Wow, Poynter wasn’t kidding about being responsive to feedback
Yesterday, I suggested that it might be the worst idea ever for Poynter to open up its beta site to feedback before it had gone live. Today, I’m starting to rethink that position thanks to an email from Poynter Online Director Julie Moos.
Hi, Jake. Thanks for tumbling about Poynter’s redesign. It’s possible this will prove to be one of the worst ideas I’ve ever had, but our readers feel so strongly about the site that the sooner I can involve them in the changes we’re about to make, the better. (I learned this from our last two redesigns, which we sprung on users in 2002 and 2008, to much mutual misery, especially related to reading Romenesko.)
So far, the feedback has been positive, and since we’re actually pretty far along in the process (we know where the content is going, we just want to know whether our taxonomy makes sense to users), I think there’s more harm in getting too far ahead of them than in risking exposure too early.
So, I’m hoping your “good idea” tag is the one that predicts the future, but if I’m wrong, it won’t be the first or last time ;)Julie
In the last couple of weeks, we’ve been treated to two very different approaches to unveiling a redesign where a site’s audience is especially opinionated. Gawker (and Hard Candy Shell) chose to “leak” their beta site, but they’re benefiting from the early exposure just the same as Poynter. It will be interesting to see how different the launched products are from their beta versions.
There are few more divisive issues in web design than dropdowns. For the haters, dropdowns represent interlopers, little unwanted surprises of information overload. The reaction is instant, visceral, maddening. For the apologist, the argument in favor of dropdowns is always utilitarian. (Nobody ever talks about a beautiful dropdown.) Think of the clutter, they say. Think of how much space on the homepage is saved and how cleaner your nav bar looks. It’s a necessary evil!
Typically, there is no compromise. But that doesn’t mean designers don’t try.
Which brings us to ESPN’s recent facelift in which they’ve gone all in on dropdowns. Frankly, they’re now the king of dropdowns. Their Super Bowl-sized dropdowns, mini-homepages in their own right, put all other dropdowns to shame (except for maybe MSNBC’s drop-ups). They’ve used the added space to spruce up the dropdown, adding photos and a variety of links. It’s now easier on the eyes, even if it is covering half of the homepage. So, have they given you dropdown envy?
From a user perspective, I have to say it works quite smoothly and the appeal is immediate. The user doesn’t have to click through to another page to find out the top stories in the bucket they’re interested in. Also, they’re so large that the user is not tormented by the wayward mouse arrow that closes so many traditional dropdowns before the user is done with them.
The header is all much cleaner. They’ve made room to advertise their local sites and for a thin banner ad (which seem to be growing in popularity). The logo is once again at the top of the page, above the scores. And best of all, bye bye gradient! The nav bar is now a slick black, which just a hint of gradient on the end.
Two radio-related sites, two very different ways to feature a logo.
With its recent redesign, WNYC, the celebrated home of Radiolab (perhaps the best radio show … ever), followed in the footsteps of Newsweek and placed its logo in the top right-hand corner of its website. While in this case, the overall effect is very sharp (the entire redesign is, really), don’t expect too many news sites to follow suit. WNYC.org is unique in that it uses the area in the right rail, above the fold for content, rather than ads. (Directly beneath their logo, WNYC.org features its radio shows.) I doubt too many sites that have ads above the fold in the right rail are going to be rushing to put their logo above them.
This brings me to another radio-related site that I happened upon recently, ThisAmericanLife.org. They have chosen an entirely different approach to their logo, which is quite large and situated beneath the top navigation and in the left rail. What I found interesting is that the logo and the top navigation bar never move, regardless of whether the user has to scroll down. It works.
Both placements have their drawbacks. In case of WNYC.org, perhaps it’s doing too little for their logo, while This American Life could be accused of doing too much. But they both represent bold choices that give their websites a unique flavor.
With MSNBC.com’s hidden headlines nav above their header fresh in my mind, I stumbled upon something similar on menupages.com. When you click “Change City” in the top nav, the page drops to reveal a menu that runs the length of the top of the page. It’s a little slicker than having the menu drop beneath the top nav, which is more typical. Bottom line: It works. The user clicks and is conveniently shown their options.
What can MSNBC.com learn from this?
Perhaps they should offer the reader an option to click on a tab to see the “top headlines,” which would prompt the hidden nav to appear at the top. I still don’t think any action on the part of the reader will make it work. The idea of having a list of top headlines is to entice the reader into clicking into another one of your stories, thereby serving another ad impression and keeping the reader on your site that much longer. But how is the reader supposed to be enticed by a hidden menu. I am a fan of the overall redesign and there is no quesiton this particular feature looks sharp. But what good is it if no one sees it?
MSNBC has gone “big” with their redesign. I’m a little late to comment, but I don’t frequent msnbc.com as much as I used to when I worked at NYDailyNews.com. And yes, in their new design, everything is certainly bigger: the headlines, the photos, the galleries, the videos and last, but not least, the pages. The new design capitalizes aggressively on the infinite vertical space which is the Internet’s blessing and curse. Gone is the focus on click-throughs, the staple of the aughts web economy. This new design, which is entirely focused on the interior pages—there have been only cosmetic changes to the homepage—practically eliminates all of the little tricks news sites use to gain pageviews: no pagination and galleries, video, discussion, etc., are all embedded in the articles.
This doesn’t mean, however, that all annoyances have been eliminated. The ads that were removed from the right rail to give the page a less cluttered feel now appear as a horizontal strip in the articles, cutting off the text mid-article. There’s a lot of scrolling, unless you use their right-oriented tiny icon navigation system, which should come with a manual to remember what they do. What’s more is the designers anticipate people will scroll up to discover a hidden dashboard of headlines. This is something new—as in, I’ve never seen that before—but I am not convinced it will be very popular. I’ve heard of below the fold, but above above the fold? I would be very curious to see that heat map.
Overall, I have a to say the design is a bit radical. Not because of its “big”-ness, but because of its departure from the pageview economy.
BBC News dumps left-side nav in latest redesign. See what else they’re changing.
Last Newsweek.com post of the day! Nay … week! Newsweek.com’s redesign includes an intriguing approach to linkage. It’s called “The Spectrum” and it links off of Newsweek.com (not before taking you to a landing page, of course) to opinion pieces around the Web that relate to their top featured story on the homepage. What’s different is that they ascribe an emotion to each opinion piece. Does that work for you? I’m all for linkage. And this definitely got my attention.
