Comments on: You Can’t Opt-In to Redesigns

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:23:53 +0000

@Ben R, I'm not condoning bad design choices. If critiscism has any merit, it should be acted upon.

A good example of my argument is CNET.com's recent redesign. When it was released (as well as when it was being bucket tested) the userbase was split between people who liked the redesign, and people who loudly didn't. Comparing the two designs, they're dramatically different stylistically, but the new one is much better organized. Especially the front page. Also, you'll notice that you don't see many complaints about the design anymore, yet their userbase hasn't shrunk. My theory is a large group of people didn't like it at first simply because it was different, and now that they've gotten used to it, they don't care so much about the change. The Facebookers who totally hated the redesign are quieting down a bit now too. I think people are just against change.

And anyway, people use a website for the content or services offered, not for the design. The design should make it easier to use said content and services, as well as making it visually appealing. If a redesign makes it easier to do so, then I think the users will end up liking it better in the long run, faced with a choice between that and a stagnating old design that just doesn't meet the current requirements of the site and its users.

You can't please everyone with a redesign, so in the end you just have to go with the majority, I suppose.

By: Ben R

Ben R — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:37:35 +0000

Funny you should comment on the amount of new complaints that now come with site redesigns. I’ve been watching the comments blog about the recent News.com.au redesign with interest. Much of it is plain old “I liked the old one better” but I think much of the criticism has some merit.� One thing that companies and designers have to take into account when remaking a site is not just what would make it “better”, but whether “better” will attract visitors or drive them away. One example useless “betterness” in the site above is the personalisation� feature which allows you to drag section (but only the main ones, not the sidebar) into any order you want (but not remove them completely or add optional ones). Common complaints are that sections that people do want are no longer easy to find or not linked on the front page at all, and sections that they don’t want are still stuck cluttering up the page.If you’re going to make something “better”, make it the better that your visitors want and not better just because you can.� After all, visitors equal money, and telling them to cop unwanted change because it’s “free” completely dismisses what web development is all about: visitors. Without visitors, you may as well not have a website.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:47:36 +0000

"When you consider something like yahoo mail where they are just changing the interface and adding a few features, it’s not difficult to keep a couple versions going."

Do you work for Yahoo? Speak for yourself. It does take resources, and a considerable amount of them.

Now, I'm not entirely against people complaining about redesigns. What I'm against is people complaining just because something changes. If someone has constructive criticism, not just "how dare you change it," that's all well and good. I don't like it when people think they "own" a site and have a right for it to stay the same permanently. Especially free services.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:34:24 +0000

I agree with you to an extent. With any desktop application, a user is given a choice about whether or not they want to upgrade to a new version. Now that more and more applications are web based, people are expecting the same sort of luxuries they previously enjoyed. When you consider something like yahoo mail where they are just changing the interface and adding a few features, it’s not difficult to keep a couple versions going. People are angry at facebook because they aren’t just redesigning, they’re changing the whole system from the way you interact with your profile to how you use applications. I think people should continue to complain when they don’t like the changes.

By: curtismchale

curtismchale — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:58:46 +0000

Hotmail/Live Mail got stuck offering two different designs for a long time. They are currently stream lining the two hopefully using the best of both worlds. Users like what they know but you’re right it’s free stop complaining.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:38:31 +0000

Steven, great analogy. Of course, it’s not just Facebook doing that. The whole – must I say it? – “Web 2.0″ sphere is trying to bill themselves as being “your” start page, “your” photos, “your” profile, “your” whatever. Sure, it makes sense, but it probavly is a major factor in the “users believe they own your business” problem.

I guess there’s no changing that mindset though, short of being called “the next Microsoft” by your users, which is even worse than redesign complaints.

Your bedroom/office comment is a great analogy for it…

By: Steven Clark

Steven Clark — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:06:51 +0000

Particularly with something like Facebook, rather than people feeling they are visiting your home they actually have this mental model / world view that says they own this tiny portion of the Web, it’s theirs. It’s the worldview that has been sold to them by Facebook, to some extent.It reminds me of conversations with computer people – techies even – when we talk about losing our folders and files. The desktop metaphor doesn’t actually exist inside a computer, just 1s and 0s, so there are no files or folders to talk about. And we kind of know it, but it’s still our mental model of a computer.Facebook resistance reminds me of when children arrive home to visit at 25 and we get the “who changed my bedroom” speach… nowdays its my office.Yes it’s getting a little off the rails when someone believes they own your business – great for selling but not necessarily nice to handle the disgruntled customers.