« Previous | Main | Next »

New Homepage Goes Live

Post categories:

Bronwyn van der Merwe | 10:00 UK time, Wednesday, 27 February 2008

Finally, the new homepage has launched! We've been very busy since the beta launched in December. We had an incredible response to our request for feedback on the new design. Thanks to everyone who sent us their thoughts.

homepage_chameleon.png

It took us a while to work through all the comments, both from our feedback form, previous blog posts, and from blog posts across the web. The response was overwhelmingly positive; however, there were also some suggestions for improvements, reports of bugs and the odd insult!

We also engaged in a programme of extensive user and marketing research and testing to assess the site's success both with new audiences and regular users of the site.

Taken all together, this gave us great insight as to where to go next.

When the design team returned after Christmas, we began in earnest making improvements, testing and iterating the design.

From a visual point of view, we reduced the size of the fonts, toned down some of the colours and created a more compact, space-efficient design.

Editorially, you'll see new topics in the "customise your page" panel including Music, iPlayer and Business & Money.

Within some of the old modules, we've improved the offering, for example, we've added "listen again" links to the radio module and national sports feeds to the sports module.

There's also more customisation: users can now choose the colour of the page, or leave it to rotate, picking up the colour of the main feature image.

We feel that running the beta page in tandem with the old homepage has been a great success and we feel that the new homepage is much stronger and more refined, thanks to your input over the last few months.

Our next step is to start rolling out this new visual language across the rest of bbc.co.uk. We'll keep you posted...

Bronwyn van der Merwe is Acting Creative Director, User Experience and Design, BBC Future Media and Technology

Comments

  1. At 11:13 AM on 27 Feb 2008, Eric wrote:

    I think the homepage redesign isn't very good.

    Amongst other things, I do not like the idea of full "customisation" which is just silly. I also think the design, the fonts, the larger scale of the website looks somewhat childish. It is too technical as as homepage. All items appear to submerge into the overbearing colours chosen and get lost (e.g. news). This new 'visual language' as you call it, is not very traditional.

    I hope you will reconsider your decision with this homepae. Until then, I will stop using the BBC homepage as my homepage as from today.

    Thanks for wasting Licence Fee money in an uncessary development when the previous homepage worked well.

  2. At 11:21 AM on 27 Feb 2008, G wrote:

    I like the new design - a big improvement on the previous version.

    Two criticisms though: Having much of the navigation at the bottom of the page will make it harder for some users and the big blank space in the middle of the page doesn't look too good.

  3. At 11:39 AM on 27 Feb 2008, Josh Smith wrote:

    I think it's such a shame that you've launched this while it's still reliant on cookies for storing personalisations; what happened to Identity, that Richard Titus promised us back in December?

  4. At 12:01 PM on 27 Feb 2008, M wrote:

    i can no longer see what i need to at a glance, it's a bit "fisher price" and the thing in the middle of my screen is a useless picture, the old one was great, news, sport weather at a glance. Boo!

  5. At 12:12 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Brendan wrote:

    The new website layout means there is far less information on the homepage. The bulky headings and large amount of blank space is a waste. I am looking solely for volume of information and ease of access from a news site. This is a significant step backwards for the BBC.

  6. At 12:44 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jane Skinner wrote:

    Hi I am very disappointed as I have the BBC as my home page and use it all the time to search the net. This option has been removed so that now I have to search the BBC then click on search the web. What a pain!

  7. At 12:50 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Dan wrote:

    Seriously, the new layout is awful. I can see why you might want to be appear a bit funkier by emulating Facebook, but this is definitely not the way to do it.

    Back to the drawing board.. or just the simplicity of the old style.

  8. At 12:55 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Naveed Kamboh wrote:

    I like the new page.
    Its simple and easy to use

  9. At 12:56 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Matthew wrote:

    Wow, first 5 comments aren't exactly glowing?

    As a web dev, I find the new page layout exciting and a really great job.

    However, after reading the comments above, I'd have to agree with the sentiment to a degree.

    I would say the page CTA (Call to Action) is far too big - at 1024 resolution, it takes up almost a third of the screen!

    Unfortunately, while almost everything else is customisable, this area isn't.

    If it was, it would go a long way to addressing the concerns of the above 5 comments :)

  10. At 01:02 PM on 27 Feb 2008, SeoContest2008 wrote:

    I think it looks absolutely awesome. I hope & cant wait to see this new design site wide it will make viewing the bbc site so much more enjoyable.

  11. At 01:03 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Sara wrote:

    I can't store the customisation, I don't like the design, if you want to change it fine, but please give a link to the old hompeage for those of us who would prefer to use it.

  12. At 01:08 PM on 27 Feb 2008, damiana wrote:

    I don't like the colours as they lack punch and distinctiveness.
    I much prefer the old style and layout.

  13. At 01:12 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Chris wrote:

    I replied to the comment section when I first saw the new site I now see that I am in agreement with others. Perhaps I needed a change so I am off to Yahoo this site is too much in your face the main picture is far too big and I am sure it would be on sale at the early learning centre. The old site was brilliant in as much on one page without scrolling I could go anywhere. Sad but I am off.

  14. At 01:14 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Arben wrote:

    I am glad that most of the viewers share my opinion, which is against these changes. In fact it is a massive step backwards, there is nothing good about these changes, too much empty space, too much green colour, very litle info at the glance.
    No no no, please bring back the old home page.

  15. At 01:17 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Nick wrote:

    By 'eck you can't please some people now can you. I generally do want detail so set the BBC news page as my homepage but this is handy for getting wider links more quickly.

    I like the visual style it is much less cluttered than the old one which I never used.

    So well done it's brave to make a change but it's refreshing.

  16. At 01:23 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Andrew Fry wrote:

    The new design looks OK basically ... but there are a number of layout problems to be sorted.
    eg the 'Customize your homepage' tab and someting underneath it; the 'Display options' link right up against the border.

  17. At 01:24 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Clive wrote:

    New home page is rubbish. As football supporters would say "what a waste of money"

  18. At 01:27 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Christopher S wrote:

    10/10 for effort guys! The CSS is laid out well and the implementation of AJAX is applaudable. What I don't understand is why the BBC (one of the most visited pages in the UK), feels the need to dress its home page like a common Web 2.0 site? Does every site that displays multiple content need to look like PageFlakes?

  19. At 01:27 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Aidan Hansell wrote:

    I'm surprised to read so many negative comments here. I think it's a terrific design and I'm very much in favour of the ease of customisation. Who wants tiny fonts and a screen full of irrelevant information? Now you can choose to view the information you need and it's much easier on the eye.

  20. At 01:35 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Tony wrote:

    Actually, I quite like the new format but it will, of course, take a bit of getting used to. I think you should change the format from time to time to stop it getting stale. I wondered why the clock had the wrong time until I realised that it was showing the time on my computer clock (which is always wrong). Could you not tie it into the Greenwich Time Signal in which case it would be an accurate and really useful feature?

  21. At 01:37 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jonathan Sterling wrote:

    I like the style. I like having a homepage that is configurable to what I want to see. I realise that it will take time to get used to, but once people have tried it out for a few days, I am sure they will find it better than the original homepage.

  22. At 01:40 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jane Skinner wrote:

    Hi I am very disappointed as I have the BBC as my home page and use it all the time to search the net. This option has been removed so that now I have to search the BBC then click on search the web. What a pain!

  23. At 01:45 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Sara wrote:

    Glad you changed the colour option. Much better. Would still like to have had the option of dual locations - e.g. home (Buckinghamshire) and work (London). I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like the option of reading local news from two areas - and seeing how vastly different the weather is.

    Otherwise, it's all rather lovely. Good job!

  24. At 01:47 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Matthew Hill wrote:

    I think there is some nice functionaliy for customisation, but stylistically this is a disappointing effort from the BBC.

    The use of a changing colour is a big mistake in terms of the brand — this would make much more sense to remain red, matching the TV profile which is slick and profesisonal -- the website looks 'kiddie' by comparison.

    I really hate the use of Verdana for headings. It’s fine for body copy, but has always looked clunky and amateur as headings.

    One very positive thing I like is the excellent provision for those without javascript, that’s highly commended.

    Lastly, I like the clock but purely from an aesthetic, nostalgic point of view — looks like the one that sat in front of the News TV slot about 20-30 years ago… :-)

  25. At 01:48 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Samantha Frankish wrote:

    Really not over impressed with the new Homepage, thought the old one was much better and more professional looking. Now I agree with some other commects, it looks a bit childish, will definitely take some getting used to!

  26. At 01:52 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jon Whycer wrote:

    What a great re-design and the range of customisation is a huge benefit. I for one dislike a cluttered screen - particularly cluttered with subject matter I have no interest in. I appreciate being able to eliminate it.
    As a user interface it's much clearer and simpler, and yet drilling down into the detail is very easy. Visually its fresh and attractive.
    Ignore the techno-luddites and moaners - you've done a very good job.

  27. At 01:55 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Martin wrote:

    I do not like it. It is too big, aand requires more scrolling. The main image is far too large. The old page was fine and concise and full of information. As the man said eralier, this will no longer be my default homepage.

  28. At 01:55 PM on 27 Feb 2008, kerry livermore wrote:

    Let's hope the BBC does not show the same contempt for people opposed to change as it did when it changed the football boards. Thousands were against it, less than one hundred for it, and the BBC went ahead anyway.

  29. At 01:55 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Dave E - Cheshire wrote:

    My location for weather(Crewe, Cheshire) now defaults to Liverpool as my local news centre. I, and many others in the locality have no connection with Liverpool. How has the BBC arrived at the default?

  30. At 01:58 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Mark Amodio wrote:

    I myself am hesitant in issuing any plaudits for the revamped homepage but I can only put this down to the universal human nature of "resistance to change". I’m sure once people have become accustomed to the sites logistics, it will be viewed in a different light.

  31. At 02:01 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Bob Spencer wrote:

    I agreed with many of the above criticisms until I realised how easy it is to place the sections in different parts of the screen and edit their content as well. Some I have open, some closed.

    I now think it is excellent. I have the weather and FTSE index permanently on view together with news and Radio 3 snippets. My Sport section shows Cricket, Tennis, Motorsport, Snooker and Athletics, with none of the all-pervading religion of football.

    Brilliant!

  32. At 02:03 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jon wrote:

    It might just be me but this seems wholly unnecessary.

    The previous design was simplistic, functional and attractive. If anything the redesign loses out in these three areas and the customization features are so limited as to offer very little extra.

    My favourite feature, a brilliant piece of waste, is the ticking clock in the top right. I’m struggling to think of a scenario whereby I’d be able to get on the internet and browse the BBC website but not readily view the time.

  33. At 02:04 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Angela wrote:

    I think the new look is wonderful. It's clean, concise and easy to navigate around.

    The previous homepage was congested and dated.

    This is far more usable.

  34. At 02:07 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Tom wrote:

    I think the new homepage is a great improvement. I like the bolder, easier to read headings and the ability to customise the homepage - I don't think that information is any harder to find either.

    What I’m most happy about it though is your decision to change the size of the site from 800x600 pixel resolution to the more widely used 1024x768 resolution ... as well as the benefits of being able to display more in this screen area, it also means that as a web designer (like many others out there), I can now more easily justify using this higher resolution because it indicates a shift in website standards and "If the BBC do it, then it's OK for me to do it!"

  35. At 02:08 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Matt wrote:

    I do not like the enormous photo that takes up half of the page and is just promoting some BBC programme - it cheepens the look of the page completely.
    The focus should be more on the News / current stories!! please change this, or allow us to customise it so that it does not take pride of place on the homepage!!!!!

  36. At 02:09 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Chris wrote:

    Horrible!

    Looks really confused, too much style not enough readability.

    This is a news site, simplicity should take precedence over style.

    Its very bad, seriously, it reminds me of the amateur themes you see for PHP forums.

    Yuck!!!

  37. At 02:11 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Francine Last wrote:

    I hate it. The BBC has always been my homepage, and I liked being able to see the news instantly. I'm not interested in sport, so I don't want it smack bang in the middle of the page, there's less information and its harder to see what's on at a glance. Please, please bring back the other one. There was nothing wrong with it!!!!!

  38. At 02:13 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Kev wrote:

    Upon arriving at the BBC homepage just now I honestly thought I'd mistakenly typed in the url and ended up at a tacky website for kids. For instance, massive fonts and blank spaces all over the place, resulting in lots of scrolling required.

    I much prefer the old version; its design was simple yet functional, and delivered a lot of information in a small space.

    How much of the license fee we pay you has been wasted on this needless redesign?

  39. At 02:18 PM on 27 Feb 2008, David H wrote:

    I think it's great - excellent look and about the right amount of info to hand - makes a much better home page than all the commercial search engines that are always trying to sell you something.

    If you are planning any tweaks - the search engine on this site going back to a set-up where users can go straight to web search rather than having to go via BBC search would be useful.

  40. At 02:21 PM on 27 Feb 2008, James wrote:

    The new design is clean and inviting. I agree with an earlier comment that the empty space in the middle of the page could be put to better use. Overall, however, the look is brilliant.

  41. At 02:26 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Alan J. Morgan wrote:

    For god's sake can I have the old homepage back as an option until you get the new one somewhere near right!

    "Fisher Price", childish, under-utilisation of space, no clarity at first glance etc...

    I have to resort to using the bare links at the bottom of the page to get anywhere like I used to on the old home page.

    If you are intent and why not it's only OUR money, please abandon the outdated resolution and go for 1280 x 1024 as a minimum after all most people now have at least this standard on TFT monitors if not on old CRT monitors. Then we might have more sensibly utilised space for more at a glance info.

    Sorry BEEB, I'm leaving you now. I'll pop back at intervals to see if you are insisting on this kiddies page.

  42. At 02:30 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Graeme wrote:

    The page is too wide. The colours are horrible. The customise the homepage colour boxes are all empty for me and clicking does nothing.

    But it is a decent piece of web-coding and the customisable editorial boxes are a welcome addition. If you could fix the above then it'd be useful.

    But my actual homepage is news.bbc.co.uk - and can I ask you to leave it as it is? You get much more information on it at once.

  43. At 02:32 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Richard Kendall wrote:

    I'm pleased with the latest effort.

    Tinkering with the colour customisation and giving it back to the user was a good final step.

    There is less content ion the page, although using some customisation this can be increased.

    It is asking some effort on the part of the user to arrange the page according to their preference in content, but surely a one-off 'play' with the customisation tool will bring a long term benefit? Although the cookie/privacy issue will no doubt remain a problem for some.

    Times have changed online, and the BBC has to keep up like everybody else.

    The page is visually clear, with plenty of white space.

    Regarding the feedback, there will always be people who don't like a particular style, design or change to an existing site. It's natural, but I think overall it's a decent step in the right direction

  44. At 02:35 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Martin wrote:

    The overall look of the page is fine and I'm sure I'll get used to the customisation in time, however irritating it is at the moment.

    Two gripes though:
    1 - The whole page is too wide for a 1024x768 screen (which is what I think most people have). It means that you can't have a sidebar with your bookmarks open without losing up to a quarter of the page.

    2 - The big thing in the top left can't be moved or shrunk. Please make it smaller or allow us to remove/resize it.

    Other than that, it's fine.

  45. At 02:37 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Steve wrote:

    Like anything new it will take a while to get used to a new look so i will live with it for a while. i am though not keen on the personalisation via cookies options. The thing however i dislike most is the huge (on my screen) feature image which i cannot reduce or close down. I understand your arguments but it dominates my screen when i would prefer the news and sport headlines to be more prominently displayed.

  46. At 02:39 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Tim wrote:

    It's great. Like in all areas of life, some people just don't like change. Look forward to seeing this rolled out across other parts of the site.

  47. At 02:41 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Rory Clapham wrote:

    As a web designer I have to say that the page is a giant leap forward and shows that the BBC aren't scared of the new things that the internet holds.

    As Nick(#13) wrote it is far less cluttered than the previous page. It also looks good on any size screen, I'm using a widescreen laptop and the old homepage used to look terrible refined to the left and skinny. The old page was made for older computers, we needed a change.

    I'm very impressed about the implementations of the widgets that allow complete customization of the homepage, which is something that is becoming much more common.

    I also think that the fact that they have included blog posts etc on the page, helps us to fully understand the internet as it is today.

    I've been following the beta version of the page for some time and have to say that I liked the version before this one, where they made just a few minor changes.

    On the whole I think it is a massive success and wish you the best of luck rolling out a new style to the rest of the BBC.

    (4th attempt at posting this. I hope the server technology for BBC blogs change soon)

  48. At 02:45 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jan wrote:

    Initially I wasn't impressed, and although my first thought was to choose a new home page, I decided to try the 'customise' option first. A fat lot of good it did! Now I too, am going to use a different home page.

    I visit different websites all day for my work and this is one of the least 'visual' I've come across with the different items failing to stand out - I even managed to miss the weather section!

    Also, I can't understand why when the old version used to fill my screen, the right-hand side of the new version is empty, yet I have to scroll down a long way to get to the bottom of the information on the left-hand side of the page. It doesn't make sense!

    The old 'red, white & blue' of the previous design was very British - and of course that's how the BBC should be. And why play down the news too? That's what the BBC is famous for throughout the world. Why is it, effectively, camouflaged on the new site and why is there so little of it?

    More of my licence fee wasted then, with those that spend it having ignored the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it".

  49. At 02:52 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Matt wrote:

    I think a lot of people here have gotten used to the way the old site felt. Yes, you could get to anywhere you wanted from the homepage, but it was just a mass of links.

    The way the web is going the more feature rich the page the more universally liked it is.

    I like the way you can customise what you see on your own personal version of the homepage. I like the new design as it is 'young and fresh'. The majority of people I've spoken to like the new version.

    Of course, not everyone is going to like it, but those who don't like it are more likely to have found this blog (as it is the only one on the homepage) and chosen it as a place to vent their dislike of the page.

    If you do like this page - please let other folk know - this isn't a step backwards, it's because a lot of people don't like doing things for themselves as this requires effort. With a little effort, you can get the site to show what you want in the way you want it.

  50. At 02:53 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Alan Outen wrote:

    I much preferred the old one!
    Why change for the sake of change?

  51. At 03:03 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Barry wrote:

    The new colours and designs are a great improvement aesthetically, but I agree with G that the navigation panel at the bottom should return to being a strip down the left hand side and I agree with Brendan that there is a great deal of wasted space. Access to regions should be available with a single click rather than having to go down to the navigation panel and then having to go through at least a two-stage process. Most people these days have decent-sized screens and much more information could be presented. A triumph of design over function !

  52. At 03:06 PM on 27 Feb 2008, John Wright wrote:

    If it works - don't mend it.
    Why oh why have you taken this retrograde step to downgrage what was a good homepage you meddlers.
    Lets apply some common sense and drop it and reinstate our familiar homepage. Sack the magician.

  53. At 03:10 PM on 27 Feb 2008, fisher85 wrote:

    It was a bit of a shock but now I've got rid of the things I don't use (like the sports pages and childrens pages), moved the news up to the top and changed the colours I think It's great - love it!

  54. At 03:13 PM on 27 Feb 2008, SteveP wrote:

    I think a few people need to take some time to customise their homepage. I've been using it since the BETA testing.

    The few complaints I had (large fonts, spacing etc.) has all been rectified.

    One comment above suggested there was less on the page, not sure how they work that out..... again, maybe they need to have a look at the customisation settings.

    We definitely need a login based system for storing our settings, it's a pain having to set every new PC I use, but I am sure that isn't far away!

    Are we going to get an iPlayer in the iPlayer module on the front page?

  55. At 03:24 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Kenny Green wrote:

    Please Please Please bring back the old page, or at least give us the option to view in the old style. I can't find my way around the new format at all. The old one was great. Why change it? I'm all for progress, though I am not a fan of the new one. Sorry. :(

  56. At 03:27 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Andrew Yates wrote:

    Congratulations to all who worked on this update, personally I think it looks great and definitely brings the site up to date. Needs some minor improvements (most detailed by others).

    You should offer the old style site for people who want to use it, as well as offer different screen resolution options.

    Apart from that, look forward to seeing the rest of the site get the new look.

  57. At 03:39 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Graham wrote:

    I think the new design is brilliant. About time the BBC brought things bang up to date.

    Can't wait for the rest of the site to be completed.

    Well done.

  58. At 03:55 PM on 27 Feb 2008, stewart wrote:

    Please give option for old layout, the old site although a little dated was ideal.

  59. At 03:55 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Shazzy wrote:

    What happened to the BBC's colours??? the maroon. This colour is all over the BBC's website, including on the BBC news channels, except for the new homepage. These colours are part of your brand BBC!

  60. At 03:56 PM on 27 Feb 2008, LM wrote:

    * Customisation, customisation, customisation - the old homepage contained A LOT of information but 90% I never looked at. Now I can replace a lot of the worthless (to me) content with things I am interested in. I think a few people who have commented above have not grasped yet just how easy it is to customise your content.

    * Technically speaking the site is an absolute Tour de Force. BBC I take off my hat to you.

    * Colours - some of them are simply terrible and really let the page down. Whilst I do like the idea of being able to pick your own colour scheme, I think by some of the colour choices, and the constant changing between them, people have had less than ideal first impressions. I think this goes a long way to explain a lot of peoples' first impressions above - particularly w.r.t. the side appearing childish. I have set mine to black and I think it achieves the serious, well-respected look and feel that such a globally significant site.

    * I think the default text size is too large. I appreciate that it is better to start large and give people the option to make it smaller, but the first impression is a lot of wasted space due to enormous text, which I think makes the site appear unproffesional.

    * I have just spent quite a long time customising the page to contain everything I want and look exactly how I want it. When I go home this evening I will have to go through this process all over again. Could it be made possible to export/save your settings for use elsewhere. Possibly connect this to 606 usernames or something similar?

    Generally, I would say not to be too discouraged by the negative comments above. The new site is a huge step up - perhaps too huge for some - but I think in a few months time it will be held up as an example of how sites should be.

    8/10 overall. Bonus points for bravery in making such a massive leap technically.

  61. At 03:59 PM on 27 Feb 2008, jinesh patel wrote:

    for those who are complaining about what you can and cannot see, please dont be so myopic!! you can customise how much detail you want, for example if just want the news and nothing else then uncheck all the boxes. if you want more news still, then go to the news box, click edit and add even more specific areas of the news to the homepage. if that is still not enough just type bbc.co.uk/news. this new homepage is fantastic! it provides greater freedom and choice for the user in clean, fresh and modern way. you can move the different areas around the screen as to your specific needs. i agree with some of the comments about the previous homepage, there was too much information which nobody used. i think the bbc have moved in the right direction using Web 2.0. The BBC leads the field in the UK in its innovation and expertise in the internet and i hope to see more fantastic developments in the future (i.e iplayer for MACS!!)

  62. At 04:02 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Maff Long wrote:

    I love the new BBC Homepage.
    I am amazed by the criticism of most of the posters here. I wonder if they have done more than give it a cursory glance before they posted their comments.
    A number of posters have said that the BBC homepage is a NEWS page, not so. news.bbc.co.uk is the BBC news homepage, this is the page for the whole of the BBC and it does a good job of reflecting that. People wanting to get any information about the BBC will use this page as their first port of call, and it seems perfectly normal to have a big advert in the middle of the page for itself. Go to the home page of any other company and they tend to great you with adverts for their latest products too!
    As for the white space people have been commenting on, the page is customisable, so you can get rid of it by placing information you are interested in in it's place.
    I love the colour scheme and the fact that it changes with the picture. I really appreciate the way the colours match main image tonally.
    In summary I find this site useful, informative, elegant and I have some degree of control over it's content and look which it much appreciated.
    Once again the BBC sets the standard for good web design. Well done!
    I have now set the BBC site as my homepage.

  63. At 04:04 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Martin wrote:

    The overall look of the page is fine and I'm sure I'll get used to the customisation in time, however irritating it is at the moment.

    Two gripes though:
    1 - The whole page is too wide for a 1024x768 screen (which is what I think most people have). It means that you can't have a sidebar with your bookmarks open without losing up to a quarter of the page.

    2 - The big thing in the top left can't be moved or shrunk. Please make it smaller or allow us to remove/resize it.

    Other than that, it's fine.

  64. At 04:05 PM on 27 Feb 2008, N Taylor wrote:

    Who pays for the BBC website? No doubt it's the UK license payers. So, we pay for a site that the whole world can enjoy(?).

    If it generated revenues that were used to subsidise future license fees that would be OK. However, I'm sure it doesn't. This is unfair and a misuse of our money.

