[akeller]

For people with poor eyesight who need to increase font size, the layout gets scrambled in places. Without looking at the style sheet, I'd guess this is because div size in defined in pixels; ems are a better choice for a lot of reasons, especially when creating sites that allow readers to adjust font sizes for legibility (yes, we grow old, we grow old).

Of course, OS X users can zoom the entire screen, but I wonder how many people even know that. Same for IE 7. And if anyone visits with any other Windows browser (I think), they can't zoom at all.

[slogan]

I like your new layout, but had trouble comprehending the registration. I set up a username but the software seemed to refuse it and gave me a name I never heard of or saw before. When I tried to log in later, it did not recognize my user name and would only accept my email address. Where is the user control panel located?

[bigshot]

When you have a scrolling format, like a web page, it's important to organize information into columns that span the scroll. When you break from a three column to a two column to a five column to a four column all with different widths, there is no way that the eye can follow the information when you scroll. Every time I scroll on the home page, my eye gets lost and I have to reorient myself.

The key to good graphic design is to assemble the page elements into a visual hierarchy that reads from most important to least. You do this with color, text style or size. All of the boxes in your table are about the same size, and all of the typefaces are very close in size. Headlines look the same as links. The page looks like a huge mass of information all jumbled together. It doesn't read in any particular order at all.

The teal blue is very pretty, but the monochromatic scheme doesn't differentiate between columns or links or headers. It all looks the same. And you've got four or five different navigation bars sprinkled all over the page, and each one of them divides the info using different terms. If I've clicked on "Mobile Mac" does that mean that I've already seen the same thing as "Laptops"?

This page layout is the sort of a mess that you can come up with using Dreamweaver, a technical person and an executive. You guys need to fork over the money to hire a graphic designer. (Or listen to the one you hired and didn't listen to.)

[scottbayes]

Looking at http://www.macworld.com/, I don't see a dateline for the Top Stories. I recall the previous format showing something like Today , followed by a section of links, and a section after that section marked Yesterday .

Why does this matter, you ask? Well, I'm in Japan, where it's tomorrow when it's yesterday in N.A., or something like that, and it's hard to keep track of new vs old stories, since I don't know your update cycle (midnight? When's midnight? ?carry the 3 and take the square root? 11:43 PM on 32 Dec, 1841!).

Please put a dateline on this section.

[danielchow]

nice color scheme, but it's visually cluttered. even on my 30" screen, the page looks like you're desperately trying to cram in as much info (articles and advertisements) into a relatively small space. i like some "white space" because it gives the reader's eyes some place to rest.

edit: for example, if the web page looks cluttered on a 30-inch screen, then it's likely that it's more cluttered on 24" or 17" screens or smaller.
Message was edited by: danielchow

[cpoff]

We like to think our readers who view the site on their laptops need some things above the fold, too. ;)

-cp

[dfs]

There is one feature about this new look which needs fixing: when it first loads (at least on Safari), it shows as a big dark blue rectangle, then the proper look pops up a couple of seconds later. But sometimes the blue stays, and text is displayed on it in a somewhat lighter blue, but sufficiently like the first that it's very hard to read. Come on guys, clean up your act. If a Mac-oriented site can't display properly on Safari, that's pretty bad!

[pemulwuy]

like Scott, I'd like a dateline and date/time on news headlines

{quote:title=Uncle_Deercamp wrote:}{quote}
>It so Web 2.0 in here now.

sums it up ... noted some contra/positive feedback from ppl who 'love poking around to see what things do' but there is a lot on this theme ...

{quote:title=DonC wrote:}{quote}
>While I like the new colors and button styles, I don't like the general apperance at all. A lot of wasted space, a lot of advertisement (either for articles on MacWorld, or adds from other sources). I did some comparison with the old and new design on a 23" Cinema Display: Old design: info gets about 30%, the rest is advertisement and wasted space. New design: 20% information. On a 15" MacBook Pro it is even worse: old: 20% information, new: 5% information. But information is why people come to your site.
>Would you really go to a web site which gives you 95% advertisement and navigation ?

{quote:title=Ralph_Thornton wrote:}{quote}
>I agree with DonC regarding ad space. The first thing I noticed is the larger ads. Story text seems more confined with ads taking up way too much screen real estate.

{quote:title=Fpryor wrote:}{quote}

Quote

Uhhhhhg.
MUCH less readable. MUCH less efficient. MUCH less inviting. MUCH worse signal-to-noise.
But there is MUCH more room devoted to advertising, which is both the greatest reason for the degradation of the site, and one suspects, the whole point of the transformation.
Thumbs way down.

{quote:title=thgd wrote:}{quote}
>I know it's nice to revamp the site every once in a while but I don't like the fact that the articles still seem to take second place to the ads. I like that you've moved the articles up to the top of the page, but they should be on the left next to the margin. I found it difficult to keep my attention on reading the article names due to the medium blue color, which tends to make them look not as important as they used to be. My eyes kept bouncing out of the page due to this, distracted by the rest of the busyness of the design and ads. I heartily recommend turning the article headlines back to black for easier readability. I wish I was more positive about the new layout, but like a lot of people who've commented, I prefer the old design for readability. The articles have to come FIRST in the design. It's why I come to the site every day, not to look at the ads.

{quote:title=TxTom wrote:}{quote}
>The color scheme is ok, the layout is WAY too ad-filled. Forget the 'ads run the site' argument. I'm aware that without ads the site goes away because the magazine sales aren't going to be enough to support the site. But for them to dominate your screen when you first come in? The ad panel on the right of the front page is bigger than the little headline panel in the middle! If I were presented this from a printed newspaper, I'd be finding another paper that kept the ads off the front page!
>A lot of layout principles of mine go back to my newspaper days. I know that 'Web 2.0' changes a lot of things, but I don't believe they eliminate the principles of good layout.

{quote:title=Sparc wrote:}{quote}
>I'm afraid I much preferred the older design. I am viewing this on a MBP at 1900 x 1200 - here are my comments:
>font size is absolutely tiny!
>the site occupies a postage stamp sized area in the middle of display. I don't get why more use of fluid widths aren't used as why should I be forced to view a site at a resolution only a small minority still use (800 x 600)?
>of that postage stamp sized area 40% is filled with garish advertising. I understand and appreciate that advertising is a necessary form of income, but I also believe a happy balance has to be struck and I don't feel this falls within that remit yet.
>The forum has an even narrower width than the site already has. Also I think some more commonly used forum software would be better (personal preference I guess). Software like vBulletin, phpBB, etc. It all seems a bit cluttered at the moment.
>The positive is that the content is still absolutely first rate. Shame the presentation had to change.

{quote:title=danielchow wrote:}{quote}
>I prefer the look and feel of the previous format. It was easier to view the latest articles.

{quote:title=folklore wrote:}{quote}
>Perhaps it's because I simply fear change, but I find the new Macworld.com less easy to navigate. That will may change as I get used to it.
>But probably not, since a major reason I feel disoriented is the ads.
>The ads are simply humongous and incredibly distracting. Seriously. The page I'm entering this comment on has an ad that's as big as the Macworld masthead. Making matters worse, the ad is more colorful than the masthead, which draws the eye to it. From an advertisers' point of view, that's great. From my point of view, it makes it incredibly difficult to actually navigate your site for content. Booooo!
>And because I come here for content instead of ads, if the ads don't shrink a bit, or otherwise become less prominent, I'll be spending less time here.

{quote:title=bigshot wrote:}{quote}
>The key to good graphic design is to assemble the page elements into a visual hierarchy that reads from most important to least. You do this with color, text style or size. All of the boxes in your table are about the same size, and all of the typefaces are very close in size. Headlines look the same as links. The page looks like a huge mass of information all jumbled together. It doesn't read in any particular order at all.
>The teal blue is very pretty, but the monochromatic scheme doesn't differentiate between columns or links or headers. It all looks the same. And you've got four or five different navigation bars sprinkled all over the page, and each one of them divides the info using different terms. If I've clicked on "Mobile Mac" does that mean that I've already seen the same thing as "Laptops"?
>This page layout is the sort of a mess that you can come up with using Dreamweaver, a technical person and an executive. You guys need to fork over the money to hire a graphic designer. (Or listen to the one you hired and didn't listen to.)

{quote:title=smwander wrote:}{quote}
>nice color scheme, but it's visually cluttered. even on my 30" screen, the page looks like you're desperately trying to cram in as much info (articles and advertisements) into a relatively small space. i like some "white space" because it gives the reader's eyes some place to rest.
>edit: for example, if the web page looks cluttered on a 30-inch screen, then it's likely that it's more cluttered on 24" or 17" screens or smaller.

... all of which resonates with my first impression: if this was a new site, I wouldn't look again ... but because I've been reading daily for years I'll come back and check (but not daily, so I've taken Macworld off my Safari bookmark bar).

There are some nice new details and web 2.0 tech but overwhelmed by clutter ... the experience is like clicking on Macworld and being redirected to the Dell online store: the home page is so unfocused it looks like you have nothing to say.

Sorry to be so critical and hope you fix it!

Cheers

[LukeBacon]

I tend to agree with everyone else; the homepage particularly feels very cluttered - I suppose the ideal would be a site which can adjust in-browser to the screen width, so those with 23 or 30" screens can feel the benefits, but MacBook users can still see most things. And then there's the ads...I know they're necessary, and occasionally useful, but they do feel very, very intrusive - like one of those freebie sites/blogs that's desperate for the money, and the content's a gap filler - I know that isn't the impression you want to give, but it verges on feeling like that.

Having said this, it's huge progress, a much cleaner look and the articles themselves are much easier to read (even if perhaps the navigation needs a little polishing...?)

[Cormac]

This has got to be one of the WORST redesigns that I have seen on the web. What did you guys do, hire a bunch of Windows web designers? I am really considering dropping Macworld from my daily visits. It is way too confusing. On your main page, there is NO way to know what stories happened today or yesterday. Also, way too many ads.

What a shame. Macworld used to be a great website, but no more. Your "redesign" has damaged your reputation.

[Cormac]

Jason Snell said:

Welcome, everybody. Let us know what you think and please understand we've got a whole lot more work to do to get everything here ship-shape. But at least we're back!

Onward.

A whole lot of work? That's an understatement if I have ever heard one. What about a total redesign?

But at least we're back? What kind of statement is that?

What about a poll on your redesign? I bet that the new "redesign" gets waxed.

[hillstones]

A very nice update. Good use of colors and fonts. Rich Text typing in the message boards is slow, and the spacebar is not always indicated until you type the next letter and discover that the letter does jump a space to indicate that you did hit the spacebar. Plain text typing is very fluid.

Great job! The website needed a good overhaul.

iMac G5 2.1 GHz, Leopard. 1.5 GB RAM.

[DonC]

[quote name='Cormac']
>

Jason Snell said:

> Welcome, everybody. Let us know what you think and please understand we've got a whole lot more work to do to get everything here ship-shape. But at least we're back!
>
> Onward.

A whole lot of work? That's an understatement if I have ever heard one. What about a total redesign?

But at least we're back? What kind of statement is that?

What about a poll on your redesign? I bet that the new "redesign" gets waxed.

They changed the technical underpinnings of the site - read: new code. So that's why they are happy that everything is kind of working again.

[Cormac]

>So that's why they are happy that everything is kind of working again.

That wasn't the point of my post or what I implied. When you say that you are back, it implies somehow that you were away. Which they weren't.

I still would like to see a poll on if people like the "new & improved" Macworld.com. I'd bet the new design gets waxed.