellows that clashed horribly?
size wise, i don't think it's particularly big compared to other websites, and as i mentioned earlier, where the content of much of the site is fairly limititing in terms of offering visual style, ie news text, and images, then a strong title banner helps to give the site / pages some focus and emphasis.
i'm not really keen on large font sizes either as a preference, but i usually notice it when i look at something on an older CRT monitor at lower resolution compared to my laptop.
but this doesn't seem to jar very much compared to other sites on the same display - it can't be more than about one font size larger than it was.
i think you might be guilty of thinking that anyone who doesn't have a preference for smaller than average text as children. i'd suspect that many adults, particularly older who aren't typically the demographic who would be into tech, won't necessarily share our preference for small text.
often when i do websites, one of the first things my clients ask is if i can increase the font size a bit.
Iain
No you can see why I summarised as garish!
There's no guilt. It's just that I associate large clunky looking things with bright colours as being aimed at children.
And being from mainframe stock I'm automatically suspicious of things that appear to put presentation ahead of functionality. Systems that look great but don't work for **it. Grrrrrrr.
Mind you, I used to look after a system where we sent out updates via email. the user then had to press a button to run an update. We made the button around 6 x 6 inches and added Press This into the button label. We still had people unable to fathom what to do.
i just disagree that it's necessarily that clunky or that bright per se, just relatively so to you, based on your preference for, i imagine, unusually small type - because the type size on the new site isn't particularly larger than any type used on most other websites aimed at a large and varied audience.
Iain
Problem is that 800 x 600 users are going up, pretty quickly, as a result of portable browsing devices increasing popularity.
And I do think it's entirely reasonable to note that most people using 1024 width resolutions do not have 1024 pixels of resolution, because I'd wager the majority of people browse with their favorites bar open. I'd never use anything but fluid width on webdesign (and haven't done for a *very* long time, for exactly that reason). Heck, even before CSS I'd never use fixed page widths.
I'm afraid there's also no excuse for terrible programming like specifying the font size in pixels - that in particular breaks the site in many browsers, including the iPhone one.
That really, really should not have reached the launch.
Phazer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/6207366.stm