  65. At 04:07 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Josh Smith wrote:

    @Francine Last - the whole point of the new homepage is that it's customisable - you don't have to have Sport there if you don't want it! Click the "Customise your homepage" link and untick Sport, along with anything else you don't want. Drag sections around until you get the layout as you like it.
    If you want more at-a-glance news, click the + button next to More Top Stories. If you click the Edit button at the top of the News section, you can choose what headlines you see.
    Make the BBC homepage perfect for yourself. :)

    @Beeb chaps and chapesses - I've noticed there's a great inconsistency with the programme links in the TV (and probably Radio, although I'm not an avid Radio fan, so I haven't checked) section; some links go to a programme's entry on /programmes, some to a programme's minisite, some to a programme's listing on /whatson, etc.
    To help ensure a degree of consistency so us users know what to expect, don't you think it'd be better to have them all linking to an entry on /programmes? Just a suggestion...
    And I'm still eagerly awaiting an update on Identity. :P

  66. At 04:07 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Ann wrote:

    Hate it. What's with all the blank space? Give me back the old homepage please.

  67. At 04:09 PM on 27 Feb 2008, J Carley wrote:

    Not very happy with the new page

  68. At 04:10 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Bryan Porteous wrote:

    I am not impressed by the new home page design. In particular it doesn't lead directly to the full schedule for all TV programmes. Have I missed something ?

  69. At 04:13 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Ken Pritchard wrote:

    This is what I like about the new front page. I like the clock and..err that's it.
    The big picture far too big, as are the weather icons. It's fragmented and it's tacky.

  70. At 04:13 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Robert wrote:

    As with all change, it will take some getting used to.

    Nevertheless, I particularly like the customisation as it allows me to filter out categories I don't use.

    Too early to give a true analysis though.

  71. At 04:15 PM on 27 Feb 2008, michael stuart wrote:

    your new page is awful its dreadful please remove it and go back to the old one as soon as possible if this is what you spend the licence money on then the sooner thats abolished the better

  72. At 04:19 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Brian Butterworth wrote:

    A very nice new homepage, very usable.

    I'm 100% happy you didn't dump the lovely clock from the beta either!

    Well done, Auntie.

  73. At 04:23 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Wonderwall wrote:

    New site is great - fully loving it. Okay, so some page elements are a bit chunky, but I bet everyone in the usability groups wanted things bigger, brighter, easier and there's a lot to be said about the 'Fisher-Price School of Web Design' (now my Nan *and* my daughter can us it!). The mild customisation is cool and the clock in the top corner is a great little throwback to the TV idents of old. Roll on the rollout across the rest of the Beeb.

  74. At 04:25 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Mr Maff wrote:

    I love the new BBC Homepage.
    I am amazed by the criticism of most of the posters here. I wonder if they have done more than give it a cursory glance before they posted their comments.
    A number of posters have said that the BBC homepage is a NEWS page, not so. news.bbc.co.uk is the BBC news homepage, this is the page for the whole of the BBC and it does a good job of reflecting that. People wanting to get any information about the BBC will use this page as their first port of call, and it seems perfectly normal to have a big advert in the middle of the page for itself. Go to the home page of any other company and they tend to great you with adverts for their latest products too!
    As for the white space people have been commenting on, the page is customisable, so you can get rid of it by placing information you are interested in in it's place.
    I love the colour scheme and the fact that it changes with the picture. I really appreciate the way the colours match main image tonally.
    In summary I find this site useful, informative, elegant and I have some degree of control over it's content and look which it much appreciated.
    Once again the BBC sets the standard for good web design. Well done!
    I have now set the BBC site as my homepage.

  75. At 04:27 PM on 27 Feb 2008, LM wrote:

    * Customisation, customisation, customisation - the old homepage contained A LOT of information but 90% I never looked at. Now I can replace a lot of the worthless (to me) content with things I am interested in. I think a few people who have commented above have not grasped yet just how easy it is to customise your content.

    * Technically speaking the site is an absolute Tour de Force. BBC I take off my hat to you.

    * Colours - some of them are simply terrible and really let the page down. Whilst I do like the idea of being able to pick your own colour scheme, I think by some of the colour choices, and the constant changing between them, people have had less than ideal first impressions. I think this goes a long way to explain a lot of peoples' first impressions above - particularly w.r.t. the side appearing childish. I have set mine to black and I think it achieves the serious, well-respected look and feel that such a globally significant site.

    * I think the default text size is too large. I appreciate that it is better to start large and give people the option to make it smaller, but the first impression is a lot of wasted space due to enormous text, which I think makes the site appear unproffesional.

    * I have just spent quite a long time customising the page to contain everything I want and look exactly how I want it. When I go home this evening I will have to go through this process all over again. Could it be made possible to export/save your settings for use elsewhere. Possibly connect this to 606 usernames or something similar?

    Generally, I would say not to be too discouraged by the negative comments above. The new site is a huge step up - perhaps too huge for some - but I think in a few months time it will be held up as an example of how sites should be.

    8/10 overall. Bonus points for bravery in making such a massive leap technically.

  76. At 04:34 PM on 27 Feb 2008, ken Pritchard wrote:

    I'll start by saying what I like about the new front page ..I like the clock and errr that's it. The "big picture" is far too big and so are the weather icons. Is it my imagination, or do the colours change each time I log in? If they do, then why? It's different, certainly, but it's not improved.

  77. At 04:35 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Anthony wrote:

    I hope this page doesn't stay. I really do not like it. I could get all the information from the previous one at a quick glance, it was easy to navigate and the layout was simple.

    This has just overly complicated things and cluttered the page.

    I would also like an option to keep the old page, I really do not like this at all.

  78. At 04:36 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Simon Bain wrote:

    Reliant on cookies to store data on my PC. Lazy and bad bad programming. And what's with the colour? Makes it very difficult for me to read!!!1

    Layout design is much better

  79. At 04:41 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Aileen Cannock wrote:

    Why didn't you just leave the homepage alone. The new homepage is gaudy and "in your face" and I won't be having it as my homepage any longer.

  80. At 04:43 PM on 27 Feb 2008, lexsi wrote:

    Apart from the clock, I am not keen on the new look at all. It reminds me of too many blog pages, as if it is meant to be fun! fun! fun!

    I don't like having to scroll all the way down to get the links I want, especially to world news and as others have stated, missing the option to search the net. I'm off to change my homepage too now.

  81. At 04:51 PM on 27 Feb 2008, David Walker wrote:

    Awful, awful, awful!

    Ill thought out and badly designed with oversized fonts, a graphic which fills most of the screen and can not be shifted when you customize.

    Beyond that the lack of consistency inside the BBC site to this horrid front end jars terribly against the core news and sports pages making it no more than gimmicky front end which disappears behind you in a single click.

    On top of this the whole mess of personalizing the website is a by machine affair and if, like I am sore many of many of your users do, you work from multiple locations I have to go through the mess of getting what I want out of it each time.

    I have no idea why we have been forced to use this front end and neuter the phenomenal success of the BBC website.

  82. At 04:54 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Gus wrote:

    I like the new page especially now that it is customisable. It is just a pity that there are defaults displayed in the various categories and these cannot be removed, they could be replaced with a link rather than take up space.

  83. At 04:56 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Erle Jackson wrote:

    The best site on the web has just taken a nosedive. What a shame.
    Please could you keep the option to view it as it was. The new layout has too much blank space - customisable settings easily lost if stored as cookie. Seems daft having to scroll down for stuff when the page margins are empty and there's that big grey blank across the middle. Must be even more infuriating for people with widescreen monitors.
    Its bad enough having this new look on just the home page - the promise that the new style is to be rolled out across the whole site is a big disappointment.
    Give us back the classic view please!
    Thanks.

  84. At 04:59 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Michael wrote:

    I love the new style, and all the customisation options. I like the big main feature bit, and the clock is pretty cool. :)

    It would be good if there was an option to search the web, maybe as an optional panel that can be added. (Without a web search option it's not a good browser homepage!)

    Also, It would be good if the sport section didn't keep football news in the top bit, when I've unticked football.

    I'm looking forward to the new design spreading to other parts of the site, particularly BBC News.

    I think you make good use of the space. I think the increase in width to 1024px is an improvement. Maybe there should be a narrower site option for PDAs and other handheld gadgets. (The specific PDA version is currently too bland and unappealing.)

    I like that the background colours can change each time I vist, which makes the site seem more lively.

    Thanks for your efforts. Contrary to other commenters, I consider this a great use of the licence fee - it's a big improvement!

  85. At 05:07 PM on 27 Feb 2008, John Bowell wrote:

    The retro clock makes a welcome return. Great.

  86. At 05:10 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Mike Quentel wrote:

    I like the older web site design, with the easy-to-use tabs. The new design looks too much like advertising, which my mind has learned to ignore. The new design looks trite...reminds me of the garishness and gaudiness of many other news sites. Please bring back the older, more familiar design. Or at least make the new one more similar to the old one. Thank you.

  87. At 05:10 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Phil wrote:

    Since this launch I have changed my homepage, the old page had all the main info on one page, this one seems to have far less info and is ridiculous how it changes colour, did the BBC not listen but that was a criticsm of the 2012 logo.

    Can we have an option to the old home page back?

  88. At 05:14 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Hari wrote:

    Hello,

    I like the new home page and as we say in the USA. It is time for change. Old schoolers should start appreciating new trends rather than complaining about change.

    Good Job BBC.

    -Hari

  89. At 05:15 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Mariep wrote:

    I lodged on today and was so confused the other version was simple clear and I knew how to go about finding things. Why do organisations want to fix things that aren't broken.

  90. At 05:17 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Rory Clapham wrote:

    For everyone who is calling the page childish:

    Would you rater be stuck in a board meeting or be sun bathing on a beach with your colleagues while discussing the latest issues?

    I know which I'd choose.

    Fun is key to any business and the Beeb have done well to keep that element.

    I like the new homepage, it's sleek and quite cool and easy to use. Can't wait to see how this transformation takes hold of the rest of the website.

  91. At 05:21 PM on 27 Feb 2008, John Smales wrote:

    The old site wasn't broken for me so I see no need for it to be fixed, it seems more a case of change for change's sake. I'm just going to have to learn to find the stuff I want again. I hope whoever thought or this doesn't get a bonus this year.

  92. At 05:22 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Paul Dearing wrote:

    Don't like it.

    You seem to be suffering from delusion that change is equivalent to progress. This is like supermarkets continally moving their produce about.

    How can I go back to the old design? It is easier to use and works better with a low resolution screen.

    Public money badly spent.

  93. At 05:24 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Mike Quentel wrote:

    I miss the older page design. The new design looks too much like the kind of gaudy design used in American news sites. Looks too much like advertising, which my mind has learned to ignore. Please provide at least the option of switching back to the older view. Many thanks.

  94. At 05:29 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Leslie Watson wrote:

    What the hell are the bbc doing messing with the website.
    I hope it was done in house and did not cost hunderds of thousans of license payers money.
    The moto is if it aint broke dont fix it, its not about the web site the website is just a link to get to somewhere else on the bbc website.
    Its like the new weather may they brought out a few years ago nobody has a clue about weather symbols.
    BBC IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT.

  95. At 05:32 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Steve wrote:

    Awful.

    It wasn't broken - why was it mended ?

  96. At 05:39 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Geoff wrote:

    Like a number of other posters, I have had the BBC site as my homepage for years. It was informative, clear, easy on the eye, with straightforward links to more detailed information.

    This new design is attrocious. Gone is the clarity, ease of use, and unless your "customisation" facility is going to allow me to virtually re-create the old design (and should I really be forced to do that?) then I will be off to a new homepage (probably some other news outlet) in a very short time.

    What a way to shoot yourselves in the foot, BBC!

    Here's a challenge to you. Give us the option of the old homepage as well as the new one, and let the people decide which one they want.
    Or are you too chicken for that ...?

  97. At 05:56 PM on 27 Feb 2008, sue wrote:

    Sorry, I'm sure I'll get used to it but I really preferred the old one. Nowhere near the same amount of info as there was before.

  98. At 05:57 PM on 27 Feb 2008, DavidW wrote:

    I don't expect you to take any notice of this, but I LOATHE the redesign.

    You've learned nothing from your recent tweaking of the BBC Food fonr page, where you so cleverly shifted the button to visit the Forums to the very bottom of the page, right out of the way and deeply inconvenient.

    Guess what ? On this rediesign, you've shifted the Lifestyles access point, including the BBC Food pages, to guess where ? The very bottom of the home page.

    Why not make your "customisation" feature a reality by allowing users to relocate the features they use to the top of the page ?

  99. At 06:08 PM on 27 Feb 2008, sarah bear wrote:

    Sorry I thought the last homepage was superb and something to be proud about - for people with poor eyesight the new homepage is not very good. It is much harder to get around. The BBC has not learnt from past BBC TV logo mistakes when logos were changed on a continual basis for no other reason than change and fear of budget loss. Thought BBC had learnt from these David Brent type blunders and thought and felt confident in itself not to keeping changing continuity. Why the BBC does not understand we are all creatures of habit I fail to understand. Just fine tune and spend money on areas within the BBC that are not working - save some jobs and leave things alone that are working - thats all the licence fee payers ask.

  100. At 06:10 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Martin wrote:

    I don't like it. The majority of people of people who have commented here don't like it. The quotation on the front page is from someone who loves it.

    Accurate reporting there BBC!


    What are my criticisms? Firstly, this page is all style and no substance. The previous homepage was chastised for appearing dated (a legitimate claim) but it was very easy to read and look at with a link to the news section in the middle of the page. The updated version appears to be prioritising the advertising of BBC programmes over the delivery of quality up to the minute content.

    The news and sport sections hardly leap off the page at me. They are lost within the various fonts and colours so I have no idea what the major stories are. One look at the old page would tell me everything I needed to know and I could follow the links as appropriate. Customisation? No idea what that entails but it sounds complex and I really can't be bothered to try and work out how to do it.

    In short, I don't think much of it. In fact, "visual language" is about the best phrase that can be used to describe it and the entire BBC these days - a buzz-phrase slogan bandied about by management to sound relevant and exciting but is in reality quite empty.

  101. At 06:13 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Robert Stalad wrote:

    Change it back- I hope this is a new improved coke type ploy to get us to remember how much we liked the old lay out.

  102. At 06:27 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Keith Ryder wrote:

    What a waste of time, effort and money. The new website is not an improvement on the earlier one. Why bother changing stuff just for the sake of it. It seems that your IT department have too much time on their hands.

  103. At 06:35 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Chris Keene wrote:

    Surprised by all the negative comments. The new look has been advertised on the homepage for months so surprised those who had it as there homepage did not spot this.

    The old page may have worked as a 'spring board' for those who used it daily, but it was confusing to those who only visited infrequently (I'm guess most people), each BBC department wanted a link on the front, and then each major BBC department/event wanted a bigger splash for them as there were too many links.

    I have news fully down the left, and Radio, Blogs and TV on the centre/right.

    The look is much more clear and clean.

    In reply to people here: I think the old homepage was broken, as it was confusing and did not keep up with expectations, I think a real was of licence fee money would be maintain two homepages to keep a small number of people happy.

    I think there should be a study as to why people react with such zeal, the same was true of the Guardian hoepage, and others.

  104. At 06:35 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Darren wrote:

    I'm sorry but it looks horrible.

    As for customisation of the page am I one of the few people that enjoys the BBC actually telling me what the important stories of the day are and having journalists and content editors work for their pay?

    I'm sorry BBC but the new redesign reeks of bandwagon jumping, I look to the BBC to lead and innovate, not to follow.

  105. At 06:44 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Mike McNamara wrote:

    I've got to believe that most of the comments above that say the 'old' BBC home page was better are coming from users who had the BBC news page as their home page and they did not know that it as not 'the' BBC real home page!

    I thought the 'old' BBC home page was too flat, with little real changing info and quite boring. I cannot believe that anyone would think it better than the BBC News home page, which has been my browser home since ...

    Anyway saw some of the new design during the beta testing and can see how it has developed through various viewer/user feedback and I think it now looks pretty good and does a very good job of presenting the BBC online. Of course it won't please all of the people all of the time, that is something that is never going to happen with any web design or software, believe me I know! Yes there are areas for improvement and like any good organisation they will be incorporated over time. First lets at least give the new design a chance and see how it works out.

    I for one will now be changing my own browser home page from the BBC News page to the 'new' BBC home page and for those of you that need to search in Google, install the google tool bar in your browser it's much faster!! By the way, no I don't work for the BBC!

  106. At 06:50 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jamie wrote:


    Just like all the millions of pounds the BBC wastes on rugby in Wales, the official main web page is a joke!

  107. At 06:58 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Babs wrote:

    I don't like the new design. Less information, less intuitive, less useful. I'd like to see the 'old' page back, that was great. As others have requested, could we have the option to go back? If not, I tend to stop frequenting sites if they 'upgrade' to something unusable. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

  108. At 06:58 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Pikestaff wrote:

    I'm happy with the page now that I have customised it fully, but:
    (1) As others have said cookies are bad news. Too easy to lose, and the customisation only works on the one PC. I hope we will soon get something more portable.
    (2) The font size is too big for me. I have shrunk it by one point (via the Display Options link, then Customise), which has improved it greatly. But this only works on the home page. If the design is rolled out over the whole website I hope you revert to a smaller font.

  109. At 07:11 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Ginny wrote:

    Now I've got used to it (and that took some time, as I really loved the old design), the layout is fine, and the customisation facility is working well.

    I'm particularly pleased with the clock - good thinking!

    Can't see where I can access the web though, and am missing that.

    I do wonder about the fact that a very important section that prompts access to some pretty wonderful stuff on your phenomenal website has been 'dumped' at the end of the page where it has low prominence...bit of a shame really, as I wonder how many people are aware that such an amazing information resource exists as it is...

  110. At 07:13 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Andrew Smith wrote:

    My first impression is that the people responsible for this have too much time on their hands and have to "do" something to justify their no doubt excessive salaries.

    Lets get back to the old site, fire all concerned with this change and use the funds saved to reduce the licence fee.

    Andrew Smith, Rotherham

  111. At 07:15 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Pat wrote:

    Pathetic attempt at improving something that already worked well. Bring back the proper homepage.

  112. At 07:17 PM on 27 Feb 2008, James wrote:

    The new homepage looks nice, but I don't like the fact that the retro clock uses flash - it slows my computer down, so I normally use flashblock (a firefox extension), which causes the top of the page to render incorrectly.

    Please take the flash clock out or at least give users the option to disable it. Thanks!

  113. At 07:25 PM on 27 Feb 2008, ken thacker wrote:

    Why change the BBC homepage, and then ask people to say why they don't like it.? As stated by many others I am now going to ghange, because backward steps are not for me. Forced to check out others, (reluctantly)

  114. At 07:29 PM on 27 Feb 2008, George Kelly wrote:

    I dislike the new BBC website design. It is much less appealing, very square looking and too bold. It has no soft edges at all. I like the choice of theme colour and the option to customise the screen but... There is little background shading which is too light and with too much white space and background. The previous design was much better because there was more shading and it was easier on the eyes without too much contrast. I have had to turn down the brightness on my screen but I would prefer to stay with the previous screen design. Can you please modify your new design to make it more comfortable to look at.

  115. At 07:34 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Craig wrote:

    I think the new page is a big improvement over the old homepage. I'm surprised you waited this long before chaining it actually.

    The old page had too much going on and wasn't very user friendly.

    One thing I would suggest is give us options on how we store our homepage settings. Give people the choice of having just a cookie like it is now or a username and password which can be used in multiple locations.

  116. At 07:40 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Brian Hunter-Rowe wrote:

    Why couldn't you just leave well alone. What a mess, much too clever! Some people don't realise that doing nothing is ALWAYS an option.

  117. At 07:43 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Michael wrote:

    Dear BBC.
    My first port of call every evening was to this website. It was so easy to use especially from the Rugby Union point of view along with UK News and World News. Now it is simply a 'mess'. I am not averse to change in many ways they are beneficial but why just go and change things just for the sake of it. I am a Licence payer and like a load of other things at the BBC this is simply a complete waste of money. Please re-consider this BBC I like a lot of other people are paying your Wages so please try in a POSITIVE manner to justify your Salaries.
    Please Please BBC leave things as they are - remember YOU work for US therefor you should do want WE want.

  118. At 07:43 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Rob New wrote:

    I like the idea of a customisable home page but I do not feel it has been executed very well. The size of everything is far to overpowering.

    I also think one of the customiable options should be the use of short news and sport summary videos which could be built into the page itself.

  119. At 07:54 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Steve wrote:

    A step backwards for me.
    There is too much use of any colour you choose.
    It's nice that you can choose the sections displayed, but I couldn't change the order they appeared in.
    While I have a passing interest in Science & Nature, to have it appearing first, with the news headlines tucked away down the page on the right, just doesn't feel right.

  120. At 08:00 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Graham wrote:

    The new BBC homepage is great - modern, clean, bright and easy to navigate. Have people tried dragging and dropping the webparts around on the page? A great use of modern web technologies.

    Not quite sure what the detractors are on about - people are naturally conservative I guess - just listen to the howls of protest and derision every time a new version of Windows comes out!

    I would think it is actually part of your remit to make the humungous BBC website as customisable and personalisable as possible.

    Keep up the good work

  121. At 08:03 PM on 27 Feb 2008, jsb wrote:

    Sorry but I think the new design is very poor indeed. There is not enough information on the first screen to enable choices to be made for links. For example one has to scroll right down to get a business link.
    I really think you you need to rethink the whole concept and frankly whilst so many people say that change is good you really dont need too in my view. Stick to what your customers are happy with which is what you had.

  122. At 08:06 PM on 27 Feb 2008, D.Gray wrote:

    I did comment adversely on the beta site and (i guess like everyone else) comments totally ignored.
    I agree emphatically with all these adverse comments posted today - the new page is vastly inferior to the one it replaced.
    On the previous page I could go everywhere on your site without all this tedious scrolling and as I said before, I have to remove my Favourites list to see the whole page which is totally unacceptable - so I'll be off elsewhere.
    The look of the page is just awful!!!
    DG

  123. At 08:07 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Jim McCabe wrote:

    I don't mind the new design, although it does remind me of the RTE homepage (www.rte.ie/ ). I love the clock in the top right hand corner. It looks like the clock used on BBC2 during the 70s/80s. Truly a Life on Mars moment.

  124. At 08:08 PM on 27 Feb 2008, jsb wrote:

    Sorry but I think the new design is very poor indeed. There is not enough information on the first screen to enable choices to be made for links. For example one has to scroll right down to get a business link.
    I really think you you need to rethink the whole concept and frankly whilst so many people say that change is good you really dont need too in my view. Stick to what your customers are happy with which is what you had.

  125. At 08:09 PM on 27 Feb 2008, jsb wrote:

    Sorry but I think the new design is very poor indeed. There is not enough information on the first screen to enable choices to be made for links. For example one has to scroll right down to get a business link.
    I really think you you need to rethink the whole concept and frankly whilst so many people say that change is good you really dont need too in my view. Stick to what your customers are happy with which is what you had.

  126. At 08:11 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Im Right wrote:

    Personally I can not believe people's negativity regarding the new All Singing All Dancing BBC Web site. I'm extremely happy that the BBC were prepared to challenge the status quo and onboard and roll out new create technologies. For all those who leave, 10 will join.
    I work in IT and know exactly what is required to release any new technology. As expected, some will have grown use to old systems and old methods of doing a particular thing. This is to be expected. Sadly, it is these very same people who do not contribute to a forward thinking, moving society.
    BBC, well done! For those who disagree I implore and encourage you to embrace change.

  127. At 08:21 PM on 27 Feb 2008, D.Gray wrote:

    Looks as though your site has crashed under weight of adverse comment. I'm trying again because I am so incensed.
    Shorter message now in case it does not get to you again!
    Emphatically agree with about all of the adverse comments that have actually reached you (there must be loads in the pipeline).
    Page looks awful, too big because I have to remove my Favourites list and this is totally unacceptable.
    All the tedious scrolling down is also unacceptable - before one could go virtually anywhere on your site with a simple click and none of the stupid scrolling down.
    Have to go elsewhere for home page because yours will drive me mad.
    DG

  128. At 08:39 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Josh Smith wrote:

    +1 Mr McNamara! Words right out of my mouth.

    To those of you ridiculing it as an unnecessary change, or a waste of money, I suggest you read Chris Keene's comment (#81), and some of the previous blog posts about the new homepage. Such a redesign was much needed.
    Sudden change is rarely welcome, I know. Calm down with the ranting and give the new look some time and open mindedness - you never know, it might grow on you. ;)

    To those who dislike the colour-cycling - whack the big "customise your homepage" button and choose the colour you prefer. Hey presto, it won't change any more.

  129. At 08:40 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Morley Dyer wrote:

    One simple question Why?
    It seems loadsa money has been spent on what was perfectly adequate.
    Of course there are Empires to build so no one will listen to those who liked things as they were. We are now stuck with this totally unnecessary new web page and I will be finding a new homepage.
    Of course I have only been a BBC supporter and paid a licence fee for 40 years - what do I know?

  130. At 08:42 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Paul wrote:

    I think it's great - a massive improvement on the ancient, creaking old one that wasn't customisable at all and overloaded you with links and information you didn't care about.

    I suspect the majority of negative kneejerk reactions above are from those who fear any change, no matter how useful. There's just no pleasing some people.

  131. At 08:54 PM on 27 Feb 2008, BARRIE EVANS wrote:

    The new home page manages to appear both anaemic and confusing. Please give us the option of returning to the old one.

  132. At 08:55 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Andrew wrote:

    Don't like that one :)

    Actually I like the colours of the website, but I think its rather more difficult to navigate. I'm old School and prefer a navigation pane to be down the left hand side with all the sections listed on it.

  133. At 09:02 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Janet wrote:

    Initially I wasn't impressed, and although my first thought was to choose a new home page, I decided to try the 'customise' option first. A fat lot of good it did! Now I too, am going to use a different home page.

    I visit different websites all day for my work and this is one of the least 'visual' I've come across with the different items failing to stand out - I even managed to miss the weather section!

    Also, I can't understand why when the old version used to fill my screen, the right-hand side of the new version is empty, yet I have to scroll down a long way to get to the bottom of the information on the left-hand side of the page. It doesn't make sense!

    The old 'red, white & blue' of the previous design was very British - and of course that's how the BBC should be. And why play down the news too? That's what the BBC is famous for throughout the world. Why is it, effectively, camouflaged on the new site and why is there so little of it?

    More of my licence fee wasted then, with those that spend it having ignored the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it".

  134. At 09:04 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Michael and Annie wrote:

    Loving the clock! The second hand moves!

    Reading the comments on the new page has become a new favourite activity - very entertaining.

  135. At 09:06 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Dan R wrote:

    Please please please give us our old front page back! This new one just looks.. rubbish! Don't get me wrong,I'm all for interactive content on a website. However, the front page should be a set design and static, just like how the old page was.

    This new page tells me nothing; it simply looks like BIG WORDS and pretty pictures for the benefit of someone with a really bad hangover who doesn't want to be forced to think too much.

  136. At 09:07 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Tom wrote:

    Reading the comments, you would have thought that the new site was a step backwards. I firmly disagree - Change takes time and I think the new design represents a huge advancement, drawing the eye to the information that you want to see. Great improvement, communicating media for the 21st Century!

  137. At 09:09 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Dan R wrote:

    Please please please give us our old front page back! This new one just looks.. rubbish! Don't get me wrong,I'm all for interactive content on a website. However, the front page should be a set design and static, just like how the old page was.

    This new page tells me nothing; it simply looks like BIG WORDS and pretty pictures for the benefit of someone with a really bad hangover who doesn't want to be forced to think too much.

  138. At 09:31 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Darren Johnstone wrote:

    The old page had too much information on and was way too cluttered i never read it and always clicked the links that I knew about, now I can drill right down into BBC content from one page, blogs, local news.

    Its a much better design than the last page, and better than the 1st beta, now that the 'colour police' can choose thier own colour.

    Im sure that previously you had many comments such as 'its too small' and I know you cant please everybody, maybe you should advertise the accessibility options a little more, and people can choose thier own font size.

    I will use the BBC homepage more than previously.

  139. At 09:46 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Steve Burgess wrote:

    The old one was fine wasn't it ? Maybe your expensive IT section need to justify their existance occasionally . Can we have the old one back please .

  140. At 09:48 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Leslie Watson wrote:

    When I saw the new website today I thought something was wrong with it.
    Looks like I will be changing my home page from bbc.co.uk good bye bbc

  141. At 09:53 PM on 27 Feb 2008, CP wrote:

    Great!
    Have been using the Beta since it launched and feel really at home with it. I'm sure most of you naysayers will come around eventually. It's really noticeable linking to the 'old style" pages - can't wait until the whole site catches up.
    Have had loads of fun customising my page, now it's just how I want it.

    Well done to all concerned.

  142. At 10:05 PM on 27 Feb 2008, J Masret wrote:

    Functionality good.

    Design terrible.

    I know people resist change, but surely you could have down better than a nasty, design school Mac rip off.

  143. At 10:18 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Richard wrote:

    It's funny how most of the comments on this blog are negative. That must say something about the so called change for the better.

    Please can we have the option to go back to the old style page. Those that like the new format can stick with it while those of us who prefer the old style can stay with what we like.

    Remember the adages ' Newer is not always better' and 'If it ain't broke don't fix it'.

    This seems to me like an exercise for someone trying to justify their existence.

    It looks like change for change's sake.

    I shall be using the BBC pages a lot less if it stays like this, please reconsider and give us the option to change back to the old style format.

  144. At 10:20 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Martin wrote:

    This is awful. I want the BBC News page (news.bbc.co.uk), and what I get is some dreadful combined thing (www.bbc.co.uk) with TV schedules on it.
    Change it back, before I find an alternative news supplier.

  145. At 10:21 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Paul Lloyd wrote:

    This is a fantastic iteration on the Beta, that I found had many issue with it's design from a visual perspective at least. Things have been tightened up, and the overall feel is that of a polished product. Congratulations to you and the whole team at the BBC. This and the iPlayer are prove that some talent remains within Auntie - it hasn't all been sold off, well not just yet.

    One comment I wish to make, especially as you talk about rolling this design out across the website: Verdana, or Helvetica - which is it? I noticed that the new BBC Three site, and the home page feedback/tour pages seem to exhibit some of what we will see in this new site-wide design direction. But those use Arial, the home page uses Verdana. Why the inconsistency?

  146. At 10:33 PM on 27 Feb 2008, John Howard wrote:

    Why did you have to change a great product? Now there are broken links all over the page and it's a mess.

    I suppose the licence payer gets no choice and we have to put up with this disaster. Can't we at least have an option to retain the previous news page as a home page instead of having this mess imposed on us.

    Changes for changes sake.

  147. At 10:48 PM on 27 Feb 2008, John Elvin wrote:

    The one page I go to many times a day? http://news.bbc.co.uk - now all I get is:

    The page isn't redirecting properly

    Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.
    * This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies.


    You've messed up big time!

  148. At 10:57 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Paul Smith wrote:

    Good in theory, poor in execution I would say.

    I like the customisation options, although you should have kept your colour.

    I can't believe how much wasted space there is, load this page on a widescreen monitor and tell me thats efficient use of screen space. It looked awful on my 1680x1050 work screen and looks horrendous on my 1920x1200 home screen. Why is it ok to make us scroll vertically but not allow the option of expanding horizontally?

    Everything on the page is far too big, the advert quarter in the top right is hideous and should be made removable immediately. It's clear from reading through entries on this site that you have had plenty of feedback telling you this but as usual have employed the arrogant auntie knows best approach you are becoming infamous for.

    Whilst this style is acceptable for the BBC home page I really do not think it would suit the main news/sport sections of the site and to deploy it there would be a massive mistake given how well the current versions are regarded.

  149. At 10:59 PM on 27 Feb 2008, John Howard wrote:

    What a disaster ! I have changed my home page already. Broken links, appalling navigation, ill thought out.

  150. At 11:00 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Peter Drankol wrote:

    Great Idea in post 75.
    Let the people who use the web site choose - You will have real feedback from every user ( unlike the tv ratings which are total guess work due to the monitored audience being about 5000 )

  151. At 11:18 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Paul Hurst wrote:

    FANTASTIC! It's certainly got more of a web 2.0 feel to it now.

  152. At 11:28 PM on 27 Feb 2008, juniper3 wrote:

    I agree with John Howard - the old page was so easy to follow - and much easier on the eye! What has happened to the weather - so dreary now. Never mind - can change my home page to something else.

  153. At 11:47 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Ian wrote:

    Big picture is a waste of space.

    Need the ability to remove it.

  154. At 11:51 PM on 27 Feb 2008, James wrote:

    The New page is fresh and clean, massive improvement never liked the old one was to packed.!!

    BBC have gone far here it looks like any other modern homepage

  155. At 11:53 PM on 27 Feb 2008, andy cooper wrote:

    Looks dreadful, switching to sky as my news supplier. If it aint broke why scew it up!!

  156. At 11:53 PM on 27 Feb 2008, andy cooper wrote:

    Looks dreadful, switching to sky as my news supplier. If it aint broke why screw it up!!

  157. At 11:56 PM on 27 Feb 2008, Matt wrote:

    Martin:

    "This is awful. I want the BBC News page (news.bbc.co.uk), and what I get is some dreadful combined thing (www.bbc.co.uk) with TV schedules on it."

    Then, uh, go to news.bbc.co.uk? What on earth are you actually angry about here?

    "Can't we at least have an option to retain the previous news page as a home page"

    Yes, just set news.bbc.co.uk as your homepage in your browser.

  158. At 12:12 AM on 28 Feb 2008, David wrote:

    Is it possible to have an option in the "set your location" menu that allows you to choose the UK version of bbc.co.uk, but the international facing version of the BBC News website? I find it very frustrating that at the moment I am not allowed to have two separate options.

  159. At 12:38 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Scott wrote:

    I can't fathom why people are complaining about the news. Its far more prominent on the new design. Its right there on the top left - first thing to see, rather than being lost in the middle of the page somewhere.

    People are just having a panic because somethings changed. I've been using the beta site since it came out and it was different at first but I soon got used to it. I know where everything is on my homepage - because I put it there!

  160. At 12:54 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Keith wrote:

    It seems like roughly 9 out of 10 comments here absolutely dislike this new design, and I agree with them.

    Yes, I've tried the customisation feature, but there is still far too much wasted space.

    If I reduce my viewing options to News, Sport and Weather, then the entire center and right-hand portions of the screen only has small Weather box with the remaining 90% of that space showing a massive picture of a reptile or simply blank. The News and Sport are both crammed into one column on the left hand side, with a handful of news items in each section.

    That's simply an awful use of space.

    Sorry Beeb, but you're no longer my homepage, and to be honest, if the rest of your website is revamped to look the same, I'll be deleting my bookmark and going to a more professionally presented website for my daily news.

    I want my news page simple, functional and with lots of information I can quickly scan at a glance, not tacky "fisher price" as some have rightly commented, with just a handful of links and news items.

  161. At 01:00 AM on 28 Feb 2008, alfiesays wrote:

    I tried the new page last week and immediately went back to the old one. Why can't I have a choice.
    The new one is very 'Early Learning Centre'

  162. At 01:04 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Brian Murphy wrote:

    I've reviewed the BETA and now the live version. With the exception of perhaps better customisation it is certainly an improvement. Visually it is excellent but the AJAX content panes may lose non-techie users.
    My full review is here

    I would be interested to know the reasons for the redesign and what we can expect in the next few months. More advertising is what most people expect unfortunately.

    Is there any way we can see how the usage stats change over the next few months to gauge what Joe Public's reaction is?

    A lot of the comments left here are completely ignorant of the huge effort involved in changed a website like the BBCs. The designers did a very good job but the need to change has not been well articulated to date.

  163. At 01:22 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Steven wrote:

    I really like the new home page, but please can we have the iconic old weather symbols back?

    It would be such a shame to lose them for good.

  164. At 03:00 AM on 28 Feb 2008, David Mawer wrote:

    It's all a little bit Fisher Price really, isn't it? Large, idiot proof buttons awash with gaudy colouring. So the BBC is changing, eh? Please change back or at least give us a choice between this design and the previous one. It's offensive to my senses, it's the naughties equivalent of pastel coloured shirts, anybody up for throwing shapes, either that or I'll throw my monitor out of the window.

  165. At 03:40 AM on 28 Feb 2008, David Clark wrote:

    Why does this super new site not work properly in Firefox? Not all of us want to use Internet Explorer.

    Online radio will "just work"? Since I currently can't even find the podcast pages I doubt that.

    Not use Real any more? Good, but what instead? I'd like something that works in Firefox on the PC and Safari on the Mac, which doesn't seem too much to ask...

    And no, it's an ugly design, because as William Morris more or less said, if it doesn't work properly it can't be beautiful. Yes, it's new, but you claim to have fully tested it. Well, my PC has been fully-tested, my Mac has never failed me, and neither get on well with your site, even with firewalls turned off.

