New site design

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 16, 2009
757
0
0
where it all went right

Dear Greg and Co.,

Please look at his piece of history, http://web.archive.org/web/20020523164822/http://www.cyclingnews.com/

This was where everything went really right. Notice the lack of distracting colours and the ease of finding information. Please, do whatever you want to the code, but get the aesthetic back towards vaguely functional. Seven years of near perfect flushed down the drain. CyclingNews readers read CyclingNews, not Velonews nor Pez, because you could actually read CN.

Now I might as well log onto Velonews and find out what Levi Leipheimer had for breakfast and what colour of denim Michael Ball is planning to use for his next line of jeans...
 
Jun 17, 2009
14
0
0
2002 is perfect! But lets face it, it's not going to go back like this. If the admins of CN want a lesson into correctly integrating old with new, they should look at Haymarket when they took over AtlasF1. Which replaced the old Autosport into the new Autosport, which looks like v2.0 of Atlas. Basically the old Autosport resembles the new CN. Clearly, the editors over there understands their readership, and the strength of what they acquired. Note, they have a subscription edition...

Either way, even if things don't change here, someone out there will bring the ethos of the old CN back. Market dynamics will dictate it.
 
Mar 3, 2009
377
0
0
morephyous said:
If the admins of CN want a lesson into correctly integrating old with new, they should look at Haymarket when they took over AtlasF1. Which replaced the old Autosport into the new Autosport, which looks like v2.0 of Atlas. Basically the old Autosport resembles the new CN. Clearly, the editors over there understands their readership, and the strength of what they acquired. Note, they have a subscription edition...

Apples and oranges my friend. Having worked in motorsport 'till the end of 2006, I know Autosport's story well - it spent four years deciding and continually switching between subscription and non-subscription models. I don't think such a stretch of not even knowing your business model, let alone having a usable website, is a good example at all.

The volume of traffic and content is also not on an equal footing. Cyclingnews posts upwards of 150 features/year, 250 tech items/year, 700 editions of news and covers over 2500 races/year. Autosport covers 3-400 races/year, does very little on the features front and almost nothing on the technical front - news items is a little harder to measure. Creating a website which handles 1/8th isn't a comparable challenge.

Thanks
Greg Johnson
 
CN now doesn't provide the service it used to, news difficult to find and no better than velonews, dare I say it's worse even than **** poor website at cyclingweekly.co.uk!! I hope that hit counts plummet and they go back to the old format as I certainly won't be using it any more.
 
Jun 17, 2009
2
0
0
RUbbish site

New web site is rubbish, sack the designer and go back to the old one. Until then Pezcyclingnews is much easier
 
Jun 17, 2009
2
0
0
Just wanted to express my frustration when trying to navigate the new page.
And it's not about the small things like whether or not the colour is too light or not. It's the entire page. Why would you remove funtionality from the equation and substitute it with flashy design? Do you really know that little about your readers? No longer my frontpage.
 
Mar 23, 2009
66
0
0
scottsmack said:
CN-

For what its worth, I have personally managed site redesigns for major TV networks and media outlets in the U.S. I currently run a company that measures the effectiveness of online advertising and online media, including site UI development and inventory monetization, so I understand all the motives and complications your teams face. I also used to race bikes, participated in the Olympics and raced for 7-11 and Motorola, and CN is how I stay in touch with the sport. In other words, like all of the people who spoke up on your forums, I am a Cyclingnews loyalist and am concerned about its fate.

Your redesign was well-intentioned and has many features that even this group of die-hards will eventually get used to and come to appreciate. However, I have never seen a mutiny of this magnitude among a core user group, and although I know it is tempting to steadfastly stick to your guns and see this through, it would be a bad idea for you and your advertisers to not think very hard about what you're hearing, and the implications of inaction.

As one sage user said, "It is very hard to build brand loyalty, but easy to lose it." This is especially true in online media, where your competition is but a click away. Your core audience is your bread and butter. Anyone who cares about this kind of content is already here, or will eventually hear about it from a core user. There is no "new audience". Your strength has always been in (as another user put it) your reliable, knowledgable, and trustworthy reporting on the many many dimensions of this amazing sport. You are so far ahead of the competition that this audience is yours to lose. You cannot dumb it down for some fictitious broader audience and expect to retain the real, lasting audience that drives your business.

A few themes clearly stick out in the 40 pages of criticism:
- Spoilers
- Live reports
- Simplicity of content access and navigation
- Depth of content (and again, easy access to that depth)
- Loading speed
- Mobile access

None of these are simply trivial design issues; they are critical to the utility of the site and access to its valuable and unique content. The redesign should have identified these as key objectives essential to retain and attract users. In the sit-forward medium of online, function needs to lead form.

Google is an amazing company for many reasons, but the one that is relevant to this situation is this: they embark on plenty of experiments, some requiring huge investments of capital and talent. But when they realize they have made a mistake, they do not hesitate to swallow their pride and move quickly to throw the thing in reverse and get back on track. CN can recapture equity and earn respect by responding to the overwhelming criticism and reverting to the "old site" until the criticism can be digested and, as appropriate, integrated into the new design. It's probably unthinkable for you, just 3 days into the new launch, but you have already started shedding users. You have already damaged brand loyalty by the way things have been handled on the forums. This act would be an act of deference to your audience while you sort out the next steps forward. (On the issue of redesign: There is always a pull for "onward and upward". But consider two of the biggest winners in the online space: Google and Craigslist. Pure utility and simplicity - which fits the medium. To me, CN used to be a Craigslist for cycling. Did you know they earn $120 million dollars with a 30 person staff? Can you imagine how many people would love to "redesign" CL? New is not necessarily better).

You are lucky to have an audience that speaks so loudly, so quickly. Usually users just abandon without a peep. That your audience would speak so loudly says a lot about the value of your content among the plethora of cycling information sites. Harley Davidson is a brand with such strong loyalty that people will get tattoos of the brand. In online media, the ultimate indicator of brand strength is home page designation and visits per day -- both of which you enjoy. Somehow you have managed to stand out and apart from the rest, so great care should be taken not to squander that market position.

If the redesign is driven by revenue goals, then that is important. But do not forget that what attracts advertisers is target audiences and engagement. Retaining those is the prime directive. There are many monetization strategies that can improve revenue and CPM without undermining your audience, which IS your product. One more time: your product is not your cycling content! It is your audience. That's what you sell, isn't it?

Please listen carefully to your audience. Do not let the momentum of the redesign effort and the personal and financial investments that have been made overwhelm the undeniable response from your user community. These cricitisms are not simple design issues; they are critical to your survival.

Scott McKinley
CEO, Factor TG
scottsmack@gmail.com

Hi Scott, and many thanks for your thoughtful post from a position of experience with similar situations to ours.

We are aware what the product we sell is, and who and what pays for the site. The relaunch of CN was driven by the fact that the old site was unmaintainable - it was a set of flat, static HTML pages, uploaded by ftp, edited by hand, without structure. Add to that an antiquated, proprietary way of dealing with ads and a look that we couldn't take to a wider set of customers.

We are listening to our core users, and many of the suggestions are sensible and valid. But certain aspects of the redesign (the visible end) are non-negotiable remits that my team have no authority to meddle with - they stem from commercial concerns that to certain users may seem unpalatable, but when it comes down to it pays for the upkeep and running of the site.

Most of the issues you've summarised above are already in place - not sure where the idea came from that we're abandoning live reports - we're just waiting for the next race to cover. The spoiler issue is an editorial policy and content thing rather than a development issue. Daniel will cover that. Loading speed - many factors affect this - we've tried hard to keep the size of pages down, but inevitably, compared with a flat, plain HTML page, anything more modern will be heavier - we're pushing everything static to CDN so loading should be localised for most users. 'Simplicity' - if by simplicity you mean 'like the old site', that is - flat pages without any kind of structure to the data then yes, that is simple but in our view, too simple. We believe that the current approach allows for data access to any item with no more clicks than the old one once you get used to how it works. It may not be fully correct yet, but we're getting there. Depth of content - the content is the same as before, to the same depth, and should be easier to get to, and cross referenced through consistent related content links and tagging, and - a working, fast, and relevant search function for the first time in CN's history. Mobile access is clearly something that can be improved - the site works fine on my Nokia 5800 with Opera Mini in full render mode, but we know we need to better this.

