[aj1245]

Love macnn but desperately need an alternative to the "new look" that I discover this Thursday 4th February 2016.

To me reading Macnn is not about browsing idly through a chaos of pretty pictures - which OK is what we do when we look at a regular newspaper to pass the time.

I look at macnn when I have five minutes and like just a concise list of titles in reverse order of publication and decide to read or not read based on the content implied by the title.

Mac-stuff is technically quite clearly defined and so we know what we are an aren't interested in!

[I-ku-u]

I agree completely.

The pictures get in the way without adding anything useful to my ability to choose what to read.

And why is the font different for the most recent story? That just makes it harder to determine (when it becomes not the most recent) whether I've read it already.

Sure, the style "looks" nice, but it's not a design improvement.

I just wish the right column wasn't "wasted" below the first few ads. So, stories 3, 4, 5... could take up both columns.

[Mike Wuerthele]

The right column will be filled with things too small to make a story about.

The font shouldn't be different for the most recent story. I'll find out.

As far as the images go, welcome to mobile-centric, and Google-friendly, both of which we desperately needed. Our content balance won't change, but we did need to change things graphically.

[Mike Wuerthele]

And as a reminder, I am not design, or the web team. I am editorial. I can pass on your concerns about the design, and that's about it.

So, please keep your flames to a minimum. Polite complaints will be given more weight than LOL YOU SUK.

[daqman]

Time for a short break from work and I nearly fell off my chair! A little bit of warning would have been nice!

Overall I like the new look, the old one was starting to look dated (and I don't normally like change). What I don't like about the new look are large areas of wasted screen space. Someone else commented that once the page is scrolled down to the point where the right sidebar is no longer visible there's a lot of whitespace. It's early days now but I hope that you don't fall into the trap of having a lot of pictures and not much text on the main page. I like to read enough to make sure that the clickthrough is worth the effort (my that does sound lazy now I type it) clicking "click bait" titles or images then hitting back gets tedious.

The comment posting interface is very nice by the way!

I'm glad to see something new, let's see how it goes!

[Flying Meat]

Eh, all I get is the legacy.macnn.com page.

What am I missing?

[Mike Wuerthele]

You'll be missing a lot from legacy.macnn.com soon.

[darkelf]

i totally get that you want something more constructive and useful than "LOL YOU SUK", but....

LOL YOU SUK

seriously, who greenlit this run-on disaster?

[darkelf]

okay, one constructive bit.... infinite scrolling means that your "Privacy Policy" link is only within reach if your connection/browser are a bit slow. don't put anything remotely important in a footer if you're going to immediately push it out of view.

[Flying Meat]

Found it! Sheesh.

Today's Apple, Mac, iPod and iPhone News | MacNN

If I just go to Apple, Macintosh, iPod and iPhone news | MacNN, I get the legacy page. The article about the redesign could use a link in it.

[Mike Wuerthele]

The privacy policy is being moved, thanks for the heads up.

[ccoulson]

Too much stuff. I want the Headline View back...

Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele 

The right column will be filled with things too small to make a story about.

I'm not saying that the stories should be put into the two columns. I'm saying that the stories would take up both columns. That way, the story expands into the "small" space and isn't wasted.

[Mike Wuerthele]

Originally Posted by ccoulson 

Too much stuff. I want the Headline View back...

Apple, Macintosh and iPod latest news headlines | MacNN

[Hinson]

Count me among your viewers who do not like the new look!

The side-by-side articles just don't flow well. The reader's eyes are jumping from one side to the other looking for the headlines, which aren't necessarily lined up from side to side and are mixed in with the images. Once you get down to the one-line-per-article section, it's a much nicer view. Add the "n hours ago" info under the pictures in that "one article per line" view, and make that your primary layout -- that's my suggestion/feedback!

One other thing - I can't suggest how to fix it, but for me, the design of the Reviews side-bar on the left make the site somehow feel cheap. The design seems out of place, like you picked it from a series of format templates and stuck it in.

Hope you make some changes for the better in the near future.


-Jay

[burger]

Yeah.... I can't go to this site anymore. Looks like ad spam galore. Cya!

[Mike Wuerthele]

Originally Posted by burger 

Yeah.... I can't go to this site anymore. Looks like ad spam galore. Cya!

The ad density is unchanged from the previous version.

[andi*pandi]

That may be, but it's valid feedback... the feeling that the articles now look like ads. It's very cluttered looking, and not much heirarchy. Just a sea of boxes. Stylistically, the reviews don't fit in with the other styles on the page... the images are too big.

In all, it makes it hard to read and kind of overwhelming.

[Mississauga]

Change simply for the sake of change. Everybody's doing it. MacNN just jumped on the bandwagon. Have to keep people busy and people want to feel important… at whatever cost. This "fresh" look is absolutely unnecessary. The previous look was fine… no, great! I suppose I'm getting too old and cranky, what with the younger generations wanting to make their mark. I'll be reading this site FAR less often. It now hurts my eyes… like so many "new" site updates. Perhaps I'll go back to MacWorld… the site which apparently MacNN is trying to copy.

[Flying Meat]

I'm warming up to the redesign. It takes a little time for the eyes to grow accustomed to the light.

I do wish the news article's graphic was on the right side of the text, and the text flowed around it, personally.

Real world usage: I had a product introduction (not earth shattering or anything) a couple of days ago and wondered if MacNN had done a review of it. Yep. Search works a treat!


Thanks for the opportunity to "Everyone's a critic." And thanks for your hard work!

Originally Posted by Flying Meat 

I'm warming up to the redesign. It takes a little time for the eyes to grow accustomed to the light.

Just view it on iOS 9.3 with Night Shift

[ghporter]

I see what andi is saying; the illustration to the left of every front page story tends to be cartoonish and "ad-like." It's visually stimulating without adding much information to the text. I don't have a specific alternative suggestion, but toning down the volume of graphics just to have something there would sure make it easier to scan the front page.

[Thorzdad]

On my iPad, the home page acts weirdly. The long scroll of endless stories is ridiculous. But there's a story at the very bottom of the scroll with the headline "APPLE WANT ADS HINT AT FUTURE WATCH FACES" that runs off the bottom of the screen. But, when I scroll down to read that story, the page automatically loads more stories to the long scroll, bouncing me back up and away from that Apple Watch story. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. You can't ever get to that bottom story.

[Mike Wuerthele]

I'll take a look at that, Thor.

In other news, IE11 compatibility is fixed, and most importantly, the ad blocker situation seems to be resolved.

[benj]

I,too, think the the flow is difficult as well. Just seems like everything is too large, and I wish the sidebars were switched - the left side one creates an unnatural
user habit having a smaller "margin" space. I recommend re-reading those Tufte books! or allowing formatting tools of some sort...I tried enlarging text, shrinking...mad e little difference....(and i was a longtime Legacy reader until maybe 6 months ago)

Originally Posted by Flying Meat 

I'm warming up to the redesign. It takes a little time for the eyes to grow accustomed to the light.

I do wish the news article's graphic was on the right side of the text, and the text flowed around it, personally.

Real world usage: I had a product introduction (not earth shattering or anything) a couple of days ago and wondered if MacNN had done a review of it. Yep. Search works a treat!


Thanks for the opportunity to "Everyone's a critic." And thanks for your hard work!

[Mike Wuerthele]

Benj, the "Classic" view, with the older design (not legacy, mind) is still available.

Apple, Macintosh, iPod and iPhone news | MacNN

But, like Legacy, it may experience problems as we go.


As a reminder to all, I am Editorial. Not operations, or design. All I can do is pass the word.

[Mac128guy4]

New look can best be described as CLUTTERED. Can we have choice of older headline (newest first)?

[nat]

Fail.
The W3C/Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2 Level AA 1.4.4 requires that sites be scalable without assistive technology up to 200%. This means that the mobile browser’s pinch zoom feature must allow for zooming up to 200% without using the assistive technology zoom on the mobile device.
Site is now useless on mobile. What should really concern you is that I have read this site forever but since I can't anymore, literally, since you intentionally disabled an accessibility aid that comes with my device, I'll not be coming back.
Far too many options where sites have hired developers who don't discriminate against low and poor vision people to put up with nonsense.

[Mike Wuerthele]

You can assume that we're deciding to hose you with pinch to zoom, or you can say "hey, pinch to zoom isn't working."

Then I can say "yeah, we know, and we're working on it."

And then you can say "Oh, thanks, are there other options?"

And then I can say "Yes! Like I've mentioned a few times, the old design is still available at Apple, Macintosh, iPod and iPhone news | MacNN "

----------

Or you can assume wrongly, that I'm discriminating against the disabled, because, you know, I've got a disabled wife, a disabled father in law, and a disabled daughter.

[nat]

I don't have to assume anything. It's right there. Plain as day for anyone to see, or not see. You hired someone who ignored international accessibility guidelines. You hired someone that went with "mobile first" and not people first.
So spare me the indignation. I'm not the one who decided that a large section of the population could be ignored. I'm the one that was ignored.
And you're now aware of it and working on it? Why weren't you aware of it before? You're a tech site. W3C kinda falls into your job description. Yet somehow this went live.

[Mike Wuerthele]

Because, as I have spoken at least twice since this all started, I am editorial. I am not design, nor am I responsible for hiring in design or hosting. I spotted it on day one, hour one that I had access to the new design, said "hey, this is broken" and put it on the fix list.

You didn't stop to get the facts first, so you assumed. So now, stop assuming that I'm out to get you.

Work with me instead. If you want to be constructive, I'll work with you. As I've shown, you've got an option that complies until we can work out the fix on the new design. If after that, you want to still assume that I'm the enemy and focused on antagonizing you personally, then I won't mourn your departure.

[nat]

Why are you taking this personally? The "you" is the whoever sat in a room and allowed this to happen, whoever hired the design people and gave the ok. I don't know you. I'm not attacking you. I know what I see and I'm talking to Macnn, I'm posting in a Macnn feedback forum, not to you directly. The "you're a tech site" says it's the Macnn "you", not you personally. If this is your personal forum and we're going to eliminate Macnn then fine. I'll talk to you.
If there is an option for the old site it should be on the new site. Something like "Click here to go to the old site". People aren't going to go digging around a forum to find an answer, especially people who don't have good vision. They're just going to leave the site.

[ghporter]

Nat, NOBODY participating in this thread had ANY say-so, let alone control, in the design change. Mike is taking the brunt of the venom people are flinging about because he is connected with the MacNN site (as opposed to the MacNN Forums), but he is really just the messenger. He's reacting the way he is because many people, YOU INCLUDED, are posting as if Mike himself, on a whim, screwed up the site himself. Mike has said repeatedly that he is NOT the web designer and he is not responsible for the changes:

Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele 

And as a reminder, I am not design, or the web team. I am editorial. I can pass on your concerns about the design, and that's about it.

So, please keep your flames to a minimum. Polite complaints will be given more weight than LOL YOU SUK.

To any and all participants in this thread: I can and will ban you for posting personal attacks against anyone, but especially against people who are posting here trying to help users. Every single MacNN Forums staff member is a volunteer - we are NOT paid employees - and we will NOT tolerate random individuals actively attacking staff members, ESPECIALLY when those attacks appear to come from the randos not fully reading a thread.

Our forums are for civil discussion, and unlike a lot of forums, we work at keeping things civil. If you (anyone) can't be civil, everybody here who can is better off without your opinions.

Now then, can we all play nice, or do I start thinning our membership ranks?

[Mike Wuerthele]

Here's the deal. I like the feedback. I like being able to say "hey, I think this, and so-and-so says so too." I KNOW the site isn't operating in accordance with 1.4.4, and I hate it.

PTZ was in the design principles of the site. Why is it not working? As I understand it, we're not entirely sure. Probably a similar reason to why adblockers were blocking text in articles -- a simple mistake carried forward.

I came into work on Wednesday morning, and the back-end was thrashed. You can still see it echo in the forums with the newsposter articles with no titles. There are still issues. You're not being ignored, and at no point did we say "hey, lets screw over the vision impaired."

We are one of the most responsive Apple news sites that still exists. I like it that way. It works because I do take things about the site personal, so I can get answers for the readers. I have had threats against my family because of the site redesign, and other assorted insults cast my way -- both are ridiculous. However, I will still listen to the criticisms, and do what I can.

Okay?

[nat]

Rubbish.
"YOU INCLUDED, are posting as if Mike himself, on a whim, screwed up the site himself."
Show me where I attacked him personally. Because he took it personally does not in any way change what I said in my post. I attacked no one. He attacked me after my first post. Read it.

Here's the bottom line. Every single mobile browser in the world comes with pinch and zoom. When someone goes to a site and it doesn't work that's because the owner allowed it to be disabled by a developer. It has to intentionally be disabled. Someone has to say "I'm going to disable that".
It cannot turn itself off.

So when I say that a site that allows that is intentionally discriminating against people with vision problems that's because that's exactly what it's doing. There was no mistake. Someone said that accessibility aid is not needed. And either you (MACNN - not you you or Mike you or anyone else you) don't know W3C or your developer doesn't know it or you both don't know it. None of which are acceptable for a tech site.

Now, you can read that again and get all beside yourself over being "personally" attacked if you want but you're wrong. And way too sensitive.
And if you think that's cause to "thin the ranks" then thin away.

[Mike Wuerthele]

Originally Posted by nat 

Rubbish.
"YOU INCLUDED, are posting as if Mike himself, on a whim, screwed up the site himself."
Show me where I attacked him personally. Because he took it personally does not in any way change what I said in my post. I attacked no one. He attacked me after my first post. Read it.

Now, you can read that again and get all beside yourself over being "personally" attacked if you want but you're wrong. And way too sensitive.

You GENUINELY thought you were being attacked by my first remark? You're wrong.

Nat, I AM ON YOUR SIDE. I would like my wife to be able to read our work here, but as it stands, she can't. You didn't ask, you assumed, that we were blowing you off.

Accessibility is broken, we know it, its being worked on, its an errant class causing problems, and we're trying to get it under wraps. Its not intentional, despite you saying it is, and you can think what you like.

I'm done here.

[nat]

This is turning into semantics. You say it wasn't intentional yet it CANNOT turn itself off. A real breathing person has to decide to disable it. I know this because I'm a retired developer and we were very strict on W3C and government 508 compliance.
So fine, you're working on it. Good.

[ghporter]

I am adamant that ALL discussions on these forums remain civil. If ANYONE feels that they are being attacked, I (and the rest of the staff) take that seriously. In this case, it looked like several posts were both aggressive and pointed directly at Mike.

Let's turn down the intensity of ALL posts in this thread. Mike, who has no control over the design of the news page, can pass feedback to management (more effectively than any of the rest of the staff). He IS on the users' side, just as I am.

Nat, my post aimed at you was specifically because you posted more than once in a manner that was much too close to a personal attack to allow to stand. The staff here have a number of tools to help avoid the kind of spittle-flying vitriol seen on lots of other forums, but it seems that many people posting in this thread are new enough here that it was important for me to get everyone's attention and point out our basic rules. I know that I effectively shouted at the top of my lungs with that post, I appreciate that it may have come across as very heavy handed, but it was imporant to get things toned down quickly.

I also appreciate your point of view and the expertise you bring to this thread. I genuinely welcome your feedback on this and any other "feature" of the forums or news. I will, however, politely and respectfully request that you, and everyone else, keep in mind that there are real people attached to the screen names you see here.

While sometimes bluntness is the best way to get a point across, it's best to try more "gentle" approaches first. In other words, please everyone try to be polite, phrase your posts so that they read as "helpful" and/or "constructive criticism," and understand that NOBODY in the ownership or management of MacNN (typically) participates in forum discussions.

All of us on staff are "messengers" in this situation, and Mike is probably the most able of all of us to get management's attention. Please load him up with constructive feedback. User opinion has led to fundamental changes in these forums more than once. If you hate the new design, please explain why, what, and how much you hate it, and we (mainly Mike) can package that up and pass it to management where it can be addressed. But again, keep it civil and as polite as possible.

[subego]

As an aside...

"Using second person can make the work sound as if the writer is giving directions or offering advice to his or her readers, rather than informing or persuading them."

[ghporter]

It's hard, REALLY hard, to persuade people you can't see because there's no feedback. My writing background is technical in nature, so I kind of default to that style, as is obvious above.

When writing "about" something rather than educating technicians on how to do a technical thing, I've noticed that a "conversational" style works well, but it can come across as being too familiar. "Hey bro, dig this new app..." Not too good, right? So writing anything for a reader you can't see and have little or no prior communication with is a chancy thing. I tend to stay more formal, which often means more second person, to avoid coming across as "that fake-sounding guy", or worse. I'll never sell a used car online, that's for sure!

[subego]

In an actual argument, second person can start to border on ad hominem.

Let's say I'm challenging the above post.

Compare "this claim is wrong" with "you're wrong".

[ghporter]

You make a good point. My own posts can come across as being a little bit detached because of how I (try to) phrase things. But when someone gets really emotionally invested in a discussion - to the point where it turns into an argument - there's no detachment. At that point, any semblance of separation between commenting on the idea and commenting on the person who posted the idea just goes away.

If I have a strong attachment to an idea, and I know that ahead of time, (which I should), I work at making what I type come across as reasonable and logical, and I try to make it clear that I am addressing ideas, not people. I am not always as successful as I'd like to be.

I also see a difference between "you're wrong" and "your facts are wrong." If someone says that I (personally) am wrong, there's no room to discuss anything, while if my facts are what they're challenging, I have the option of saying "please educate me" (or something like that). Any variation on "your facts are wrong" is much more flexible than "you're wrong" can ever be. I try to have some sort of authoritative reference handy if I challenge someone's facts - it helps avoid things turning nasty.

One more thing: when I am discussing an issue, I often notice that others post tangential or even unconnected ideas. This is tricky. I try to stick to one idea (I'm sometimes a bear of little brain), but that doesn't always work. I have a tactic that helps here. I ask "how is that connected to X?" I've found lots of people get overwhelmed by the volume of stuff spewed by the talking heads on TV, and it can be hard for anyone to really understand what the heck they're babbling about. In situations where I have to drop that question, I've seen some "interesting" connections people have made between things that come out of newsdrone's mouths...

Anyway, back to the point of the thread: it is ALL about semantics. Semantics are how we make sense of the (potentially grammatically correct) sentences we encounter. And semantics are much harder in a text-only discussion, because we're stuck with text, and not the intonation, pacing and body language that we get up to 90% (according to various sources) of the real meaning of what someone says in person. And the "semantics" of the news page changed...which left a lot of people trying to understand that page as if they just went from having a teacher with a Chicago accent to one with a Delhi accent.

[Dan_M]

I want to start by first thanking the MacNN team for their years of dedication and thoughtful articles. I wholeheartedly love this site. I usually never post anything anywhere but felt the dramatic shift in design merited my two cents.

What was great about the old design was that it was simple. Less is more! There was the top navigation bar, article list on the left hand side and a slender advertisement/ most popular list on the right hand side. And that was it.

It seems in an effort to cram as much information as possible we now have 4 columns which change to 3 halfway down. Its busy and visually confusing. At a quick first glance which column has the main articles? While the left most column is smallest and thus visually less important the other 3 are about the same which forces the eye to wander all across the page. More thought needs to go into the usability of the site. Think like a user, not like a developer!

Change is good… usually. I think a revamped site with 3 columns, the center one being the most prominent would be easier to digest. The side columns would be less in width and the page would flow better visually.

Again thanks for all the effort the editors, administrators and writers put into the site. I hope our collective constructive comments will be considered for the betterment of the MacNN community. Thanks!

[Mike Wuerthele]

Hey Dan, thanks for the input. Want three columns?

Reduce the Safari window width a bit. Bam, three columns.

Where are you seeing 3 or 4 columns?

When I load Macnn.com, I see one full column of news.

[a1a23696]

The only thing worse than the 'new' look of macnn is the 'new' look of 9to5mac.

[Dan_M]

Thanks Mike!

I never thought of even changing the width of the browser window... duh! 3 or even 2 columns is much more readable. For those who like our browser windows full screen, it would still be nice to max out the columns at 3 instead of 4 for simplicity sake, but for now I'll resize! Thanks

[ccoulson]

Please bring back headline view!

[Spheric Harlot]

Already posted.

Bookmark this:

Apple, Macintosh and iPod latest news headlines | MacNN