|
(The first half is about website layouts. The second half is about "text" vs "icons".) (Edit - I just realize this is sort of two completely different topics in one >.>. Though both have to do with how I liked the older layout or interface to certain things. Also these are just my personal preferences; I know there are good reasons to do some changes.)
Lately there have been several websites which changed their layout from simple to use to what they call "a sleeker" site.
Newegg, wikia, youtube (starting now), gmail, yahoo, and so on have gone this route.
Do you like how websites are changing?
For me I personally dislike it because in most cases the changes have changed from clear, clean, and usable to "fancier looking" (not better but just fancier looking).
Here are some examples (from worst to not as bad):
1. Yahoo - The new version of yahoo mail is slower than the previous one (probably due to using mostly flash or something). Old one was like what gmail is now - Clear, clean, and usable.
2. Gmail - It's going the same way as the above >.<. The new look is in beta testing though .
3. Wikia - The difference between the old and new is that the old layout looked similar to what Wikipedia currently looks like. Dislike the change but at least you can change it to how wikipedia looks if you're logged on. Everyone hates this change so this is one where everyone happens to agree.
4. Youtube - Everything is bigger and the site feels more sluggish. (Take note some people may still see youtube in the old look. The new look is in beta and automatically set to random people.)
5. Newegg - The product image is bigger than before + now the specification is highlighted. Reviews are put off to the side rather than being in clear view as the previous layout. (Not too bad of a change though actually.)
Overall what do you guys think? I find the websites don't look better at all and in a lot of cases there are more negatives than positives (IMO).
Now something similar but different (not related to websites but other stuff) - Icons vs text:
I prefer Firefox 2.0 + 3.0 than Firefox 4.0+ look. While "minimalistic" is good, sometimes focusing too much on to it is wrong.
For example + Show Spoiler +.
See how everything is all in one place, it's detailed, and it's easy to use? The newer versions of Firefox however make it minimalistic (to find all the options you want, you have to hunt for it) and text has been replaced with icons in a lot of places.
In Starcraft 2 galaxy editor, something similar happened. Instead of being able to scroll through all the options in data editor with ease, they recently have categorized it and forced you to either use buttons or click through several menus to get what you want. Now it takes 2-3 seconds longer to get the option I want (while not major it is annoying and disappointing).
Also about operating systems:
Windows XP/Vista to Windows 7:
Click
First I know you can change the taskbar to look similar to Windows before 7. However what I can't seem to figure out is if you can change how you view grouped tasks in the taskbar.
When you click on a grouped icon (like say the folder button with 10 folders open), it only shows previews of the folders rather than text + the name.
I couldn't find the option to change it back (I was testing Windows 7 only for a bit. I'm currently using Vista ATM) so I assume this is forced upon? If so I am disappointed  .
I tried using Paint on Windows 7 too and same thing happened. It looks more fancy but I can't figure out things because everything is in "huge" icons now. What happened to using text guys with all the options at the top in plain view?
Same deal with Microsoft Word to Microsoft Word 2007. What's with the overuse of buttons/icons rather than detailed text >.<? (Well at least an alternative is Open Office, which uses text rather than icons.)
Anyone play Counter-Strike 1-1.6? Remember how no one bothered using the GUI look but used the text only to buy weapons and change weapons? That's because the GUI look was just cluttery and hard to navigate while the text worked.
That's how I feel about the whole situation.
(Also there's no way to disable auto arranging in folders in Windows 7. I'm disappointed Microsoft because I like having my things set the way they are (when I work with a lot of files in folders).)
Anyway what are your thoughts on this?
Do you prefer text or icons/previews in menus (like the difference between Windows before 7 and Windows 7)? Also what do you think of how website layouts are changing?
|
Youtube is now a gray blob. Not a fan, they progressively make it different (usually slightly worse) but don't build in functions that I want. I have to use flashblock to stop videos from auto-starting on their site for example.
|
I'm iffy on the new Gmail. I like it but at the same time it's still seems a little off. I don't know how I feel about it yet.
|
I hate the new youtube one. A downgrade from the much simpler format from before.
|
There's a few things I hate about most current website designs, and youtube seems to have all of these problems. The first thing is when websites look cluttered because they are trying to fit too much stuff on one page. Usually they try to avoid this by making it so that you can use tabs to look at a variety of information without having to change the page, however that leads them to the second problem. The second problem is that the websites do not run fast enough. This is usually either because the website has a lot of ads that have to load, or the website has a lot of flash scripts that have to load. I just don't understand why speed and efficiency are not the top priorities for website design. The last and most annoying thing is the need to link everything to facebook or your email address in an attempt to "share". Fuck, its the most annoying thing in the world, I think its literally impossible now to have a youtube account that is not connected to an email. And it gives me this creepy feeling that everyone is watching what I do on the internet. I wish sites would be designed more in a fashion similar to TL/Wikipedia, where it relies on text and is very fast to navigate.
As for the new youtube layout, I think I would be alright with it if I could customize it completely. Like take away all the recommended for you garbage and replace everything on the left bar with a list of my subscriptions. The way it is now though makes it hell to try and keep up with subscriptions if you have more than 15 or so.
|
I actually really like the new youtube. I love how you can click any of your subcriptions and it doesn't even need to load a new page to list all of their recent uploads in order of date, and I'm glad I don't have to choose to either look at the list of my subscriptions or the reccomended videos, they are on the same page now :D
|
I like the new youtube.... I know it's strange to hear someone not be negative on the forums  But the layout is much easier to control. Instead of youtube just vomitting everything at you and you have to sort through it, you now have a handy toolbar on the left hand side and you can sort it yourself. I don't find it slugginsh at all. Google didn't change much but I do like the new layout. Google+ is sick and I think these changes are a step in the right direction.
|
On December 02 2011 12:44 Goldfish wrote:
1. Yahoo - The new version of yahoo mail is slower than the previous one (probably due to using mostly flash or something). Old one was like what gmail is now - Clear, clean, and usable.
I find it funny you bring up flash since it isn't using flash. This is what the flash haters have been asking for and it is all done using JavaScript. The websites you are looking at are web applications not websites in a traditional sense.
|
The new youtube layout is okay. It could better I think. I like the new yahoo layout but I still think the old one was best though.
|
I like the new Gmail, if for no other reason than now the background images actually fill the unused parts of the screen. Otherwise I don't notice much of a difference. Controlling the page spacing without zooming in the browser is nice, I guess.
Wikipedia looks different? I didn't notice. I don't use Yahoo or Newegg, so no preference there. I don't really care about Youtube either, but I guess it's fine. I would rather the "trending" and "popular" bullshit be off my screen, but whatever. It makes me think of how every time Facebook changes the way it looks, everyone throws a hissy fit and then two weeks later nobody cares, until the next time it changes, and so on. Meh.
|
On December 02 2011 14:32 nekoconeco wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 12:44 Goldfish wrote:
1. Yahoo - The new version of yahoo mail is slower than the previous one (probably due to using mostly flash or something). Old one was like what gmail is now - Clear, clean, and usable.
I find it funny you bring up flash since it isn't using flash. This is what the flash haters have been asking for and it is all done using JavaScript. The websites you are looking at are web applications not websites in a traditional sense.
Well it isn't using good old basic HTML then >.> (of course I know neither is gmail unless you set it to do that specifically).
Though after using the new Yahoo, the speed does feel the same to me as the old one (guess it was having problems when they first started? I just remember it being slow at first).
I still get lag sometimes when clicking some things (like switching from inbox to any other category) as opposed to the old though.
On December 02 2011 15:03 Iranon wrote:
I like the new Gmail, if for no other reason than now the background images actually fill the unused parts of the screen. Otherwise I don't notice much of a difference. Controlling the page spacing without zooming in the browser is nice, I guess.
Wikipedia looks different? I didn't notice. I don't use Yahoo or Newegg, so no preference there. I don't really care about Youtube either, but I guess it's fine. I would rather the "trending" and "popular" bullshit be off my screen, but whatever. It makes me think of how every time Facebook changes the way it looks, everyone throws a hissy fit and then two weeks later nobody cares, until the next time it changes, and so on. Meh.
"Wikia" looks different. Stuff like starcraft.wikia.com (for example) or other sites using wikia.
As for the whole people complain then no one cares - Well it's because it's futile. For things like youtube or facebook the problem is there is no real alternative or competition. They can do whatever they want and people will have to deal with it unless some super good alternative exists.
I'd gladly pay Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Blizzard good money for alternatives (considering how much I use windows, gmail, firefox, and sc2 editor >.>). I'd totally paypal Bill Gates $50 right now if he allows Windows 8 to look and behave like Vista with things like being able to disable auto arrange inside folders and stuff like that >.>.
In any case I know I have to deal with it but still I always want some of the old stuff.
Change is fine as long as the loss of features is minimal (especially important ones like being able to disable auto arrange in Windows 7 >.>). With the SC2 editor (for example) I want the old one back (with all the categories in one scrollable drop down menu) because it reduces the time it takes to do things (the new one takes 2-3 seconds longer to select a new category as opposed to the old one).
|
I like the new YouTube layout aesthetically, but its functionality is pretty bad. (The front page at least)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vndwc.png)
