homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.235.255
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld Feedback Forums / WebmasterWorld Feedback Days
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: brett tabke

WebmasterWorld Feedback Days Forum

This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 ( [1] 2 > >   posting off  
what has always disturbed me at this forum
Makaveli2007




msg:4139594
 2:39 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

What has always disturbed me a little about WebmasterWorld are the colors of the design. It just always looked so "anonymous" to me.

I know it's utterly stupid that it makes me feel this way, but a design such as the one over at searchenginewatch (just a random example) seems to give a forum a more "professional look" to my eyes. I can only mention again that I know its utterly stupid it makes me feel this way :D, but perception is reality isnt it?;-)

(That being said I like the content on this forum much better than at most others Im aware of, at the moment)

 

httpwebwitch




msg:4139622
 3:13 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

the WebmasterWorld designers really like rectangles.

Did I say like?
I meant they ADORE rectangles. rectangles, rectangles, and more rectangles.

I agree this interface needs some TLC.
Keep it simple liek it is now, but perhaps reduce the number of rectangles chopping up the page!

And ugh, the image buttons (Post new Topic, Post Reply) look terrible

wanderingmind




msg:4139634
 3:51 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I love this interface!

Its clean, shows me what I want to see, no images or rounded corners - as basic as it gets.

Maybe the navigation can be made more prominent, but for me, it works.

AnkitMaheshwari




msg:4139639
 3:59 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

For me the colors and layout is fine. I come here for information which is very easily readable without any distractions.

caribguy




msg:4139641
 4:02 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

"look terrible"

Nah, not terrible. Just very utilitarian. Helps to reinforce that NCSA Mosaic look, as if to say "this forum predates the WWW."

Design wise, the color scheme here is probably one of the least coherent I've ever come across besides pages on Tripod or Geocities.

External stylesheets to the rescue, with the ability to make a personal choice.

Lapizuli




msg:4139709
 6:05 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I like the way it looks now. It doesn't look amateurish to me. The other site you mentioned looks "businessy" in my eyes, with too much (generic) website personality; this looks intellectual and understated, like a simple stage for the personalities of the posters to come through.

That said, if the goal is to increase site awareness through branding, changing the design would help. If the goal is to increase site awareness through distinguishing it as different, I'd say stick with the basic (or a similar basic) design, which already does this.

zett




msg:4139715
 6:11 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I always liked the clean look. This made the forum stand out in the mass of websites that seem to be soo cluttered with everything. This put the focus on the content, not the layout.

I would not change this, or -if changes are seen as necessary- make just gentle changes.

subexpression




msg:4139746
 6:50 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I have to agree that it's square...very boxy and closed up.
It's a circa 1995 table-based layout.

Newer "breathable" and open layouts are div-based and rely on CSS for presentation. This would allow for easy redesigns from time to time...editing images and CSS...rather than reams of markup. Table-based layouts are classified as "Presentational Markup". Building web interfaces in this manner will 'rat-hole' the design into an inflexible and unmanageable mess. Whereas, if you separate the markup from presentation, you're left with a descriptive html document which can be anything the stylesheet determines.

My sole criticism is aimed at the layout. No, it's not paranoid rectanglophobia.

This site does indeed look amateurish, probably because it's following some sort of 'Jakob Nielsen' design philosophy. Some designers have the belief (yes, it's a belief) that usability is so important that visual aesthetics are neglected and even avoided intentionally. On the other hand, many interaction designers are poor graphic designers...lacking the skill set to create visually engaging interfaces. The converse is also true...graphic designers who have no interaction design experience...yeah, we've all seen those 'pretty' websites which are usability nightmares.

In my opinion, closing everything in with hard lines impedes users' visual freedom.
Also, having too much zebra-striped color (even the cornflower blue) overloads the brain. If you're devoting a considerable number of neurons on problem solving, there's no sense wasting brain power on unnecessary optical input.

The understandable desire for round buttons, rounded corners, and soft rounded things is the mind's way of coping with the inherently square (rectangular) world of the web.
Rectangular...all web elements are rectangular. There's no such thing as a circular element! Even round radio buttons are actually square elements...when you consider margin, border and padding. There's no such thing as circular images or anything else (with the exception of SVG, Java, or Javascript magic).

My $0.02

incrediBILL




msg:4140345
 4:34 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld is kind of like a wife, she's nice and pretty when you marry her and then she doesn't age so well but you just don't have the heart to throw her out.

Probably because you ain't so pretty anymore either, so you stick together for the sake of the kids (n00bs) and in the end raised a pretty decent bunch of little webmasters.

However, a new coat of paint sure wouldn't kill the place.

ChanandlerBong




msg:4140350
 4:37 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I've always liked the look and feel of WebmasterWorld. There are different skins people can try out if they want a fresh look.

londrum




msg:4140353
 4:39 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

ha ha. but there comes a time when the wife just ups and dies of old age. and she needs to be carted out the house so you can get yourself a new one. that is where we are at now. standing round the grave waiting for the priest to bury her so we can get ourselves a nice new blonde.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4140354
 4:41 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I have no problem with the look of the forum. It's the lack of some of the simpler features and functionality that we find elsewhere that bothers me most.

merijnvw




msg:4140374
 4:50 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I vote for keeping this layout.

BradleyT




msg:4140380
 4:51 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I said this in the other forum and my post got deleted..."This site looks like it was designed by a coder".

There are plenty of good designers out there, hire one for this project.

StoutFiles




msg:4140381
 4:51 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

The site loads quickly, isn't that all that really matters?

David Bruning




msg:4140386
 4:57 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I like visual eye candy as much as the next person, but the content and loads speeds are more important to me. So by all means pretty the place up, but please don't turn it into a slow loading beast :)

subexpression




msg:4140423
 5:12 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

People will always squawk and whine about changes.
It was a mistake for webmasterworld to even ask peoples' opinions.
I've been a member of many forums, and every time there is a change, a bunch of people complain.

Webmasterworld - just change it...do the right thing...hire user experience and graphic design professionals...and people will eventually discard their sentimental biases and adopt your better interface.

A better interface can reduce page load time and improve overall bandwidth usage...reducing server loads and costing the company less money in the long run. AJAX!
Worried about Javascript support? Ever use youtube, gmail, yahoo mail? Rich internet applications are the future. Get used to it.
Put away your stone age tools and join the rest of the modern world.

g1smd




msg:4140580
 6:50 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

If any changes in the layout slow the pages down, I'll be the first back here to complain.

The value of this forum is the content, content, content. I don't give a stuff what colour it is.

lgn1




msg:4140585
 6:54 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

Google looks retro also. It worked out pretty well for them.

ChanandlerBong




msg:4140594
 6:57 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

right now, FF's page speed extension gives this page a booming 94 score. If there were image dimensions on all the little icons, it would go up to a 97 or so.

Another webmaster forum that uses vBulletin scores a miserly 64 and one that used phpBB underwhelms with a 58.

subexpression




msg:4140657
 7:34 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

If you have an ancient processor and 56K dialup, then you're going to have problems.

I have no problems viewing webpages.

Google looks retro also. It worked out pretty well for them.


Google is minimalistic, not retro. It's usable, stylistic, and cutting-edge.
Click on "More" in the left channel - and see what I mean.
Also, click on "More search tools" in the left channel - incredible!
Many high-profile websites have "Add to iGoogle" and will load content into one of your iGoogle homepage widgets. Very cool.

Google has dozens of rich web applications. Here's a few:
  • Gmail
  • Google Images
  • Google Videos
  • Google Maps
  • Google Earth
  • Books
  • Finance
  • Translate
  • Scholar
  • Blogs
  • Youtube
  • Calendar
  • Photos (Picasa)
  • Google Docs (Word Documents, Excel Spreadsheets, Web Forms, Drawing Tools, Document Repository)
  • Google Reader
  • Sites
  • Groups
  • SketchUp (3D Modeling)
  • Google Code - Dev tools, API's and Resources
  • Mobile Apps


I think you're selling Google short...and you're probably not aware of what Google actually is.
Webmasterworld is NOTHING like Google...and the crusty interface of webmasterworld is hardly comparable to anything Google provides.
Google also doesn't rely on circa 1995 table-based layouts, like webmasterworld.
Google has cutting edge Javascript...which many users here seem to be scared of for some paranoid reason.
And, Google is fast...at least on machines built in the last 4 years. If you're experiencing problems with page loads, perhaps you need to update your browser, get DSL or Cable Internet, upgrade your CPU, RAM, or your whole computer. Join the new millennium!

nigassma




msg:4140664
 7:44 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

Nah, not terrible. Just very utilitarian. Helps to reinforce that NCSA Mosaic look, as if to say "this forum predates the WWW."

Design wise, the color scheme here is probably one of the least coherent I've ever come across besides pages on Tripod or Geocities.


/thread

o wait...


Nah, not terrible. Just very utilitarian. Helps to reinforce that NCSA Mosaic look, as if to say "this forum predates the WWW."

Design wise, the color scheme here is probably one of the least coherent I've ever come across besides pages on Tripod or Geocities.


now end /thread.

Ah dang it...

Webmasterworld - just change it...do the right thing...hire user experience and graphic design professionals...and people will eventually discard their sentimental biases and adopt your better interface.

A better interface can reduce page load time and improve overall bandwidth usage...reducing server loads and costing the company less money in the long run. AJAX!
Worried about Javascript support? Ever use youtube, gmail, yahoo mail? Rich internet applications are the future. Get used to it.
Put away your stone age tools and join the rest of the modern world.


I think it's kind of funny that people still worry about javascript support. If you are a "Webmaster" (can I be Battle Cat?) and have javascript disabled you're doing it wrong. Blocking javascript on today's internet is like handcuffing yourself, tying a dumbbell to your ankles and jumping into the deep end of the pool.

nigassma




msg:4140666
 7:45 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

Google looks retro also. It worked out pretty well for them.


Are you even paying attention? Google has updated their UI and apps over the years so many times that they look nothing like they did when they were first launched. You do realize Google updates it's logo on a regular basis right?

Jasp




msg:4140691
 8:00 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

The look of the site gives the impression that it has been abandoned, or is perhaps made by people with little knowledge of modern web design. When I look at the forum I think 'people in their 50s talking about the days of punch cards'.

It desperately needs modernising.

subexpression




msg:4140706
 8:06 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

Jasp - agreed...every word.

willybfriendly




msg:4140711
 8:09 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

I don't mind the layout at all. Many/most forums are cluttered.

Would be nice to have the skins option back so we could change the colors more to our liking though...

travelin cat




msg:4140731
 8:15 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

There used to be a way for each user to customize the colors used throughout the site in the Control Panel. I'm hoping that is brought back.

Matthew1980




msg:4140741
 8:22 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

Hi all,

and the crusty interface of webmasterworld is hardly comparable to anything Google provides

Harsh, but don't forget that this site hasn't had a major overhaul in over a decade.

Clean layout, fast page loads, easy to read - but, comically I think, not CSS or W3C compliant, Ironic when lots of posts/threads are advising people how to do a good standardised layout, though as the site hasn't had a facelift in over a decade I'm not surprised!

The idea behind this entire forum is for it to be a place of user generated knowledge, and fixes from people who actually write software, so the idea is to have clarity NOT clutter. It doesn't need to be bells and whistles, just clear and concise which I think this does in spades.

Cheers,
MRb

buckworks




msg:4140772
 8:34 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

If you're experiencing problems with page loads, perhaps you need to update your browser, get DSL or Cable Internet, upgrade your CPU, RAM, or your whole computer. Join the new millennium!


Because of technical problems caused by Mother Nature, I was stuck on dial-up for nearly two days this past weekend. WebmasterWorld was one of the few sites I visited that wasn't painful on a slow connection.

If one values inclusiveness, loading speed is a major design consideration and not to be dismissed lightly.

That said .... more tasteful color coordination could do a fair bit to improve the visual attractiveness around here, with no compromise to the spartan brand image or fast page loads.

wrgvt




msg:4141112
 1:25 am on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

I'm not fond of using technology just because it's available, especially when it adds nothing to the user experience. Often, it detracts from the user experience. Face it, webmasters are techies who often integrate the latest "cool" feature and they're incredibly impressed with their accomplishment while the site's visitors pull their hair out. The runs the gamut from small web sites to major sites like ESPN.

Webmasterworld exists for the exchange of information. Any new features should make sure they don't interfere with that main mission.

This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld Feedback Forums / WebmasterWorld Feedback Days
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved