New BBC rugby website

Horrible on the eyes!

Oh... i thought i was just my computer . What are they thinking!

It's a bit, confusing!

no squad selector. jst before the 6n too.

It's not just a case of me disliking change. It's genuinely hard on the eyes and un-intuitive to navigate. Very poorly designed. I'd say they'll get plenty of comlaints about it.

There's a link on the sports homepage where you can give your feedback on it. I've already given them my 'feedback.'

What was so wrong with the old sports pages that they needed changing?

There's nothing wrong with changing a website every now and then to keep things fresh. the problem is that the new design is dreadful.

By the way luckless, it's difficult to find the feedback link while the webpage is assaulting my eyes.

Ha, it really isn't easy on the eyes, is it?

Two other things:

Having tabs that read 'Rugby U' and Rugby L' looks really lazy and unprofessional;

If you click through to the fixtures, the style and design is unchanged, which makes the whole tarting up look half-arsed.

Feckless Rogue wrote:By the way luckless, it's difficult to find the feedback link while the webpage is assaulting my eyes.

that and only that should be your feedback!

The BBC had to do something, since the closure of the 606 there hits have taken a huge dive. They now have 50% less interest on the webpage than what they did when the 606 was there.

That said, they really didnt think too hard about the design, its aweful.

seriously a 50% drop, billy? that's crazy!

Is this new format also part of cost-cutting measures?

Just look at the hits this site gets dreamer and that doesnt even scratch the surface of what the 606 generated. They have seriously lost loads.

Well if this redesign is meant to win people back...!

I think that its actually a cut down to save money luckless. Its certainly looks cheap and nasty.

I think they are getting children to design the pages with crayons and then taking a picture with a digital camera and uploading it.

Yep, cutting costs at every corner gnoll

Welcome to the forum by the way

If they changed the glaring bright yellow, I actually think it looks better. Doesn't look so cheap and is easy to navigate. That yellow must go though. It's too bright.

gnollbeast wrote:I think they are getting children to design the pages with crayons and then taking a picture with a digital camera and uploading it.

Nah that would have a sense of style to it. This looks like they've based it on a Soviet Union magazine called "Systematik" or "Rodina Mat" or something

ChequeredJersey wrote:

gnollbeast wrote:I think they are getting children to design the pages with crayons and then taking a picture with a digital camera and uploading it.

Nah that would have a sense of style to it. This looks like they've based it on a Soviet Union magazine called "Systematik" or "Rodina Mat" or something

Do you really think so, Cari? I find it much harder to navigate.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Do you really think so, Cari? I find it much harder to navigate.

Me too. Looks messy and glitchy too, some of the headlines actually protrude into the images.

Knowsit17 wrote:some of the headlines actually protrude into the images.

I think that's intentional.

I like it.

At least it doesn't have annoying animated, flashing, banner advertising like some sites

Lucky - I find it's OK. The only thing putting me off at the moment is that awful yellow. It's too bright - almost migraine-inducing.

HERSH wrote:I like it.

you live to wum

have one on me, hershy

Personally I like it, some things are laid out better, some things aren't. The designers are going for a more tablet/mobile friendly approach to their website

its like watching Quinnell and Greenwood talk tactics pitchside.

Comfort wrote:its like watching Quinnell and Greenwood talk tactics pitchside.

wearing high-visibility vests

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Comfort wrote:its like watching Quinnell and Greenwood talk tactics pitchside.

wearing high-visibility vests

I was afraid to look at it such were the comments here about it. Looked at it.

Bright, clear, new deck, same information that is in my view more readily locateable.

Don't see a problem...

Burn the heretic!

abysmal

I'd like to add that I hate the front page where you now have to have sport headlines and football. I don't want to see football. I liked being able to chose the sports I could see. The new design is so unfriendly to look at that I am very reluctant to visit the site at all

dont like it - or the new bbc front page. It looks like its designed to be more modular - for i-pad and smart phone viewers.

The whole redesign is so half-arsed. Like you say, they've tarted up the main BBC homepage, but when you click to the news page the format is the same as before.

The main BBC homepage at least has a fairly classy clean look to it.

The sports pages?

Horrible colour pallet (bright yellow?!? Oh, my eyes) , unhelpful layout and generally looks like the works of a total amateur. Only thing I will say is that the font used for the banner headlines is quite pleasing on the eye.

Is this because it´s been a particularly bleak winter in the UK this year and the BBC think you´re Vitamin D deficient?

I'm just annoyed that clearly money went in to the consultation of development of this and yet it's now worse than it was originally. Design is a HORRIBLY laborious AND expensive thing to do ... upkeeping the previous format will have not been more expensive than upkeeping this one, it'll cost the same (unless they're trying to limit the amount of viewers so they can reduce their bandwidth)

Although I do take the point that it'll be much easier to browse from tablets or mobiles now.

PS glad someone else brought this up - I was tempted to on several occasions

It's crap

KickAndChase wrote:I'm just annoyed that clearly money went in to the consultation of development of this and yet it's now worse than it was originally. Design is a HORRIBLY laborious AND expensive thing to do ... upkeeping the previous format will have not been more expensive than upkeeping this one, it'll cost the same (unless they're trying to limit the amount of viewers so they can reduce their bandwidth)

Although I do take the point that it'll be much easier to browse from tablets or mobiles now.

That would be fine, except the format of the mobile version hasn't even changed!

Over one million £.
There were design teams.
Task forces to review the recomendations of the design teams.
Oversight teams to review the comments of the task forces.

And then some blind idiot had to think this was a good idea.

Darwin was wrong...........

SafeAsMilk wrote:At least it doesn't have annoying animated, flashing, banner advertising like some sites

Touche, Milk.

Out of curiosity does anyone have any suggestions on what they could have done to improve it?

Short of reverting back to the old site because that wasn't great by any standards.