Tried the site on all the browser's on my tablet it's still utter rubbish. I understand "the shock of the new" but this is more like "the shock of the rubbish".
Happy thoughts, happy thoughts, happy thoughts! Still liking the look BTW.
1. Getting a word check for trying to post a link earlier, the link was to this forum.
2. It's painfully slow, maybe ask the admin to take another look see if anything else can be done?
3. I actually like the look of the place.
4. People like moaning about new stuff.
5. Meow
1. Getting a word check for trying to post a link earlier, the link was to this forum.
2. It's painfully slow, maybe ask the admin to take another look see if anything else can be done?
3. I actually like the look of the place.
4. People like moaning about new stuff.
5. Meow
Mr. Iceman
Well-known member
I find it very difficult to read pretty much everything on here. Blue font and black (very "faint" looking) font on grey background is just wrong. Contrast and readability was much better on the old site.
At least chosing bold fonts makes it an easier read.[/b]
At least chosing bold fonts makes it an easier read.[/b]
John Duncan
Well-known member
bigboss
Moderator
John Duncan
Well-known member
This is seriously bad. An object lesson on how not to construct a website.
Did you pay someone, or did the office junior volunteer?
Did you pay someone, or did the office junior volunteer?
Alec
Well-known member
The last one was worse than the one before, but far better than this one.
Major eye-strain on my nexus 7, in my new glasses.
I think I'm out.
Major eye-strain on my nexus 7, in my new glasses.
I think I'm out.
professorhat
Well-known member
Whilst I think there's room for improvement, it's certainly not all doom and gloom on my part. Definitely easier to read on my iPhone for one thing if I move to Landscape mode. I think the font could do with being a tad smaller if possible (but not by much).
We'll see if all the people who are definitely leaving today are still around in a few weeks time *biggrin*
We'll see if all the people who are definitely leaving today are still around in a few weeks time *biggrin*
My only real complaint is the font like everyone else is saying, i've reduced it to 75% which seems perfect.
This mess should never have been allowed to live, even as a beta. Shame I liked the old site, but can't see myself visiting this one. Was it designed by a summer student doing it for free?
And at least one person here likes it,Anderson, but he meows like a cat so make your own conclusions with that one *ROFL*
ISTE
Well-known member
Andy Clough said:
Fair enough point ... but what about the 60% of user traffic that don't use spartphones/tablets ? Is that not a majority of your users ? Earlier this year a very famous (now infamous) Genealogy site changed their look and feel of their WEB site, partly because, and I quote, "about 40% of our users were accessing the site via smartphones and tablets". Sound familiar ? That Genealogy site had to admit that they screwed it up and are now re-designing their site to make it "look and feel like the old site". They did not count on the "silent majority" getting up and leaving their (subscription) site. They used a horrible looking grey font (like this one), grey and white backgrounds (like this one), a constant use of a mouse roll button (scrolling), nothing fitting on one screen due to narrow blocks of text/pictures. Definetely sounds familiar, did you use the same WEB designers ? They also used the same "Technically, the old site was well past its sell-by date and needed a massive upgrade under the bonnet" excuse, well from my professional past you can indeed update whats under the bonnet but without having to "update" the user interface as well.
I know that WEB sites can detect what user's hardware is, so like a few sites that I use would it not have been better to ceate a "Desktop" version and a "Mobile Device" version ?
Anyway, I actually have a headache from using this new site (seriously, I have, my eyes are having issues with the readability of it) so I'm off to a more easy reading site. If there is just one major change that you do please change the font and the size of the font.
Just got to work and are accessing the site through my PC. Damn it's slow!
Pistonheads did the same sort of thing a while back and on my PC it just doesn't work. Shambles.
The old site surely could have been tweaked rather than all the money involved in a 'new site shambles'?
At least strap on a turbocharger and also change font/backround size and colour please!
Pistonheads did the same sort of thing a while back and on my PC it just doesn't work. Shambles.
The old site surely could have been tweaked rather than all the money involved in a 'new site shambles'?
At least strap on a turbocharger and also change font/backround size and colour please!
MrReaper182
Well-known member
This new site seemed a real mess until I zoomed out to about 70 percent on my 23 inch screen. Now it looks nice, this new site will probably grow on me. It loads quick for me too (not that the old site was slow). I only promlem I now have with the new site is the Post reply button seems a little to big. Not tried it on my ipad air yet.
Really do not like the new site. Too much empty space, very disorientating. Same poor forum functionality and no attempt to improve the quality of content. This update strongly reduces the chances of me using the site.
Ads are so dominant on the new home page I thought I'd been redirected to the LG website by mistake. I then reloaded and it looked like I'd hit Oxfam.
Everything is far too large on my MacBook Pro's 13in screen. Oversized font makes it look like a Ladybird book. Ads are huge above the "fold" and dominate. Search panel enormous - have your designers got no subtlty? There's a reason Google search is so popular - simplicity. You've taken your site in the opposite direction.
Your readership is intelligent and web literate. Please go back to the basics of good web design.
Everything is far too large on my MacBook Pro's 13in screen. Oversized font makes it look like a Ladybird book. Ads are huge above the "fold" and dominate. Search panel enormous - have your designers got no subtlty? There's a reason Google search is so popular - simplicity. You've taken your site in the opposite direction.
Your readership is intelligent and web literate. Please go back to the basics of good web design.
John Duncan said:
Not intentional John, I can assure you, need to get those permissions sorted that's all.
i'v been using the site for a few hours now. some of the new features are good, the site needed a kick into the modern era. However the user exprerience and visual design are terrible - who signed this off??. The last site had a certain class about the way it looked and although it was a bit slow it was pleasing to look at and easy to navigate.
A hobbyists level of visual design and UX (user experience) design has been applied, it looks and feels very amateurish. There are too many 'calls to action (especially in the forum), the colours choices are very poor not allowing users to glance over information quickly to find what they are looking for. The site typography is extremley poor, probably it's biggest failing along with it's oversized and muddled imagery. The visual and UX design has been utterly overlooked - looks like the HTML guy was tasked with those responsibilities.
So not only do we have a hi-fi site that spends more time prattling on about smart phones than hi-fi but we also have a site that is visually confusing. BTW - I turned off my ad blocking software and WOW! - really??
I hope the health of the forums doesn't suffer as I think these are the what hi-fi site's best feature. Alternative (and more in depth) reviews can be found elsehere but the community on what hi-fi has been it's saving grace.
Apologies if this sounds harsh but having worked in the web design industry for the last 12 years as a visual and UX designer I can only say that the technical merits of the new site are lost due to poor design and very poor UX design. I hope you address these things. Good luck.
(btw - I have been a regular visitor for some years although I lost my login details and had to create a new account a couple of months ago)
A hobbyists level of visual design and UX (user experience) design has been applied, it looks and feels very amateurish. There are too many 'calls to action (especially in the forum), the colours choices are very poor not allowing users to glance over information quickly to find what they are looking for. The site typography is extremley poor, probably it's biggest failing along with it's oversized and muddled imagery. The visual and UX design has been utterly overlooked - looks like the HTML guy was tasked with those responsibilities.
So not only do we have a hi-fi site that spends more time prattling on about smart phones than hi-fi but we also have a site that is visually confusing. BTW - I turned off my ad blocking software and WOW! - really??
I hope the health of the forums doesn't suffer as I think these are the what hi-fi site's best feature. Alternative (and more in depth) reviews can be found elsehere but the community on what hi-fi has been it's saving grace.
Apologies if this sounds harsh but having worked in the web design industry for the last 12 years as a visual and UX designer I can only say that the technical merits of the new site are lost due to poor design and very poor UX design. I hope you address these things. Good luck.
(btw - I have been a regular visitor for some years although I lost my login details and had to create a new account a couple of months ago)
simonlewis said:
The size of the font/buttons is clearly an issue, so definitely something we'll address.
Hello,
not directly related to the new look, although with the old one it was not there, article http://www.whathifi.com/samsung/ue40f6500/review has wrong review date, I believe it should be 2013 year. Now it is shown as one of the latest TV review of this year - as it is dated 30 June 2014, while it is 2013 Samsung model.
Best Regards,
not directly related to the new look, although with the old one it was not there, article http://www.whathifi.com/samsung/ue40f6500/review has wrong review date, I believe it should be 2013 year. Now it is shown as one of the latest TV review of this year - as it is dated 30 June 2014, while it is 2013 Samsung model.
Best Regards,
The large font size was mentioned more than once when you asked for feedback during beta, you did mention it was going to be addressed then but it wasn't - I doubt much will change & what we have now apart from small tweaks is probably what will stay - I'm typing this and not only is the font size huge it's also double spaced (frankly it's ridiculous) - The site has been a year in the making so we will either have to live with it or go elsewhere, then the smartphone & tablet uses will increase & those using larger screens will be less so the plan to change will have been vindicated - I beta tested Win 8 & 80% of the feedback MS asked for was negative but they ignored it all & went ahead anyway, now Win 8 is an embarrassment to MS.
I can't go changing the size for one site among the 1,600 in my bookmarks apart from the fact I have many tabs open at the same time.
I can't go changing the size for one site among the 1,600 in my bookmarks apart from the fact I have many tabs open at the same time.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Ortofon m2 black sibilance cartridge or stylus? or something else
- Started by speedthing
- Replies: 80
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram