00:00
00:00
jonthomson
KILLIAN IS LYING TO YOU
"People who avoid failure, also avoid success"

Age 41

data analyst

Cheshire, England

Joined on 5/18/00

Level:
60
Exp Points:
80,550 / 100,000
Exp Rank:
12
Vote Power:
10.07 votes
Rank:
Sup. Commander
Global Rank:
181
Blams:
22,508
Saves:
17,456
B/P Bonus:
60%
Whistle:
Deity
Trophies:
1
Medals:
491
Supporter:
7y 3m 22d

On site redesigns

Posted by jonthomson - August 2nd, 2015


Why? I mean I know why, because either:

a) sites assume they must do to keep up with the times, regardless of how it might alienate the current audience

b) ANALYTICS tell them to.

This is, naturally, retarded. If a site is successful, it is generally because of the content that is provided, and the methods in which the content is supplied to the end user. Fuck up with the methods, and you'll likely lose users on both ends.

Let me look at my favourites and/or other sites that I regularly visit to get an idea of how they can fuck up:

Newgrounds: probably one of the only sites that tends to get it right. I think this is primarily because the owners are still somewhat independent of any sort of global chain site bullshit that might mandate garbage on to them, so have been able to redesign as to what the audience wants, rather than what any external stakeholders might think be a good idea. I still recall being in the NG office in '07 and getting a preview of how the new design would look, and thinking it was great. That's how all things should look

GameFAQs: Complete AIDS, and it has been pretty much since they sold out to CNET, and especially since CJayC left. Most recently they made a forced shift out of old versions, only retaining a "throwback mode" which they eventually removed increasingly quickly (I literally left the country for 48 hours and it was gone), before enforcing a completely new design, removing all old stylesheets, whereby the only way it was actually usable was to make wholescale changes to options to allow for a "least bad" option

Facebook: LOL

Gmail: LOL, I nearly switched back to a dedicated email client because the web version is so bad

Twitter: Also LOL, I only ever use this on my phone, but both apps that I use have undergone changes that completely break all functionality

Team Liquid: The main catalyst for this post. Large scale general design changes, breaking a ton of stuff, making things unusable fo various users with accessibility issues, hilarious given their main focus is dead games

BBC: Terminally broken for at least half a decade, causing me to switch to Grauniad for news, which is breaking their site as well, although slightly less badly

SBNation: The site literally hangs for half a minute on Chrome because it's so badly designed

Cheezburger: See above

Hattrick: Site is simply unusable on mobile, necessitating the use of an app

One of my football team's fan sites: Rolled out a change for mobile users which broke all notifications

Pretty much every site I list has been going for a long, long time, so isn't obviously failing. So why oh why would you roll out changes that will just annoy everyone and drive users away? I can't think of a single time where a site has made a redesign and added functionality I wanted. So why do they keep doing it?

Edit - and WHAT THE FUCK HAS HAPPENED TO THE SPACING ON BLOG POSTS


Comments

I sure hope Tom still remembers how Newgrounds always stood out from the rest of the live content websites. There's so many memorable aspects of this website that, if removed for the sake of "modernization", would kill the distinction of Newgrounds.

Newgrounds is not just a place where you can watch and submit content. It's a monument of independence all over, sort of an anarchy. Newgrounds was FIGHTING the general standards from the beginning!

Poyo!

Couldn't agree more, website and even software nowadays have designs more centred on looking "flashy" and "modern" than practical and easy to navigate. Hopefully this trend reverses at some point. : P

To add to the LOL comment re: Facebook, ignoring all their web based design fails, the stupidest thing I think I've ever seen is their decision to launch Facebook Messenger, which basically took one working app that does everything, and switched it into two that don't, I assume purely for them being able to increase the number of app installs and ads served as a result.

Sites should just stick with simplified designs, not try to all "Web 2.0" everything.

Know what works a hell of a lot better than over-reliance on browser-specific JavaScripts, embedded Flash where inappropriate (it is appropriate only for games/video, not for site design), other embedded idiocy design (DirectX, Silverlight, etc...), and so forth? Just sticking to good solid HTML design, with emphasis on accessibility! And test the site on a variety of browsers under a variety of OSes to make sure it works correctly before deployment. We don't need anything else.

If sites would just stick to HTML (and CSS, where appropriate), and tone way back the JavaScript and plugins type stuff everything would work amazingly on nearly everything and be blazing fast too!

Where are plugins acceptable? Literally only for web games or movies, which is how Newgrounds tends to use them. Where they're not acceptable? Almost anything else.

Happy clock day brother, gave you a 5! Good list... I miss the cheezburger after dark site. Gamewinners.com isn't bad, hasn't changed much. Yahoo mail sucks ass, hit an arrow key at the wrong time, and it goes through your inbox, erasing your letter, leaving you at the mercy of a saved draft... guess now, unwanted draft saving makes sense. BBC definitely got worse, but the drudgereport.com hasn't changed in 15+ years. And have you seen deviantart lately?! Was so happy when the Art portal started here.

Would you say the new blog editor was a good thing? Took a while for me to figure it out. And damn, I'm glad I kept pressing Tom about adding an order button to blog comments!

yeah, drudge report is a great example of keeping things simple