The Craigslist analogy is an interesting one, although not completely relevant. They do have a very different business model, but an equally passionate user base - and an equally antiquated (but efficient) look. As they're not funded the same way, they're not facing the pressures we do to present a site that's got a pretty coat of paint on it. To court large customers, the site needs to look different from the old-skool look, as I'm sure you appreciate given the business experience you quoted above. Our only alternative would be to turn the site off completely, as otherwise we couldn't maintain it in its old state.

Every redesign of anything established will likely cause an outrage initially. This happened when for example BBC news revamped a few years back - very similar kinds of loud voices in the forums. We believe - from experience with a number of large launches and redesigns to back this up - that the users and customers will see the value in the new functionality once the dust settles a bit.

We now have a platform that we actually can make design updates to and tweak functionality, without having to edit nearly a million flat pages. We have a proper content management system (rather than wordpad and excel) that the production team can use. That means that for the first time we have a realistic chance of actually keeping the site up to date, visually.
 
Jun 17, 2009
8
0
0
Just like nearly half of the other people on here, I joined simply to voice my disappointment with the new website. Having been visiting for years, I'm just not going to bother anymore. It's completely un-user friendly, and would possibly appeal to those only interested in website design, not cycling. .

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118174076322

For those who want the old site back.

A real shame.
 
Mar 12, 2009
67
0
0
Stefan.

Having dealt with the new design for the last couple of days I have not come to like it more, but can at least deal with most of the changes with two exceptions.

Firstly, the rolling banner bit at the top. It cause all sorts of problems for a lot of users in regards to spoilers, loading time, etc. and really restricts the ability of the users who view the site via a Smart Phone. The use of all the flash has resulted in my only being able to view the sight from home as the system at work restricts flash for security reasons.

Secondly, the sunflower background. Do you realise that every time someone trys to load the main page they are forced to download lots of useless information which chews up bandwidth and seriously slows down the page. I suspect, not being a techie, that cookies or something is meant to keep this in memory for each time so that it does not have to repetitively download. You need to take into account that most security settings these days prevent cookies from operating and don't work on smart phones.

For these reasons I have decided to get my news elsewhere so that I can get it in a timely manner.
 
Mar 23, 2009
66
0
0
James Jordan said:
Stefan.

Having dealt with the new design for the last couple of days I have not come to like it more, but can at least deal with most of the changes with two exceptions.

Firstly, the rolling banner bit at the top. It cause all sorts of problems for a lot of users in regards to spoilers, loading time, etc. and really restricts the ability of the users who view the site via a Smart Phone. The use of all the flash has resulted in my only being able to view the sight from home as the system at work restricts flash for security reasons.

Secondly, the sunflower background. Do you realise that every time someone trys to load the main page they are forced to download lots of useless information which chews up bandwidth and seriously slows down the page. I suspect, not being a techie, that cookies or something is meant to keep this in memory for each time so that it does not have to repetitively download. You need to take into account that most security settings these days prevent cookies from operating and don't work on smart phones.

For these reasons I have decided to get my news elsewhere so that I can get it in a timely manner.

Hi James - do you mean the carousel bit? Flash is easy to block out at the user end. The page design should flow appropriately.

Any modern page that lives on adverts will cater for background take-overs, and yes, they do represent non-content download weight. Unfortunately, this sort of thing pays for the site so they will occasionally (not always) be present.

Also, although most security settings do in fact allow for cookies - and they do work on smart phones, too, the CN site does not rely on cookies.
 
Mar 12, 2009
67
0
0
stefan said:
Hi James - do you mean the carousel bit? Flash is easy to block out at the user end. The page design should flow appropriately.

Any modern page that lives on adverts will cater for background take-overs, and yes, they do represent non-content download weight. Unfortunately, this sort of thing pays for the site so they will occasionally (not always) be present.

Also, although most security settings do in fact allow for cookies - and they do work on smart phones, too, the CN site does not rely on cookies.

Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not particularly IT proficient so I have most likely used the wrong terms.

What every you have done to the site has meant that huge sections of it now flag as suspicious content at work, which makes the site totally unreadable as most of the links will no longer work. I asked the IT security guys and they said that the flash content was the problem as it is easy to hide suspect software within it and the total volume now causes problems. We have put in a request for it to be listed as a safe site, but based on history am not holding my breath.

As for working on smart phones, I guess working is a matter of perception. I have a Palm Pro running Mobile 6.1 and it hates the new site. Takes forever to load up the front page and trying to scroll through the page just causes it to lock up. Don'T know what its like on other phones, but its non readable on mine.
 
Mar 23, 2009
66
0
0
James Jordan said:
Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not particularly IT proficient so I have most likely used the wrong terms.

What every you have done to the site has meant that huge sections of it now flag as suspicious content at work, which makes the site totally unreadable as most of the links will no longer work. I asked the IT security guys and they said that the flash content was the problem as it is easy to hide suspect software within it and the total volume now causes problems. We have put in a request for it to be listed as a safe site, but based on history am not holding my breath.

As for working on smart phones, I guess working is a matter of perception. I have a Palm Pro running Mobile 6.1 and it hates the new site. Takes forever to load up the front page and trying to scroll through the page just causes it to lock up. Don'T know what its like on other phones, but its non readable on mine.

James - there are two flash items only on the site (+the occasional flash advert), the carousel (large content show case), and the house ad for Industry Insider, up right. It sounds like your company takes a hard-line approach to security if you block all flash content.

With mobile access - we need to improve, certainly. On my Nokia 5800 with Opera Mini, it works ok in full render mode, but we're aware of shortcomings in support for various mobile Internet Explorer versions.
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
stefan said:
We are listening to our core users, and many of the suggestions are sensible and valid. But certain aspects of the redesign (the visible end) are non-negotiable remits that my team have no authority to meddle with - they stem from commercial concerns that to certain users may seem unpalatable, but when it comes down to it pays for the upkeep and running of the site.

It doesn't really matter who determined the ad vs. content load on the website - regardless of how nice it is to maximise ad revenue, there's a tipping point at which surfers feel too channeled and yelled at to warrant the content.

Not sure if you've reached it already (although personally I'm off to find adblocking tools), but when it happens, designing the site layout to maximise page clickthroughs and ad loads isn't going to look like such a great commercial decision.
 
Mar 23, 2009
66
0
0
yourwelcome said:
It doesn't really matter who determined the ad vs. content load on the website - regardless of how nice it is to maximise ad revenue, there's a tipping point at which surfers feel too channeled and yelled at to warrant the content.

Not sure if you've reached it already (although personally I'm off to find adblocking tools), but when it happens, designing the site layout to maximise page clickthroughs and ad loads isn't going to look like such a great commercial decision.

If you look back, there's actually 1 ad less on the current site compared with the old one.
 
Mar 3, 2009
377
0
0
yourwelcome said:
It doesn't really matter who determined the ad vs. content load on the website - regardless of how nice it is to maximise ad revenue, there's a tipping point at which surfers feel too channeled and yelled at to warrant the content.

As Stefan has pointed out - the idea a few have floated that we've had a horrifying advertising grab is simply baseless. There's a link to the old website on CN for you to view yourself.

The top banner is about 20 pixels wider than previously - otherwise it's status quo. There's no new ad locations.

It's an age old gripe that's brought up on every website.

Cheers
Greg Johnson
 
Jun 15, 2009
18
0
0
stefan said:
Mobile access is clearly something that can be improved - the site works fine on my Nokia 5800 with Opera Mini in full render mode, but we know we need to better this.

Stefan - I usually access the site through my Nokia 95 normally via the symbian browser. With "awkward" websites I switch to Opera Mini in full render mode, so in effect the site should be working as well for me as it does on your Nokia 5800.

