Rant Oh dear god the world's ended (BBC News changed)

I really don't get how you guys can consider the addition of loads of whitespace an improvement over what was an efficient and usable website.

 

It hasn't gone web 2.0 at all, it's exactly the same layout but for dumb people.

 

Bit too much spacing and large fonts (you can downsize the ones on the front page thankfuly) but other than that I reckon it's quite nice.

 

I hate the new version. The old one was perfect. The new one is too 'modern and 'hip''

 

Yes, that's my experience on most news sites. This one's not bad. Boring, but utilitarian ( -and for the BBC, that's very appropriate.)

 

I think the word is 'conservative'.

 

Bigger font and pictures are a thumbs up from me but I hate the rest. Make it efficient and quick to use, not this web 2.0 shite.
Also, it seems a lot less serious with the new design. It's the news, not a blog of a web designer.

 

Address your complaints here, unless you're "Fatima" and have done already.

You could C&P some of Wireframe's if you're stuck for words.

 

Already posted a complaint into a editorial that came after this. Not sure what you're on about by the "Wireframe's" bit.

And obviously, I don't care about video or audio being embedded into pages. That sort of thing can generally be easily blocked if I desire, or just not started. What annoys me is the new layout, which reduces the efficiency and functionality of the site - I object to the reduction of usefulnes in the name of prettyness.

 

I may complain about the poor standard of English creeping in;

 

You're complaining about the superfluous 's' or have I missed something else? I'm sure it's an honest typo .

 

You've gone down in my estimation.

"for free" - 'for' is redundant. And 'trains and tram services' is wrong. Unless, of course, the trains are not classed as a public service.

 

It has a nicer, cleaner feel to it. I knida like it

 

I agree on the latter (it's what I originally thought you meant) but I'm not so sure about the former. If it were written "can travel free" then wouldn't that imply that they could travel freely and thus anywhere they choose?

I'll admit I've no formal understanding of English but I've been speaking it for 2 decades so I might have picked up a thing or two .

 

I believe most journalist style guides (certainly both the ones I've read the majority of) reccomend removal of the "for" in "for free", mostly as a way to increase readability, decrease word count, and improve flow. Not sure what the more official rules on the matter would be, since journalism generally goes for best readability, not adherance to the most proper rules of language.

Personally I can sympathise with the Beeb for writing "for free" - the word free in English is somewhat confusing to foreigners at times, with it's multiple meanings. Shoulda stuck with Latin so we should.

 

It gets the green underline treatment in MS Word 2003; Chambers marks it as 'colloquial'.

A sorry pass when MS are a more reliable authority on the English language than the BBC.

 

White space is extremely functional - it helps break up the page into digestible chunks rather than having to deal with a wall of text.

Of course I'm not from the UK so I never frequent the BBC's site and as such can't compare it to the old version, but there you are.

 

Like I said Firehed, perhaps I'm just not retarded enough, but I never had any problems with the old site. I knew exactly where all the information was, and I could get to exactly where I wanted to be in a small number of seconds. It was extremely functional before. Now it's pretty, nothing more.

And agreed cpemma, considered e-mailing them to ask for an explanation?

 

If I didn't know better, I would have sworn that this comment was copied and pasted from any one of the times Bit-Tech changed the forum layout. As usual, over time people get used to the new format and end up using the site with the same functionality as before (if not improved a little). Then the layout changes and the cycle repeats itself.

-monkey