A Cautionary Tale of a Homepage Redesign
July 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Written by Yan Shikhvarger
In early May, The Economist relaunched its homepage. Upon launch, the editor extolled the great new features and the purpose of the redesign in a letter to the readers: "We wanted to do three main things -- make the page simpler, deeper and more enjoyable for the reader." The editor continued to praise the new simplicity: "We have removed long lists of articles and replaced them with a pithier selection. The navigation that runs down the left-hand side of the page, and throughout the site, is now completely visible right away, with no need to scroll down "below the fold"."
In a similar style, the editor continued to praise such features as "most read" articles, main rotating feature area, etc...to sum up, the editor hoped that users "find the new home-page as a whole a big improvement. But change is not always welcome, and we won't have got everything right in one go. So we'd welcome your views, negative as well as positive."
Well, it was surprising to see that a majority of the 300+ comments generated in just a few days by the editor's letter expressed deep negativity towards the home page refresh. It is important to note that they were not particularly specific in their feedback. Just some of the comments are below:
"The old homepage was vastly superior. I can't even begin to describe the monstrosity that this new page is. It is hard to navigate, the colors are nasty, and the overall structure of the pages is terrible. Please, bring back the old look."
"I have set a week as a dead line to make a comment on the new website design and layout... I still don't like it at all. With the former site I used to wonder somehow
"aimlessly" and by the end of the week I read almost all the new content without losing interest, I knew where to find stuff and new topics just came out to my eyes and I liked that.. With the new layout I lose interest right away... it doesn't deliver all the options, it seems to work perfectly for people looking for something specific, but not for people like me.. who enjoy gathering different information from the wide variety of subjects."
"I do not like it. New page is simple, but less information."
"Please bring back the classic layout. I gave the new layout a chance to grow on me. I tried really hard but to no avail. The website has lost its charm."
"The Economist, once written for the bright and intelligent, seems to be addressing halfwits by now. What a shame they are going down the drain."
"One expected more (and better) from the Economist. BBC "changed" not long ago. In fact you (Economist) now look too 'BBCish'. The fading pictures on the front page are a useless gimick..."
While of course this is not a representative sample of the site's users, there do seem to be several patterns within this barrage of dissatisfaction.
- The redesign is taken to be off-brand by many readers that feel that the magazine is catering for a very different (and unqualified) audience.
- The simplification of the homepage and quick access to articles has led to the loss of serendipity that comes with the experience of reading a magazine. Discovering an article by chance is no longer a possibility. The new search engine experience with featured readings is what the readers are revolting against.
- Users' familiarity with the old site can make them resistant to change.
One must try to take these factors into consideration, especially in the case of a publication-type site with a loyal following. If the redesign got its goals correct, then users should welcome the change. Greater simplicity may not have been what the readers of The Economist wanted.
« Prev
Main
Next »