I've found three major problems:

i) an Adobe box requesting you download Adobe Flash Player 9 below the various time zones, with all the times bunched up to the left. The carousel is absent (I assume this causes the Adobe Flash thing - there's a similar problem with the Symbian browser).

ii) The drop down for Stage report/results/overall standings overlaps the title of the article as rather than being one line width as per PC version, it is now split onto two lines.

iii) The Show More links don't work so you can't expand any of the result categories and are restricted to the top 10 (another Symbian problem).

Now I've thought it could be just my phone, but all three of these problesm exist if you visit the site using Opera Mini's own Simulator:

http://www.opera.com/mini/demo/

Hope that helps you troubleshoot.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
manolo said:
I love this idea! Would it be possible to do that?...

Sure; it'll cost you the full-time salaries of about five people with html, Photoshop, regular expression and Excel skills. Send us your bank details and we'll set up a direct debit.

The old site was a nightmare to update. It required an arcane set of skills that were hard to find in any one individual and rarely combined with knowledge of cycling and ability to write.

It's not, under any circumstances, coming back.

Teething troubles aside, what we have now is a platform that allows Cyclingnews to grow both journalistically and as a business.
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
Greg Johnson said:
As Stefan has pointed out - the idea a few have floated that we've had a horrifying advertising grab is simply baseless. There's a link to the old website on CN for you to view yourself.

The top banner is about 20 pixels wider than previously - otherwise it's status quo. There's no new ad locations.

It's an age old gripe that's brought up on every website.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

In that case it's the new visual loudness of the animated content that's causing the sensory overload. Whichever way you look at it, the ads have to work with the content, and the old site's content was obviously clear and quiet enough to invite reading while supporting the same ad load. That balance was changed.
 
Jun 16, 2009
8
0
0
stefan said:
But certain aspects of the redesign (the visible end) are non-negotiable remits that my team have no authority to meddle with


This is the key to your misunderstanding, we - the users - only see this visible end.
It's the most important, the new site has not improved the visible end at all.

Tip 1) after persisting for 2 days - get rid of all the underlined text, it is very difficult to read. You have so much info on the screen that underlining simply adds to the congestion.

Tip 2) Replace the flash header with the breaking news feeds. Then move the daily news summaries up the page to the space vacated by the breaking news.

Tip 3) Make complete race results the default, not the option

Tip 4) Give a spoiler free section under 'Road' so users can bookmark this tab and bypass the home page if they wish.

You guys must be surprised at the volume of criticism, I suspect that CN staff were expecting praise for the redesign... cant wait for this weeks podcast!
 
Mar 3, 2009
377
0
0
JamesB said:
You guys must be surprised at the volume of criticism, I suspect that CN staff were expecting praise for the redesign... cant wait for this weeks podcast!

Not at all. You can't change anything on a website without criticism - and lots of it. It's happened on previous occasions when we've changed small things, let alone on this scale.

We knew what was coming. The reality is people speak up when unhappy and stay silent when they're happy - just the way it works.

Besides - it's great feedback. We're already kicked a few goals as a result and there's several more changes in the works which will role out before the Tour de France starts.

Cheers
Greg Johnson
 
Jun 16, 2009
12
0
0
Greg Johnson said:
Not at all. You can't change anything on a website without criticism - and lots of it. It's happened on previous occasions when we've changed small things, let alone on this scale.

We knew what was coming. The reality is people speak up when unhappy and stay silent when they're happy - just the way it works.

Besides - it's great feedback. We're already kicked a few goals as a result and there's several more changes in the works which will role out before the Tour de France starts.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

The new site sucks.....we can't say it any clearer.
 
Jun 17, 2009
3
0
0
new site = fail

sorry guys, it looks like a weak template was used where you needed a fresh pair of eyes to to think about what the site is about… this looks like a senior center circular. i already miss the old layout, what was the matter with that? were there so many complaints that you had to address it?

old saying: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. if you feel you MUST fix it, despite it's not being broke, try to add to what you have… really, really disappointed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.