8 Comments Add your own

• 1. James  |  April 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  I would enlarge the fonts and add more negative space (can’t exactly call it whitespace). The tight layout manages to make a small amount of content and one ad still look cluttered.

  I’m not sure what I think about all the content moving on its own (scrolling by in boxes), rather than just letting me move it with a single, time-honored scrollbar. I do know that I don’t see a need for all the different tabs and scrolls in the first place. Just put all the stories in plain view. Let me see it all rather than make me play hide and seek with it. (Am I channeling Jakob Nielsen?)

• 2. Jason Parker  |  April 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

  I agree, needs more padding, more separation of the content. It’s like they were afraid of making users scroll, but that’s absolutely fine! Otherwise, I really like to overall look and feel of the site.

  I also like the inclusion of video headlines, but I have one major complaint about it. I clicked on the headline about the San Francisco bridge ramp, and was presented with a full 30-second Slim-Fast commercial. 30-seconds is long for a pre-roll online ad, not to mention that it had to buffer twice, creating a grand total of at least 50 seconds of waiting–an eternity on the internet–for a 37 second news clip that also buffered a few times. I’ve got a 3 mb/sec connection on campus and the video isn’t exactly high-quality, so I’m sure that the problem wasn’t on my end. The loading times were far too long. People will not sit and wait that long for news videos.

• 3. GC  |  April 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

  Ick! This is a joke, right? Where are the UI desingers? Did anyone give any consideration to how people browse web sites at all? Is it possible to constrain a layout any more? It’s funny– it was clear that they’d outgrown their old design; now I can’t imagine why they’d paint themselves into an even smaller corner.

  Every section looks EXACTLY the same. Multiple scrolly boxes in a layout is evil– how’re people supposed to use their mouse’s scroll wheel now?!

  Either this was mandated by someone freaking out about content being below-the-fold, or this is clearly evidence of exactly why you shouldn’t keep your production team separated from your content people.

  Incredible.

• 4. FLOTSAM  |  April 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  sorry cory, but it is a mess.

  video player on the right with no clear indication of what you are going to get when you click.

  breaking news and other stuff in a box on the right with no clear indication of what you are going to get whether you click or not.

  a breakingnews banner at the top in a type face that is mystifying.

  and then a dog’s breakfast of other content kinds of things.

  can someone explain the logic here.

  I think April’s “ick:” is right on point.

• 5. Swift Loris  |  April 29th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

  So I’m watching the video of the SF highway collapse, and I keep being distracted by stuff scrolling every few seconds off to the sides and bottom. Also, there’s a headline and then a line of text right below the video screen; the text obviously continues, but there’s no way to scroll to see the rest of it.

  The second item under Top Headlines reads, “Guide to New ABCNEWS.com — Icons to The Right Are for Story & Slideshow.” What icons? What story? What slideshow? Click on the item, you get a page about the new design, but nothing I can find about “icons to the right.” So that remains a mystery.

  Headline: “The Green Room: Poke the Puma.” What?? Clicked on it to see what it was about, got stuck with a commercial, not a hint of what the story’s about until it’s done. Phooey. I’m not that curious.

  OK, that’s enough frustration for one day…

• 6. Mark Moulding  |  April 30th, 2007 at 2:19 am

  I don’t object to the concise layout on the homepage per se - but I do think the section index pages should be a bit more detailed.

  For example, in the ‘world’ section, there doesn’t seem to be any breakdown by continent or region, which makes the whole thing a bit of a muddle. And, in the US section, I clicked on ‘State by State’ expecting a detailed list of stories by State - but just seemed to get about a dozen links sorted in a slightly different order.

  I like the ‘news summary’ page - as it’s an easy-on-the eye digest of all the main section headlines. Although there’s an argument that this is what the homepage should be doing in the first place.

  But what I really like about the new site is the array of Web 2.0 features as mentioned on here. The Comments are given prominence alongside the story, rather than shoved at the bottom - and the Add New Facts feature is a master stroke.

• 7. yatta  |  April 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am

  On first glance, yeah, the changes look good but when you actually try *using* a bunch of their participatory features it’s an arcane mess. What’s the difference between “Comment” and “Discuss and Debate”? Why do I need to go through a six page registration process to do either? Why is “Contribute” separate from “submit video”? Why do I have to sit through a 15 second commercial in order to watch instructions on uploading video? And why is Amanda Congdon’s video ess than half the size of the accompanying image? Isn’t that supposed to be a videoblog? :-/

• 8. MyTake  |  April 30th, 2007 at 8:33 am

  I happen to like it.
  The site does feel cramped and a bit too jammed onto one page, but the feel is sleek and in many ways, better organized than it used to be.

  I assume the idea is to focus on video, accessibility and convenience. If you compare it to CNN or MSNBC;’s where they opt to put everything on the front page, i think the ABC page offers a more broadband-oriented multimedia package that directs the user to the most topical and relevant mix of what is happening now.

  If you want a site that gives you absolutely everything on one page, create a customized RSS page!

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed