07-10-2014, 09:18 AM #1
- Liked 218 Times in 138 Posts
SI.com's new look
Been about a week since SI.com changed their layout. Presumably for tablets or iphones or something. Anyway, I think its pretty bad but I usually check it from a laptop or desktop. What do others think?
07-10-2014, 09:22 AM #2
I love it, though I still think they're cramming too much information on a single page. It's miles better than ESPN, who was recently awarded my personal "MY GOD PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE THIS SITE?!?!?" award for the tenth consecutive year.
I'd *love* to do a fully responsive bootstrap version of Twins Daily but it's beyond the scope of a single person to manage.
Harrumph. I'm not crazy about a fully responsive site, as I believe mobile devices (phones, primarily) should call a leaner, sleeker version of the code to minimize load times and data usage. But a hybrid responsive site that calls to tablets and desktops while delivering a slimmer mobile version for phones, that's something I'd *love* to implement.
07-10-2014, 10:01 AM #3
I think its an abomination.
And judging by a lot of the comments on the site, so do many others.
But then, I'm also primarily a laptop user.
I'm much more verbally oriented than I am graphically oriented and I like a lot of white space on the page.
So when I see all the graphic links, it just boggles my brain. I know they are great on mobile devices but it is just too d*mn much clutter for me.
Also, I used to like that they had the 30 mlb teams on the bottom of the mlb home page and then those would link to a page with story links about the team. If they still have that, I can't find it.
I've gotten more used to it but I don't think I'll ever like it.
Last edited by JB_Iowa; 07-10-2014 at 10:12 AM.
07-10-2014, 10:14 AM #4
Then those users would adjust and by the time the next version rolls around, they'd love the current version (that they hated just nine months ago) and call the new version an abomination.
People prefer what they know over what's actually progressive and good.
See every iteration of Facebook as proof of this concept in action. Show someone 2011 Facebook today and they'd scoff at its lack of functionality, bad layout, and poor UIX. Yet at the time of its replacement, they swore up and down that it was the best thing ever and that it didn't need to be changed.
07-10-2014, 10:19 AM #5
- Liked 218 Times in 138 Posts
07-10-2014, 10:23 AM #6
Different situation here. SI.com, while I don't like the fact that it's fully responsive (see my comments above) or that its webfont doesn't render well on cheap Windows machines, does a lot of things right:
- It works better on more devices
- It uses modern functionality like lazy loading to speed up load times
- It's very finger-friendly
There's a lot right in that design, even if I think it's still too busy for its own good.
07-10-2014, 10:25 AM #7
Part of it for me is the whole font size problem (that we've talked about before).
If you sent a zoom size that keeps the main story graphics boxes at a reasonable size, the links on the side of the page are so small that they are difficult to read. Then if I click into the story, I again find that I need to change the zoom because the font in the story is too small.
So I end up leaving the zoom with the graphics boxes too big because it is the lesser of the two evils.
The whole font size thing is a real issue. I like the size here at TD but if you have contacts at the Strib, there's is so darn small, it always needs an adjustment to zoom.
Overall, the pages on the new si.com are just too cluttered for me. I suspect that for people who grew up on video games, etc., it's just fine but it isn't the way my brain processes info.
07-10-2014, 10:28 AM #8
And spoiler alert: a new Twins Daily is coming. If you think the fonts are big now, just wait awhile. They're only getting bigger.
I have two design theories on fonts and how to choose the right one:
1. First and foremost, fonts should be clean and easy to read, everything comes second.
2. There is no second point.
07-10-2014, 11:01 AM #9
Please be careful about enlarging them too much.
That's part of my complaint -- there is just so much variation from site-to-site.
I actually like the size they are now. Larger on headlines or something? Fine. I don't think I'd want to see much enlargement in the bodies of articles.
But I do appreciate cleanliness on fonts and the size now is really comfortable.
This user likes JB_Iowa's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:
07-10-2014, 11:06 AM #10
The body copy font may be slightly larger but it's roughly to the same size. What I tried to eliminate was some of the smaller fonts around the site. I either eliminated that text entirely or upped the font size.
My goal is cleaner, larger fonts all around. If I don't feel information is useful to a large number of users, I eliminate it entirely. The new design is much cleaner than the current site, which I put together in just over a week. It was a mad-dash just to get it together and I've never been happy with the design, even though it was a massive improvement over what came before it.
07-10-2014, 12:26 PM #11
Thanks for all your work!
Looking forward to seeing the new site.
07-10-2014, 02:20 PM #12
- Liked 564 Times in 369 Posts
I'll say this, it loads very slowly on my work computer, which has IE 2 on it*
Ok, really, it has IE 8, I hate this place sometimes.Lighten up Francis....
07-10-2014, 02:46 PM #13
07-10-2014, 05:20 PM #14
- Liked 775 Times in 407 Posts
Yup. Ugly with a yoog. But also yup, ESPN is still worse.
edit - Fox Sports may be the worst of the lot.
Last edited by crarko; 07-10-2014 at 05:24 PM.Mystery creates wonder, and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand. - N. Armstrong
07-10-2014, 05:38 PM #15
I'd like to thank SI for alerting me to NEVER use the font: "iwan-reschniev"
Good God. It looks like crap on my 2560 resolution monitor. I had to move it to a retina display before it even looked "meh, only kinda crappy".
Really an AWFUL font choice. I thought it was my Windows machine at work but no, my high quality Mac monitors at home also render it badly.
(it's the font used in "menu" on the top left)
07-11-2014, 10:42 AM #16
- Liked 812 Times in 512 Posts
- Blog Entries
As for site designs, I think there's something to be said about not doing massive overhauls (or at the very least letting users try it out and give useful feedback **AND INCORPORATE IT** before the overhaul). I stopped using Twinkie town and just about all of SB nation b/c of that. It's a terrible design.
People develop viewing habits based off of site layout. Developers should think long and hard about changing anything that will affect those habits.
07-11-2014, 10:51 AM #17
The internet is still pretty new. Both developers and users are still figuring things out. In time, I think the radical shifts in UIX will slow as we realize what works and what doesn't.
07-11-2014, 11:59 AM #18
- Liked 812 Times in 512 Posts
- Blog Entries
07-11-2014, 12:34 PM #19
And I use a lot of software. Much - maybe even most - of it doesn't make me scratch my head at all.
Apple is a much better representation of consistent, clean, and usable UIX. Google has joined them at the top of the pack in the past 2-3 years as well. They've done a fantastic job of cleaning up their interfaces and making them more consistent (still a lot of work to go, though).
07-12-2014, 10:11 AM #20
My biggest problem with the new SI.com site (and I have many), is that it seems to be designed for grazing content but not really for seeking out content. If you are actually looking for a specific article, it is really hard.
Another big issue with the site is that they broke basically every old link to their archives. Try searching Google for old SI articles and you will often be dumped onto a broken SI page.
Oh, and stats pages are useless: http://www.si.com/mlb/player/joe-mauer
This user likes hvs's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner: