Comments on Redesigning Boxes and Arrows

vanderwal — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:11 GMT

I really like and appreciate Matt’s comments as they answered some of the concerns I had. The CSS and XHTML is the only valid approach to doing things these days as it allows the user to use the info across devices and to reskin the content to better suit themselves. Some of the tasty details under the visuals really are important and should be brought forth when announcing the winners as this is of interest to many of the B&A readers (I believe).

An improved mobile interface would be of great interest for myself and atleast a few others. A better print CSS is also needed that will tie in better to the screen version, so a quick look at the printed page will quickly connect with branding and visual design (a smaller font would be lovely also).

I don’t think the blog nature is a bad thing. I did have some concerns when B&A was being initially designed and built, but the tools have not really limited the presentation as badly as I had thought (a cup-half-full please) and actually B&A did a wonderful job breaking ground in some of how it pulled off the design. I have talked to many folks putting together newsletters that have pointed to the B&A design as a positive example of possibilities.

There are somethings the blog interfaces have tought many of us. One is people will scroll up and down and can perfer this method over many clicks.

Another is right navigation works very well for content/text heavy sites. I pay a lot of attention to how people consume web pages as a fun hobby. I see a lot of people in cafe’s, conferences, or at work will narrow their browsers to just the content on right nav pages. When I ask (given the right circumstances to ask) the reason’s given are the narrowing allows the user to focus on just the text, the user can follow IM windows or other things running in the background, and it helps the user read more quickly by keeping their eyes focussed. This is for people who normally read in Western left-to-right mode. Oddly, I have had some of the exact same people in usabiliity testing on left and right nav placement tasks and they do not narrow their browser windows in testing.

This right navigation I think makes a lot of sense for B&A and it was one of the things I truly like about the site as it exists. There are many things that I think need improvement and have also been expressed by others, which I saw the Behavior Design approach actually answering, such as a clearer global browsing structure at the top of the page, very clear meta content at the top of the article (date first published, author, and category), which is fantastic information design in my opinion as these are very common first questions many readers ask (although far too few sites actually get this right on the web).

The Behavior Design approach to pull quotes is brilliant and gives a magazine feel, but it is done in a way that would be difficult to pull off effectively in print (and keep in budget). The incorporation of images in the articles is excellent also. The abiltity to skim a page like this is wonderful. The column width in this design is quite comfortable for easy reading also, which for me has been a problem with the current B&A design. The only nit with the BD entry was font choice as the LCD screens that are on many desktops and laptops these days make reading serif-based fonts more difficult to read. I had never heard of Behavior Design before this entry, but what ever they do I will pay attention to.

Erin Malone — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

Our publishing schedule has always been “issue based” although we have slowed down a bit over the years. We always have had a “welcome” that leads for the month and has top presence for the month. We publish 2 other articles with the welcome and 2 more on the 1/2 month making it a total of 5 articles a month. This summer saw a bit of a slowdown due to the schedules of the authors and the editors, we were down to 2 a month with plus welcome still sitting in the prominent position.

We have been hoping that the redesign will bring a bit more prominence to the new articles – splashier, bigger type, larger image – whatever – to separate it from the older articles.

I think, however, that we will get there. And we will be working with the winners to iterate to a final solution.

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

I think the language used here about the term “blog” is disdainful. The word “blog” has become synonymous with “amateur” in the media, and it is understandable that you would want to distance yourself from it. It doesn’t change the fact that it is the one of the best ways to manage content, offer fresh information, and to keep an audience on the web.

That said, I think I understand that you want something that is more contained and “issue-based”. Is your publication schedule going to match that structure, or are you going to publish articles as they are completed? If yor publication is going to be issue-based, I would reference television program sites like Nova that are episode based. Each of your “issues” should have its own mini site. Otherwise, if your publishing schedule is going to be more blog-like, I would consider using the medium to your advantage sans blog prejudice.

Christopher Fahey — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

It sounds to me like “bloggy” is being described as an aesthetic quality, having to do with how design elements are proportioned on the page, not with what the site actually *has* or *does*. For example, as far as I can see the only substantive “blogginess” difference between the winner and almost all of the other entrants appears to be (a) it only has two or three articles on the front page, forcing articles more than a month old into the “archives”, and (b) it has a stripped-down feature set, removing many of the other methods readers use to access B&A’s rich content (such as browsing by categories, browsing by authors, etc). In particular, it dramatically downplays the community/discussion areas that contain (in many B&A readers’ opinions) B&A’s most interesting insights and information.

If you took any of the other contest entrants, stripped out most of the articles from their home page leaving only two or three, and then also removed all references to most of the other cool features web sites do better than print magazines, then does that make the other entrants “non-bloggy”?

I thought a blog was merely a web site consisting entirely of short, spontaneous content, published extremely frequently, ephemeral rather than archival, where one author or a very small group of regular authors post personal journal-like entries, often with reader commentary. That’s what a “blog” is *substantively* to me. Many of the qualities Christina describes as “bloggy” sound to me more like cosmetic “blog-like” qualities, or even just good old-fashioned “webbyness”.

I do, however, totally and completely agree with B&A’s (now) apparent intention to make the “current issue” content more prominent on the home page, and to have more editorial control over the design and presentation of the main features. I think NONE of the entrants do this well, including my team’s entry and including the winner. I don’t know if “not a blog” is the right way to describe that objective, however, insofar as even a blog site can have editorial control over the top-level home page presentation of content without sacrificing all of the other great stuff blog sites do. It may have thrown many of us off that most of Erin’s examples of “sites we like” ( http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/boxes_and_arrows_r… ) were either 100% pure blogs or at best very blog-like (the most “magazine like” of them was The Morning News ( http://www.themorningnews.org/ ), an awesome web magazine that still looks pretty bloglike).

Ironically, as B&A strives to look like a magazine and not like a blog, the trend among many web-saavy print magazines (and indeed among many mainstream journalists) is to become more blog-like, for example the meticulous cross-referencing and faceting of the new Harpers ( http://www.harpers.org ) or the way Washington Monthly ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com ) made their blog their actual home page.

-Cf

Christina Wodtke — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

You raise an interesting question: what makes a design “bloggy.” In my opinion, it’s made up of a series of “article” or entries all equally weighted, a lack of images as headers, navigation ruining down the side: portrait, not landscape. It’s a certain hyper-minimalism with a lack of a designers choices about what is most important; instead of publishing in bunches publishing happens steadily, so the “lead” article is always the latest.

As for how April 3rd won, we weighted the judges votes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, which allowed a design that was considered strong by all, but nobody’s favorite to win. Many designs had fans & foes. Perhaps choosing a design that worked across tastes was a mistake but I don’t think so. We at B&A are trying to reach across design and usability to marry varying points of view to create a better way to design. We hope April 3rd will work with us to help us find our way.

Matt Titchener — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

So I think it’s about time we heard from one of the designers of the “winning” design i.e. me:

Firstly, excuse me if I am overly wordy with this comment, I simply want to make clear where we (that is, april3rd.com) stand regarding the matter of “design”.

Ignoring our design, my initial impression of the other entries was good – especially silver and bronze. From a purely aesthetic point-of-view, I’m actually quite convinced that these are more appealing; given that our entry took three days of work this doesn’t really suprise me. I can’t comment on how the judges see things, and I can only guess at the motives for picking us as the winner. This however doesn’t change much; this is quite understandably one of those unsettleable debates concerning asethetics and useability that could run on for miles with no conclusion. All I will offer those who feel disappointed is this: I feel disappointed too, that there is now something held up in the spotlight [our “winning” design for boxes and arrows] that doesn’t represent half of what april3rd.com as a design team are capable of, and if anything it lets us down.

It’s one of the those “truths” about someone (or something) that can only been see to be believed. To look at our holding page or the design here for boxes and arrows doesn’t do us justice concerning the quality and breath of design we are capable of, but as we’re only a startup company we don’t really have much else to point you to, to prove our point. It’s just something that is, and will have to be, until our footprint in the market becomes that much larger.

Now concerning some minor points about implementation in the comments already made:
- To say that the colours don’t match down the left hand navigation and the tabs is simply an untrue statement. “Search…” the “Archives”; “Most popular articles” of “this month”; “Newsletter” “About” boxes and arrows; “Authors” to “Write for us”; “Syndicate” “About” boxes and arrows. Is this really too hard a stretch of the sematic-colour paradigm? I think not.
- Every aspect of this site can be authored in valid xhtml and css, including the drop-shadow. Now to say that it’s easy, is probably incorrect, but to say that it’s a “headache” is probably going too far. If you’re not prepared to put up with some “headaches” concering implementation of a site, then why bother with designing it at all? I’m trying to not get pulled into a argument about each and every single aspect of the design – it’s not something I have to defend – but on this particular point I felt quite strongly.

Some things that I’ve noted as being true:
- The design isn’t timeless.
- The design isn’t so good for viewing on other devices (though consider, are any of the others entered either?).
- Certain aspects of the design I would personally change – typographic decisions and the like (no fundamental changes), but because I didn’t oversee the finishing stages (crossing i’s and dotting t’s) I didn’t have a say in that – which to be honest was by choice.

So all in all, I must admit I was shocked too – but also, in defence, I can honestly say that with some tweaking from myself, and some further thoughts about how to direct the design to something that will gain the popular vote, we (that’s april3rd) can come to a clean, elegant, useful and most of all likeable design.

Sorry you’re so disappointed, but to ease the situation, I understand why.

Thanks for your time, Matt Titchener

Karl — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

In my previous post I mentioned that I have to agree with Joe that the winning design is far from fresh or groundbreaking. Though I want to note that a redesign must not necessarily be fresh or groundbreaking, but beside usability I would have expected a more timeless design, respectively “Gestaltung”. I am simply not very pleased with the sites aesthetic (layout, colors, contrast).

Karl — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

Congratulations to the winners.
Though I am sorry because I have to agree with Joe.
.... the winning design is far from fresh or groundbreaking, ...
I am a bit wondering, maybe there wasn’t enough time to redesign the site, that can happen of course.

Constantino — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

A post by “Tino” at Nov. 23 basically asked, “Why would anybody want to do this (redesign B&A) for free?” Then he brilliantly and unoffensively concludes that such competitions would only attract “mainly non-professionals”. In a final stroke of genius, Tino makes clear his disappointment by asserting that the ”’winners’ were expected” because they’re not professionals.

Tino also humbly admits that he entered the competition, “but only for fun (honestly)”. Thanks for the reassurance. He continues to say that “If I had won, i would have declined any work on the site and would have passed it on to someone else.”

If Tino had won, I’m not sure why he would have declined to work on the site. Perhaps he’s a professional among the unranked, and of course, professionals don’t do free work even if he happens to be brilliant.

Regrettably, despite his “just for fun” entry, Tino did not win nor was he even among the winners, which wouldn’t have mattered because even if he had won or perhaps came close to it, he wouldn’t have worked on it anyway.

In closing, I would like to ask, “If the mainly non-professionals produced the a winning design, and Tino’s entry didn’t show up anywhere (even among the mainly non-professionals), then where does that put Tino?”

Tino — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

Yes, contratulations to all the winners!!

Like others on this post, I am extremely disappointed with the winner’s designs. Yes, I did enter .. but only for fun (honestly). If I had won, i would have declined any work on the site and would have passed it on to someone else. So this post is not bitterly composed whatsoever :) ........

To be honest, my jaw dropped when I examined the winning entries. But I’ll TRY and refrain from going into a whole bunch of negative criticism.

But seriously, my only reason for commenting is not to berate the winner’s designs …. I don’t want to visit B&A someday and be looking at a conundrum of badly integrated text and graphics.

But I do understand that this contest inherently attracted entries from mainly non-professionals (no offense to anyone by this statement) since there would be no money involved, so if you think about it, the ‘winners’ were expected.

Am I dreaming, or did someone actually use ‘boxes’ and ‘arrows’ in the body of their design? woweee.

Ok, Tino …. enough. lol.

vanderwal — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

There were some great visual designs put forward, but I am not sure the most usable design won. B&A has been one of the content heavy sites that got it right with navigation on the right. The chosen design is cute, but practical for maintaining may be a problem and for those of use that consume the site on a mobile device it will be a lost effort if not make it harder consume. Much like Joe I do not see the correlation with color.

The most best visual design that *seems* most functional is the Behavior Design entry. There are many things that appear to be truly functional and not just cute and that would work across devices very well as well as across medium.

It is sad in this day when design does not work across device or medium easily, but it is the norm unfortunately. Often we fall into this hole as we are only thinking in one dimention (in the U.S. the one dimension of choice is the desktop browser).

Alex — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

I’d be interested to hear more about what B&A feels makes a design “blog oriented” or not. Maybe they’re right and I’m so inundated with blog input that I can’t differentiate well anymore. I can understand how they would cringe at being refered to as a blog. But I don’t know how to draw a line that has “blog” design on one side and “web site” design on the other.

Jan Jursa — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

Congratulations to the winners :-). Beatiful work.

There are some nice and very interesting entries…
Just like the blogalike design has “embedded itself in people’s minds”, i think one can say that Amazon and Google are very present as well.

Joe — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

No offense to the winning entry or the judges but the winning design is far from fresh or groundbreaking. In contrast to one of the judge’s quotes of: “Color and type are used to reinforce visual hierarchy in a meaningful way.” I have to say that the colors of the tabs do not correlate at all to the left hand navigational sections in any meaningful way whatsoever.

For a text-heavy site like B&A the use of space is not well suited to the long-term needs of the site. It does not allow for a “liquid” design and text is going to be too confined to the overall wrapper.

RE: the drop shadow, let me just say that it adds nothing to the usefulness or beauty of the overall design but will add an unnecessary headache to the front-end coder’s job.

Although I’m offering my opinion, it is just that, *my* opinion. I’m sure there are many people out there that like the design I just think I prefer the current design to the winning entry.

Thanks.

Brendan Deasy — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:10 GMT

Now that the design has been selected (excellent work by all the finalists), how about opening up the CMS selection/implementation to the same community process?

Submissions could be segmented according to category (Open Source, “home grown”, low cost commercial and high cost commercial).