It seems to me that the one unifying opinion of those critical of the changes is that *no changes are necessary*. So, clearly this is NOT something that is meant to benefit the users - it's more likely part of some monetization plan.
Just admit it and move on - stop blowing smoke up our asses like our opinion actually matters. Maybe it did once, but that hasn't been the case for quite a while now.
Can someone from the/. team explain what exactly is wrong with the Classic site and why it can't be fixed? I just don't see why you had to start over with a completely new design when the old one works so well. A few tweaks is all that is needed.
I just don't see why you had to start over with a completely new design when the old one works so well. A few tweaks is all that is needed.
Well, those few needed tweaks never stop piling up. On top of that, UX research and (more importantly) user expectations continue to evolve.
To keep up with that, websites either need to constantly change in small increments, or to do it in big chunks. We'd been doing the former for a while, but the decision was made to start fresh. I totally understand how jarring it is
On top of that, UX research and (more importantly) user expectations continue to evolve.
Ahh, I'm beginning to see where Beta went so horribly wrong.
UX is the HCI equivalent of homoeopathy. A horrible pseudo-science that kills.
If you want to fix bugs, fine. If you want to add features, good. If you want to wreck an interface that works and that your readers like, well that's not fine.
Your readers have spoken, you should be out the back burning all traces of Beta as I type this, including the people who designed it. When Gawker changed it's UI in 2011 it lost 80% of it's audience practi
Just be honest - it's not for *US* (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that the one unifying opinion of those critical of the changes is that *no changes are necessary*. So, clearly this is NOT something that is meant to benefit the users - it's more likely part of some monetization plan.
Just admit it and move on - stop blowing smoke up our asses like our opinion actually matters. Maybe it did once, but that hasn't been the case for quite a while now.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone from the /. team explain what exactly is wrong with the Classic site and why it can't be fixed? I just don't see why you had to start over with a completely new design when the old one works so well. A few tweaks is all that is needed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, those few needed tweaks never stop piling up. On top of that, UX research and (more importantly) user expectations continue to evolve.
To keep up with that, websites either need to constantly change in small increments, or to do it in big chunks. We'd been doing the former for a while, but the decision was made to start fresh. I totally understand how jarring it is
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that, UX research and (more importantly) user expectations continue to evolve.
Ahh, I'm beginning to see where Beta went so horribly wrong.
UX is the HCI equivalent of homoeopathy. A horrible pseudo-science that kills.
If you want to fix bugs, fine. If you want to add features, good. If you want to wreck an interface that works and that your readers like, well that's not fine.
Your readers have spoken, you should be out the back burning all traces of Beta as I type this, including the people who designed it. When Gawker changed it's UI in 2011 it lost 80% of it's audience practi
Re:Just be honest - it's not for *US* (Score:2)
Get rid of beta, go through the office with a torch and shotgun, target anyone who uses the term "UX".
They could sell tickets for that to the rest of us, and they'd make a mint.