This new design makes me....

03-30-2002 | smith288

[AppyPappy]

The old site was SOOOO 1998. It's 2002. We need something more customizable.

[A Navy Vet]

"We need something more customizable."

I like some of the new features. My problem is with the design layout. It's busy, confusing, and tends to make the eyes wander. Marketing people know that a site interface should have certain intuitiveness to help initial viewers and keep people coming back. This doesn't have it, although it is quite pretty and sooooooo 21st century.

[NormsRevenge]

Mr. Gorbachev-Robinson..:-\ Tear down that website ....urrr wall that separates those who can left and right mouse click and use a search engine but fear the new things that confront them.

The site is fine,, hell it just got put online ... The advisory says you Have been heard and changes , more changes will be made..

Stop the whining already...






SEMPER FI

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't find my eye wandering. The frame content is familiar now, and my eye only goes there when there is bolding to see. I think it is grouped nicely, so I don't understand the problem. I think the look is classy, and well organized.

[A Navy Vet]

"The frame content is familiar now,..."

You just made my point. A new reader shouldn't have to become "familiar" with the layout. It should read easy. A change in fonts here and there would help, as well as, eliminating (1) side bar. Although this is all very subjective, some of the web designers here have made similar comments to mine.

[HairOfTheDog]

No I didn't make your point. The time from "unfamiliar" to "familiar" was about a minute. I don't think you will find a cleaner discussion board anywhere.

So some of you web-designers think you know better, and some of the Non-web designers like me find it easy to figure out, and easy to read. You guys are starting to sound like a bunch of grumpy old professors that think they know best... but everyone else tires of listening to.

Lighten up, and try to look at with a slightly open mind. It is very pretty, and functions better than the old version, which was almost as good as this one.

[Hank Rearden]

Watching it load, the FR site is transmitting over 230k of data to display the main forum page - and this is with "show brief" mode. It's moving a hell of a lot of bits to my 28.8k connection to display a modicum of information.

I know the leftside image is repeated - so what in the hell is all the overhead that comprises 230k of data?

That's why it's slow - too many transmitted bits. Efficiency and readability are far more important than glitz.

[A Navy Vet]

I'm not a web designer, but I do know when some changes don't work. You lighten up and quit following me from thread to thread.

[WillaJohns]

Efficiency and readability are far more important than glitz.

Amen.

[smith288]

Strangly enough, I went back to a cached version of the old style and it is actually 17kb bigger than this new one. Both with 50 threads per page. Whatever is causing the slowness, i dont honestly think its the pretty colors and three images.

[dalereed]

It's not only the change in format, the sight of it alone is enough to make you never want to come back to the site and squashing the content into a strip in the center with that repulsive left side bar is inexcusable besides being terminally ugly and distracting.

[HairOfTheDog]

Following you? - Please get serious! Are you super confused? I don't even think I have talked to you anywhere but this thread, and then only because I am responding to your replies back to me.

I am happy with the format, and said so on a couple of threads, in reponse to other people. My first reply to you here was in response to something you said, but my interest is definately not in, of, or about you! [jeepers!]

[Willie Green]

The old site was SOOOO 1998.

Nah, 1998 was the OLD old site, when we were posting to the "Whitewater" topic plus a couple hundred other topics.

If I remember correctly the "new" old site (that was just terminated) was first introduced somewhere about May of '99. It was a fairly rough conversion and we lost a bunch of articles in the forum until August or so.

This version is gonna take a little getting used to.
The new features seem to be positive enhancements.
But I still want the personal email box reinstated for my "Go Pat Go!!!" message on replies.

[ezo4]

Im not happy at all with this change. I will reiterate once again. PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK TO WHAT WE HAD.

[Panama714]

Since you seem to be the resident cheerleader on this conversion process I will address my comments to you. These are the same primary complaints I read from other people as well.

1. How do you get rid of the Poll Question?

2. How do you increase the number of "Front Page" and "Breaking News" listings on the right? As well as "fix" them in the right order?

These are fundamental flaws in this design, and I have yet to hear any of the cheerleaders address them.

disclaimers:

1. I DID go to the beta site.

2. I have spent the day trying to "live with it".

3. I do program websites so, yes I do know what is involved.

4. It isn't "all" bad.

[smith288]

1. How do you get rid of the Poll Question?

2. How do you increase the number of "Front Page" and "Breaking News" listings on the right? As well as "fix" them in the right order?

These are fundamental flaws in this design, and I have yet to hear any of the cheerleaders address them.

The poll was moved the the left (i told jim it was rather imposing there at the top right)

To increase the topics on the left, go to the top of the page and hit Topics. Find a topic you want listed and click into it. On the left there is a link that says Subscribe. Voi la

[dalereed]

It's not only the change in format, the sight of it alone is enough to make you never want to come back to the site and squashing the content into a strip in the center with that repulsive left side bar is inexcusable besides being terminally ugly and distracting.

[ezo4]

Im just going look at the home page for the rest of the day and hold my cursor over the latest postlink and remeber all the good times I had on this site. And there were many. I would look at this site every morning for the last two years. This change is extremly disturbing.

[Tenth]

It seems slower to my Mac with cable as well. Earler replies were that it seems faster to others with dial-up. Otherwise I like a lot of the new features and flexibility.