    Sorry, but try harder - don't cynically ignore whatever percentage of us don't use Internet Explorer.

    And PLEASE - no Flash. Ever. It's bad for my eyesight, and many other people find it irritating. Think of the roofing contractors in Crewe and the old ladies in Doncaster who pay the licence fee.

  166. At 06:13 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Ian H wrote:

    Need option to remove large picture in top RH.

  167. At 06:18 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Simon wrote:

    Oh dear.

    It looks weak and apologetic.

    It should look strong and sure.

    The BBC (and BBC.co.uk) is where we come for certainty and definitive information.

    The old design was clear and confident. The new design is vague and uncertain. The colours suggest an organisation eager to please, but as a follower, not a leader.

  168. At 07:35 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Henry Ayres wrote:

    You have committed a cardineal sin with the this design.

    You have commited a huge amount of the screen to something that just does nothing. The two bars at the top just mean i have to scroll the whole time. Which is a pain on my laptop. And typically you cannot move any of this stuff.

  169. At 07:59 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Michael wrote:

    I often have to use the web without JavaScript. While I like that the Edit buttons work without JavaScript, the little +/- buttons to increase or decrease the number of stories for certain sections don't.

    Please could this be addressed?

  170. At 08:01 AM on 28 Feb 2008, J Masret wrote:

    On further reflection. I do like the functionality, though it stops some way short of Pageflakes, Netvibes or even iGoogle.

    Also the promo box is too large and should be editable. Of course, I can see why you won't do this, but you could make it smaller and allow news and sport to be above the fold. If not I'll stick with iGoogle, where I can have exactly what I want on the page.

  171. At 08:12 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Nigel Applewhite wrote:

    I like the new Homepage but when are the News, Business and Sport's pages going to be updated. The present design is starting to look very old fashioned compared to other news sites around the world!! Come on BBC hurry up and ring the changes!! Well done on the new Homepage though.

  172. At 08:14 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Tatyana Kershaw wrote:

    Can I have my money back? Somebody decided to change prfectly good site just for the sake of changes. But they didn't pay out of their own pockets. If they did - they would think twice (and said "no").
    I can't navigane the new one, can't find anything. Dissapointment.

  173. At 08:22 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Roger Cutler wrote:

    My old granddad used to say "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Now I see what he meant.

  174. At 08:25 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Richard Smith wrote:

    Excellent - easy to customise to provide the content and priority ranking that's right for me. The drag and drop feature works well but would be improved if the screen scolled to facilitate large movements in one go. Well done the Beeb!

  175. At 08:25 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Paul wrote:

    I think it's a massive improvement on the old page, which had far too much information on it, was completely uncustomisable and frankly looked like a relic.

    The BBC gets chastised for never innovating - and when it does get something done, there's always a few luddites who fear change and start ranting on about the license fee at any opportunity. These people will soon get outraged by something else and find another thing to whinge about..


  176. At 08:26 AM on 28 Feb 2008, joy mayall wrote:

    Well done - massive improvement

  177. At 08:33 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Mark wrote:

    The new site has taken the BBC from a professional looking website to something out of the Teletubbies. The functionality is useless as it relies on cookies. The page is afer too busy, and from a 'promoting the BBC' point of view why do you want to allow customers to limit what they see?

    Please give me the option to switch back to the 'classic' version. Until then, I'm off to a better looking news site - Sky, and that is far from being good!

  178. At 08:35 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Richard Smith wrote:

    Excellent - easy to customise to provide the content and priority ranking that's right for me. The drag and drop feature works well but would be improved if the screen scolled to facilitate large movements in one go. Well done the Beeb!

  179. At 08:39 AM on 28 Feb 2008, les watson wrote:

    First point the new web site is a mess.
    Second point most opf the post are negative but the bbc wont go back to the old web site because thats the way they are, the majority prefer the ols website just like the prefered the old weather symbols on bbc tv but did the bbc change it, answer no they are to arrogant.
    Thirdly why have the regional web site not changed such as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    The refusal to reistigate the ols web site is just another instance of the bbc not listening.

    Can we find out the cost of production of this new website under the freedom of information act.

  180. At 08:56 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Lee Sanspayer wrote:

    A truly dumbed down home page.

    So little information covering so much wasted space. Luckily the links still lead to pages of a more compact design.

    The colours and layout are the work of a child. An average design agency would show the door to the creator of such a mess.

    Customisation requires a cookie. Most sensible users clear cookies on a regular basis.

    The BBC homepage should be a compact, professional gateway to further information. Instead we have a school newsletter layout.

  181. At 09:04 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Les Watson wrote:

    Looking into the mess that is the new website I find the folowing.
    The site was designed by Richard Titus on the " vehement " instructions of Tony Ageh who told him to " give it a lick of paint, like of paint its been demolished.
    What also concerns me is beyond the website we have titles within the bbc of Head of User Experience and Design, that is what Richard Titus title in the bbc is.

    We need to go after first and foremost Tony Ageh as he was the one who " vehemently " instructed Richard Titus to demoilsh the website.

    Now we know who these faceless people are we need to exp[ose their incompetence.

    I think I will google all the above.

  182. At 09:18 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Rabina Majid wrote:

    I don't like the new design. The old one was much easier to use and had more information at glance.

  183. At 09:32 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Tim Walker wrote:

    To be honest it's pretty horrible.

    It looks garish and not at all as professional as the old homepage. It's almost as if it has been made trendy "because we could"!!

  184. At 09:38 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Richard wrote:

    I agree with 132. The new page is awful, much too hard on the eyes. I tried the beta a couple of times and didn't like it, but thought the final roll out would be a bit better (I should have known I'd be wrong).

    Now I've changed my home page to the news page; please don't change that.

  185. At 09:50 AM on 28 Feb 2008, David Hadley wrote:

    Sorry, far too big. I don't like - and therefore don't use - pages where I have to scroll horizontally as it makes reading far to awkward. As I usually have several windows open at once I don't like having windows that use the whole screen. Th old BBC homepage, which I used as my own homepage, was great as it fitted my ideal browser window size without any horizontal scrolling. It was so good that I always used to return to the homepage whenever my browser settings got messed around by other sites.
    The only thing I didn't like about the old page was that 'BBC advert' section which seemed to waste space, and loading time when it kept changing. On the new page it is even bigger and you can't shift it out of the way, or remove it.
    If this new page stays I will have to find myself a new homepage for my browser, which is a shame since I've used the BBC one ever since it first appeared on the web.

  186. At 09:55 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Ryan Morrison wrote:

    I love the new homepage the old one served no real use or purpose.

    The point of customisation is that there is a LOT of content on bbc.co.uk that never got shown before because of a lack of room.

    Now everything can be made available and tailored to your needs.

  187. At 10:01 AM on 28 Feb 2008, David Hadley wrote:

    Sorry, far too big. I don't like - and therefore don't use - pages where I have to scroll horizontally as it makes reading far to awkward. As I usually have several windows open at once I don't like having windows that use the whole screen. Th old BBC homepage, which I used as my own homepage, was great as it fitted my ideal browser window size without any horizontal scrolling. It was so good that I always used to return to the homepage whenever my browser settings got messed around by other sites.
    The only thing I didn't like about the old page was that 'BBC advert' section which seemed to waste space, and loading time when it kept changing. On the new page it is even bigger and you can't shift it out of the way, or remove it.
    If this new page stays I will have to find myself a new homepage for my browser, which is a shame since I've used the BBC one ever since it first appeared on the web.

  188. At 10:07 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Andrew Green wrote:

    Think its just a rehash in the end!. Trendy colours make the the screen more bland and less easy than previous to pick up on various page sections, i.e. it all tends to merge a bit into one visual and just appears to be more cluttered. Unless I am missing something, I cannot see the benefit or advantage of the changes and appears to be changed for the sake of it or perhaps just designed in a more current fashon and contemporary way. The colours and lay previously were much easier to pick out.

  189. At 10:12 AM on 28 Feb 2008, David Gray wrote:

    The new page is a bit of a mess, it's cluttered and therefore makes it difficult to navigate.

  190. At 10:13 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Marieke wrote:

    The new site looks like a website for children. Its bland Web 2.0 colour palette is boring, as is the choice of fonts. The site is a complete departure from the BBC branding and I sincerely hope the site is not an indication of where the entire BBC brand is going.

    BBC on TV now looks totally separate from BBC on the web, like they are completely unrelated companies. Not a god thing.

    The most absolutely totally terrible thing is that I have to set the page up to my liking again each and every morning! I can not store my settings and I don't mind having to re-enter passwords but having to re-create the site to make it even remotely usable for me is a major pain in the neck.

    Why not enable people to log in and then personalise the site so that it does not depend on storing cookies?

    I too am skipping the BBC website and going straight to the BBC News page although I fear it won't be long before that too will be unusable.

    I appreciate that a re-design was required and there is a lot of promise but most people do not understand the possibilities of Web 2.0. They just want a clean page with information. Not a wealth of choices that confuse them.

  191. At 10:14 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Jenefer Joseph wrote:

    I'm irritated by the whole project - the last page was so easy & clear to use, & also looked very much more attractive.
    What really bugs me, though, is that it now won't fit on my screen, so I have to move it over to the right every time I want to read something fully.
    I just wish you'd go back to the old one - or, why not give us a choice?? Why can't we choose between web pages, or is that just not possible technically?
    Anyway, overall, I might just change to a new home page....

  192. At 10:14 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Dave Marshall wrote:

    Excellent! Brilliant!

    I look at the site every day and hated the old look, I thought it was very much behind the times. The new one is fantastic - great work on getting the site up with the current technologies and making it better for the users. Maybe for all the old dinosaurs that can't cope with change you can skin up a oldfogie.bbc.co.uk site so they can stay in the dark ages!

  193. At 10:15 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Martin wrote:

    Even after customising my homepage the new design just seems to have turned into a BBC advertising page. I guess time will tell if this website remains an international source of news for people across the world with its 'funky' new look.

    I do like the clock though!

  194. At 10:18 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Jean Relph wrote:

    I think the new front page is just horrible - muddled, confusing and just not user-friendly. Please bring back the old one.

  195. At 10:20 AM on 28 Feb 2008, David Hadley wrote:

    Sorry, far too big. I don't like - and therefore don't use - pages where I have to scroll horizontally as it makes reading far to awkward. As I usually have several windows open at once I don't like having windows that use the whole screen. Th old BBC homepage, which I used as my own homepage, was great as it fitted my ideal browser window size without any horizontal scrolling. It was so good that I always used to return to the homepage whenever my browser settings got messed around by other sites.
    The only thing I didn't like about the old page was that 'BBC advert' section which seemed to waste space, and loading time when it kept changing. On the new page it is even bigger and you can't shift it out of the way, or remove it.
    If this new page stays I will have to find myself a new homepage for my browser, which is a shame since I've used the BBC one ever since it first appeared on the web.

  196. At 10:35 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Jon B wrote:

    The previous design was better. It wasn't as pretty and it wasn't customisable - but those two factors aren't critical to make the BBC home page successful. People come here for the content first and foremost, and it seems like that point has been somewhat overlooked.

    The previous design was great because I didn't even notice it - and that's good design! The content stood out, and the design quietly did it's job of presenting the content in an ordered, prioritised layout.

    The aesthetics of the design are too strong (in any colour). The backgrounds, borders, buttons, heading styles and colours have been overworked/over-embellished. The result is that the layout and interface elements fight with the content for attention. It's a poor balance.

    From a usability point of view, I think it's bad to deploy a radically new home page before the rest of the site has been redesigned. It looks very inconsistent and could be confusing for less savvy web users.

    I can't imagine what the business case was to re-design something that worked fine as it was. As a license-payer, I'm annoyed that a lot of money has been spent on something that has achieved so little.

  197. At 10:36 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Michael wrote:

    Well done BBC, personally I think it's about time the homepage changed, didn't use the old one for years, cramming too much information just means I miss the important stuff.

    For those complaining about the search options, even IE has search toolbars, learn to use them!

    Oh and for those of you who didn't know, the site is partially funded by advertising outside the UK.

    For the Firefox users: you can get a IE viewer built into firefox, it works very well! Though personally I haven't had any problems yet just using firefox.

    Keep the negative comments coming in, they're hilarious, I bet you all come back to the bbc soon enough.

    Just a couple of things that I'd like to see addressed:

    1) It would be nice to be able to disable the clock, not everyone wants flash.

    2) As others have mentioned some sort of sign in system would be much better than using cookies, it would also mean avoiding having to reset preferences on each PC.

  198. At 10:36 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Robert Bruce wrote:

    Let me re-iterate my original complaint that has been ignored:
    I live in Mid Wales, yet I am offered, as a customisation on the radio panel, not Radio Wales or Radio Cymru, but Radio Hereford and Worcester which is not even in the same country as me.
    Please fix this.

  199. At 10:55 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Keith wrote:

    It rather amuses me how some people are complaining about the new look, when the new site has been publicly available for beta testing the past two month. During that time users have been able to leave feedback and the BBC have made alterations as a response to comments made.

    The old site was rather stuck in the past, with web technologies having changed in the past couple of years, with accessibility becoming more important, and JavaScript frameworks being available. I think the new site makes good use of 'web 2.0' features, whilst still being able to work with JavaScript disabled and being readable with CSS disabled.

    I don't see why people say 'change it back this is a waste of a licence fee'. Surely it would be a bigger waste to do so as it would mean that money was spent on a new look which was then abandoned. Similarly keeping both versions isn't practical long term, I suspect code wise as well as cost wise.

    For those who say they used the home page for the news and can't view it as easily maybe they should use the BBC News home page instead http://news.bbc.co.uk. The BBC home page gives a nice amount of customisation with bits from various parts of the entire website.

    Whilst "if it ain't broke don't fix it" may be true if the saying was followed then maybe we should still be using typewriters instead of computers for writing, as they worked fine. Sometimes there is a need to move with the times and change, these days a 1024x768 screen resolution (or larger) is fairly standard. Maybe some people are just resistant to change.

  200. At 11:09 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Tim Pritchard wrote:

    Just looked at the new BBC home page and thought it looked great. I even made it my new home page... until I realised that the big main feature area can't be moved - and since that fills most of the screen... ugh! I'll go back to my old home page thanks.

  201. At 11:15 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Andy Cotgreave wrote:

    Great redesign, I can finally add just the details I want to the page.

    Only gripe? the big picture is TOO BIG and not customisable. One the old home page, I rarely looked at/used anything on that "widget" so the ability to shrink or remove it would be nice.

    I am surprised so many people have reacted angrily.

    The "fisher price" comments are interesting. That's what everyone said about Windows XP: and I doubt many people would now go back from that to Windows 2000 look and fell.

    Many people seem to confuse the News Home Page with the BBC Home Page... poor things.

  202. At 11:37 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Paul wrote:

    Having used the Beta page for the last couple of weeks I still hate the new look.
    It was bad enough when adverts for Panorama or Inside Sport masqueraded as news stories, but now there's a huge advert on the page which you can't move - hardly cutomisable.
    As for the blank spaces all over the place - newspaper editors have a word for that and it's hardly complimentary.

  203. At 11:48 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Stephen wrote:

    I think the new homepage is superb. It's clean, easy to use, well laid out, and ultimately straightforward - which is what any website should be. Well done and thank you!

  204. At 11:48 AM on 28 Feb 2008, tze wrote:

    Sorry, this new homepage redesign is not good at all. It looks like the MSN homepage but a lot more clumsy.

    I visit the sports page regularly, my wife frequents the fiance section and my daughter CBBC. With the new design, these links are in the wrong place resulting us having to scroll down to find them.

    Worse of all, bad colour scheme and wrong font size.

  205. At 11:56 AM on 28 Feb 2008, zara wrote:

    I don't like it. The previous BBC website had a much stronger identity and was clearer and more enjoyable to use. This one looks a bit naff.

  206. At 12:03 PM on 28 Feb 2008, billy lawson wrote:

    new webpage is terrible - bring back the old format NOW

  207. At 12:05 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Peter Young wrote:

    Think Jon B (Comment54 has got it spot on). Whilst there were some limitations with the old design - in general it was easy to get quickly to relevant information, something I do think the new design struggles with.

    From a pure design focussed - it is far too garish in terms of colour.

    All in all far harder to use, and whilst technically it is far more advanced, it hasn't necessarily been used for the right reasons and in the right way. Technology for technologies sake imo

  208. At 12:10 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Dirk Favouar wrote:

    oooooo, they've resurrected the clock from the 1970/80s TV channels and stuck it in the banner. Now that's progress. I've always wanted a clock on my webpages to give that pesky windows start bar clock some competition...

  209. At 12:10 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Matthew wrote:

    It seems to me that many people are just going along with the negative comments wlithout properly looking at the new homepage and the options it gives you.

    A lot of the complaints are still about things which you can change, i.e. people have moaned about how certain sections are in the wrong place or that they have to scroll down to find something. You can move them! Just put what you usually go to at the top of the screen, actually you can edit it so you don't really have to scroll down at all. The only downside to that is that you will be able to see less of the news, sport headlines etc.. at a glance but that is still exactly the same amount as you would get with the old homepage.

    Others moan about the colour scheme, well change it, I have chosen blue as the colour and IMO there is nothing too bright or cheap about it. In fact, it is only a darker version of the blue used on the old homepage.

    I would suggest people took the tour at the top of the homepage and gave the new design a chance before simply disliking it because it is different. I think the biggest many are having is that it has not been made clear enough what the options are and the "Take the tour" option at the top can go unnoticed, maybe it should be put in the promo screen for the time being.

    Now don't get me wrong, many people's complaints are justified and I too have a few suggestions. It would seem the best thing to do would be to offer an alternative default homepage which does not require customisation. More customisation options also need to be added as well sorting out the promo screen, it should be our choice how big it is and where it is positioned, if it should be there at all. Maybe more options for the colour scheme are needed also (maybe try and make the old blue available).

    Another key thing is that you need to change it so it isn't reliant on cookies. That is it's biggest downfall for me.

    All in all, I like the new homepage, it is fresh and modern and unlike other people I feel there was a need for a change. Inevitably there will be complaints but I feel as long as the feedback is constructive then with some work the BBC team can only make it better.

  210. At 02:05 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Janet wrote:

    Right, I've done as much customisation as it will allow me to do, and I still only have about 30% of the screen with any useful information on it - the rest is taken up by really annoying advert for something I'm not interested in and by a lot of wasted banner space, and I have to scroll down to see most of the info I might need.
    So please can you:
    1) make to top banner line smaller
    2) make the advert moveable / removeable
    3) put the 'talk' tab back on the front page
    4) and remember that it's not 'your' BBC it's 'ours' ( or so Terry keeps telling us )!

  211. At 02:43 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Jason M wrote:

    I wouldn't normally be prompted to comment on this kind on thing but...

    I have a few points:

    1) The old page worked really well and was formatted so that it fitted most peoples' screens. Not everyone has a huge monitor and the larger size just makes no sense.

    2) There aren't enough customisation options to even get close to the look and feel of the old homepage. To say it is giving people more choice to meet their 'personal requirements' is therefore incorrect.

    3) It's a waste of money! There must be better things to spend money on. Let me see....oh yes, better TV/Radio programming for a start!

    4) It's just plain unnecessary to re-design it! The BBC are going to get hundreds of complaints about it. They can't possibly have had hundreds of requests to change it so please come to your senses and listen to people and change it back NOW! (or give us the choice back so we can decide whether to have the old or new style)

    thanks!

  212. At 03:13 PM on 28 Feb 2008, dave wrote:

    Awful. It's impossible to see all the news and sport headlines I want on the same screen without scrolling down, and I don't need a massive advert at the top of the page telling me to go to some other part of the site I have no wish to see. I want informationm, not gimmicks

    I'm afraid as of today the BBC will no longer by set as my homepage.

  213. At 03:38 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Andrew wrote:

    The new customizable layout is great! Not saying I'm 100% happy with the new design yet but it is a definite improvement :)

    I'd really like to be able to create an account on the BBC website to save my settings. During the day I'll use the BBC website on 3 or 4 different computers and its pretty annoying having to change the layout on each machine!

    Just a small suggestion to help those struggling to adjust to the new layout.
    Maybe the default layout for the new BBC homepage could be setup in the style of the old BBC homepage so people aren't completely confused when they first view the new homepage.
    Slowly introducing them to the new homepage with the style of the old one and features of the new one would be a winning combination.

    Great job guys and girls. Can't wait to see what else you come up with!

  214. At 03:50 PM on 28 Feb 2008, matthew saracen wrote:

    The previous BBC homepage was perfect. Seriously. It was light and clean cut. I personally see the new homepage as a step back.

    I feel the new homepage is far too fancy. I don't particularly care about moving boxes around the page. It's all very nice to have boxes people can move around, but to me it seems far too much of a gimmick.
    I thought the BBC would always keep substance over 'style'.

    I hope to high heaven that you'll keep the BBC Sport pages the same.

  215. At 04:11 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Harsha Yogasundram wrote:

    Is this what users expect from the BBC homepage? I would initially look for more overall information about the company as a whole and what it's doing with license feepayers money - in some case that could mean receiving information about topics that I may not be initially interested in. So I think there should be two pages available - one standard informational homepage and a separate consumer web portal.

    On top of this you need to include functionality such that the user can save their settings to get the same view on any computer (if they log in). I don't want to have to go through all this set up at home and at work. We also need more customisation options eg a Technology module and the capability to reduce font sizes - some of the titles are much too large and child-like.

    So overall not too bad, but looking forward to a few major improvements.

  216. At 04:14 PM on 28 Feb 2008, steve wrote:

    1.The new design is a vast improvement

    2. 90% of the complaints on this blog clearly illustrate that the complainers haven't bothered to try the customisation, or read the 'How to use' guide - if they did they would realise that their issues have been addressed.

    3. Got a complaint about cookies - oh please... What is the worst that's going to happen? Someone might steal your laptop and find out that you have visited the BBC website, and that you looked at the cricket scores. Hardly Orwellian is it?

  217. At 04:39 PM on 28 Feb 2008, James wrote:

    I'm getting used to the update, but my two big bugbears are:

    1) The size of the advertising space. OK, I acknowledge that it is necessary, but perhaps could it be slightly smaller? The international version is actually better laid out, and is more pleasing to the eye.

    2) The spaces in between all the modules, and their rounded corners. They make it seem very odd, and I think squared edges would make the page seem more professional. Also, there are large gaps between each module, and so everything seems a bit disjointed. A bit closer together wouldn't hurt, in my opinion. These two personalisable(?) websites:

    http://www.google.com/ig
    http://www.redbridge.gov.uk

    are fairly good examples; they both have squared edges for their boxes, and therefore give a sharper public image.

    One final thing is the background colour. Grey everywhere, it's a bit plain, and slightly too modern. Maybe the option of just plain white, or some kind of gradient fill might help to give the page some character.

    But like I said, it is a brilliant site, and well done.

  218. At 06:19 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Carole wrote:

    What's with the fuss about using cookies? How do you think the old homepage stored your whereabouts, fairy dust?

    I use the BBC as my homepage and have done for many years. Although I liked the old style I appreciated just how outdated it was when I got a new, bigger monitor, and the site only filled about half the page. The only segments I looked at regularly were the news, sport and weather. I had a look at the beta version a couple of months ago and was quite impressed. Its been advertised for ages so you all should have known it was coming.

    Now its launched properly I really like it, especially that fact that I can move the segments around (my version is stripped down quite a lot from the starter) and customise what I see in each segment (although why I would want to see EastEnders news is beyond me!). The only flaw as far as I'm concerned is that massive banner in the middle, hopefully that will at least be shrunk slightly.

    Looking through the above comments it seems that many people have not even looked at the features, e.g. "I don't like it changing colour" - you can fix it to one of your choice you know.

    Oddly enough I'm currently writing an essay about resistance to change...you've all made [i]very[/i] interesting case studies!

  219. At 06:35 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Roger Miller wrote:

    I don't understand the logic behind creating a page that is highly configurable *except* for the large promo in the prime position. Why on earth do this? It annoys me every time start my browser.

    Also, why is so much space wasted at the top of the screen and what on earth is the point of the clock? I know it looks neat and someone probably spent a long time making it (at the licence payers' expense) but given the number of clocks that I have already - on my mobile, my music player and my PC - why do I need yet another one???

  220. At 06:41 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Kathy wrote:

    I don't like it a bit!! I certainly don't want my local radio schedule on my homepage. I'm going to change back to msn!! Whoops!!!!!

  221. At 07:08 PM on 28 Feb 2008, david guild wrote:

    Please please give us the option to move/disable/resize the advertising banner in the top right hand corner.Why should we have to have approx 50% of the screen taken up by a meaningless box whose content is decided for us by the editorial team. Come on BBC,it's our homepage as much as yours.

  222. At 07:12 PM on 28 Feb 2008, James Arnold wrote:

    Sorry, it looks like an advert for a dodgey web design system. Its awful. Ideal for people who wish to keep up to date with dumbing down stories.

    Typical Beeb, complaining about license fees not going up, yet give a website a facelift when it never needed to. How much did this joke cost?

  223. At 07:31 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Matt wrote:

    "What's with the fuss about using cookies? How do you think the old homepage stored your whereabouts, fairy dust?"

    The fuss is that you have to go through all the customisation again if you change computers or clear your cookies. It should be stored on the server, like a gazillion other sites manage.

    That said, I do like the redesign. I still think the box title bars are too chunky and the promo box should be turn-off-and-onable.

  224. At 08:24 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Neil wrote:

    I really cant understand where all these negative comments are coming from and I believe its mainly due to the fact that people haven't bothered even trying to customize the page because the ran as soon as it changed, or haven't bothered watching the tutorial.

    On the issue of it not working properly in some browsers I've tried it on safari and firefox on my Macbook and IE on my home computer and the site has worked fine for me on all off them.

    On a more positive note its clean, efficient and I can get to what I want allot more easily than I was ever able to on the old site where you had to get used to where everything was. On the new one I can just put what I want where I want. I also like the feature section as it brings a bit of flare to the design which otherwise would have been plain, shows me features i otherwise wouldn't have found or looked for, and I home it keeps changing regularly throughout the day as it has today.

    On a final note as someone who rarely watches TV (changing now thanks to the iplayer and other time shift technology's) I'm glad my license fee has gone to something as constructive and worthwhile as this.

    Well done BBC.

  225. At 08:42 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Rory Clapham wrote:

    Since when did we all become web designers?

    I'm one and I think that the re-design is something to be marveled. It certainly opened my eyes to new design techniques.

    And as one user said, "if the BBC do it, the I can too" - I think that is going to become widely adopted by the nation's web designers.

  226. At 09:00 PM on 28 Feb 2008, P wrote:

    None of the customisations seem to work properly under Opera. Can't move topics and selection changes are not remembered.

    After several attempts I manage to the required topic displayed. Because I can't re-arrange anything I have lots of blank space all over the place.

    There really are many (very many perhaps, even the majority of) people who wouldn't even think of customising a web page. For these this is a nightmare. The old page could have done with a refresh but we now move into too many gimicks.

    After 30 years in the computer industry I see we have new techno-geeks who just must use the latest technology. Just give us the news crisp and cleany please. Yes and how much of our licence fee did this cost????

  227. At 09:57 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Ed wrote:

    If you want to hide the feature box at the top, you can use this greasemonkey script:

    http://pastebin.com/f653b78

  228. At 10:01 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Polly wrote:

    In ten years time, this new home page will be remembered as a seminal moment in web design history - as with all examples of genius, it takes time for the masses to realise what's actually just happened.

    Of course, all the muppets currently moaning about things that they've actually got control of will claim that even at the time, they "knew"

    It’s also interesting to note that a corporation as large as the BBC has cut ties with the 800x600 brigade!

    The whole thing is genius - well done Bronwyn and team. I'm sure by now you're used to not listening to the public as they've no taste - but from a fellow design professional - superb

  229. At 10:12 PM on 28 Feb 2008, John wrote:

    This is awful - why fix something that ain't broke?.
    This is marketing departments on speed going mad.
    Please bring back the old site - Please!!!!!!!!

  230. At 10:42 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Duncan Fairwood wrote:

    Not brilliant.

    I like the idea of customising but I usually browse in my lunch hour at work and the settings are not saved from day to day; this cannot be changed. So, what is the point of this for me and many others in the same position?

    On the old site I could easily access all the content I wanted without scrolling. This isn't now the case.
    If the bottom 'block' of links was moved the top of the page this would be solved.

    Surely the BBC should be about substance over style (and this 'style' is going to date very quickly). The content is the most important part of the BBC web-site; this new site is a backward step (for those who can't customise anyway).

    Shame.

  231. At 11:09 PM on 28 Feb 2008, Leon Paternoster wrote:

    It's still so misconceived. Why were the widgets introduced? Was this due to reader demand or a desire to follow an inappropriate trend?

    The use of colour confuses navigation. Links are coloured inconsistently, the palette clashes (and changes!) and there are different background colours. The result: an absolute mess of a page that has a lot of jobs to do at the same time.

    What purpose does the large image serve? It doesn't guide the reader to the appropriate section on the page, has nothing to do with 99.9% of viewers and yet takes up about 25% of the visible page.

    I simply can't believe how wrong this design is!

    Again, I have to ask what motivated this change. Did the BBC do any research into what people visit their home page for? I'm guessing the reasons are:

    1. To read the news
    2. To find out what's on TV tonight
    3. To find out the weather
    4. To find a BBC sub site

    I can't believe this redesign answers any of the BBC's readers' needs; dragging boxes and selecting preferences only prolongs the search for relevant information, information that web designers should structure in a logical way as possible (that's their job, after all). The BBC isn't Netvibes or iGoogle.

    It's like an LSD-induced nightmare. Awful.

  232. At 07:18 AM on 29 Feb 2008, paul w wrote:

    Love the BBC web site old and new - love the customisation option - hate the fixed advertising box - i suspect this irritation will just cause me to drfit to other sites. I know the logic of 'drawing our attention' but its unnecessary. Please be flexible and allow us to move (if not delete).

  233. At 10:26 AM on 29 Feb 2008, William Ward wrote:

    In a word,'Awful'
    The technology geeks are strutting their stuff !
    Keep it simple - graphics,if we must have them, too large.
    William Ward

  234. At 10:58 AM on 29 Feb 2008, Mark wrote:

    At first glance I was pleased with the look but the more I have dabbled with it the unhappier I have become.
    The content is nowhere near as good as it was it would be great to be able to view the world currencies that I need on a daily basis for my work.
    Why has the BBC provided a site with less content than before, the mind boggles. Come on BBC what am I paying my licence fee for!!

  235. At 11:09 AM on 29 Feb 2008, BeHE wrote:

    While I do agree that the oversized widgets and ad box aren't necessary [it requires scrolling on a 1280x800 display], I really like the customisation element of the page and the feel of the design in general. Frankly I don't know what the problem is.

  236. At 02:05 PM on 29 Feb 2008, Phil wrote:

    I now completely avoid the home page and go to http://news.bbc.co.uk instead.

  237. At 02:53 PM on 29 Feb 2008, Rob wrote:

    Rory Clapham - the point is that most us are not web designers and we like it simple and clear not as a demonstration of new techniques and ideas. If you start designing sites in this way I'll be shopping / reading elsewhere.

    Beeb - the front page now feels like I am going to the ITV site, you are not just a TV / radio channel, you are a public information service. Please try and keep that differentiation.

  238. At 05:53 PM on 29 Feb 2008, rita gillies wrote:

    For goodness sake go back to the previous homepage.

    The new one is absolutely awful!!!

  239. At 05:54 PM on 29 Feb 2008, Roger Miller wrote:

    What is the sense in designing a page that is based on configurability and then fixing a huge graphic in the place that most people might want to put something?

    Also, why is so much screen space wasted at the top?

  240. At 08:38 PM on 29 Feb 2008, Gavin Regnart wrote:

    Overall I like the new design, and I agree with those who say that many complaints come from people who haven't seen or tried the customisation options.

    There are a few changes that would improve it further.

    A choice of two, three or four columns would be useful for people who have trouble fitting the page onto their screens. And the number of columns should determine the width of the page, so that a four column configuration is twice the width of two - not that the columns are half the size.

    There should be an option to have the Explore The BBC panel at the top of the screen, as this will reduce the amount of scrolling for people with more diverse interests than the current options cater for.

    The advertising box is definitely too big. I know it's not going to disappear, and you probably don't want it customisable either, so my preferred option would be to cut it in half, so it is only the width of one column. If that isn't enough screen real estate then increase the height of it. It can have the same size as now, but would probably allow people's own custom selections a little more prominence.

    Finally I agree that a web search should be at least equally as accessible as a BBC search, and will encourage more people to keep this as their home page. I would recommend having the choice, through separate submit or radio buttons, and make the default choice customisable.

    There are several other, lesser, tweaks that I would like to see, but those are the main ones that would satisfy me, and many others I suspect.

  241. At 08:47 PM on 29 Feb 2008, David Mounce wrote:

    Well, I've only been working with web pages since late 1994, so I barely know anything. But I know enough to recognise a class act when I see one. Very well done!

  242. At 09:28 PM on 29 Feb 2008, Kieron wrote:

    Personally I quite like the new design and feel that a lot of people dismissing it haven't even scratched the surface with the customisable options.
    ---
    However, one MASSIVE gripe is the MASSIVE promo picture in the top-right position. As many others have said, it takes up far too much space. It makes much of the customisation redundant seeing as it means I have to scroll anyway.

    It should be at most half the size - either by taking up just one column instead of two; or by halving the height - allowing more 'customised' information to be shown.
    ---
    But overall I like it, so well done.

  243. At 11:08 PM on 29 Feb 2008, Richard wrote:

    Excellent work folks. Will you publish the stats on the uptake of the customisation? And the whole web goes 1024!

  244. At 11:10 AM on 01 Mar 2008, Chris McEvoy wrote:

    1) Please don't allow people to remove/disable the large image area. This area is where users can benefit from the BBC editorial expertise. Making everything wholly customisable would just reduce the homepage to the lowest common denominator. There must be a level of shared experience with the BBC homepage or it becomes just another pageflakes imitator.

    2) There is a bug with the text color on the Radio edit section. The text "Select your local radio networks" appears in light blue no matter what the background color is. This makes the text unreadable.

    3) Radio - I would like more edit options as I only want to see information for Radio 4.

    4) Why allow people to choose to "rotate the colors"? This is customisation for customisations sake.

    5) The homepage almost works on my Nokia N810, but it is too slow and is practically unusable.

    6) The showstopper for me is the fact that I cannot carry my settings between devices. I access the BBC homepage from 6 different devices on a regular basis and the fact I cannot easily send my customisations to other devices so that I can enjoy a single entry point to the BBC homepage. The Google News homepage solves this problem by allowing me to "Share your personalized news with a friend." They achieve this by providing a customised URL that will reproduce my google news customisations on another device. Until the BBC allows this "share customisations" option the new homepage will be of limited value.

  245. At 01:18 PM on 01 Mar 2008, Douglas Clegg wrote:

    I note all the editorial excuses around the BBC adverts which dominate the page. The bottom line for me is this: bbc.co.uk has been my home page for as long as I have had the Internet. If you don't reduce the size of the BBC advert I will simply change to one of the many other excellent home pages, eg the Guardian

  246. At 03:56 PM on 01 Mar 2008, Gareth Johnston wrote:

    It's just hideous. Far too much solid colour that distracts from the content - surely the BBC designers could have done better? If this is rolled out to the news pages I'll be finding a new default news provider - it's just too hard on the eyes.

  247. At 05:27 PM on 01 Mar 2008, Ants Wreathall wrote:

    The new BBC Homepage? It's rubbish. The big new feature appears to be the ability to customise its content. However hard I try, this feature fails.

  248. At 10:45 AM on 02 Mar 2008, John Walsh wrote:

    You don't have to do what Bronwyn darling wants - use this script to remove BBC junk from your Firefox browsing experience ...

    http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/23398

  249. At 10:55 AM on 02 Mar 2008, David wrote:

    Someone made the suggestion to make both new and old page available and to compare popularity.

    You should do this and publish the outcome.

    You should also publish ststistics before and after the change.

    When and how do propose to publish your reaction to the comments posted here.

  250. At 03:51 PM on 02 Mar 2008, Anne wrote:

    Does the BBC not have anybody in-house who can feed back?

    I don't WANT to customise my homepage. I have an open mind and that's why I chose (past tense) to have www.bbc.co.uk as my homepage, because BBC editorial choice pushed interesting titbits to the fore every day. Why should I have to say in advance that I am or am not interested in Technology, or the Weather, or that I only listen to Radio X and Y and not Radio Z? Maybe I'm not interested in technology or the weather normally, but I sure WOULD be if the link said "Using mobile phones halts ageing", or, "Scotland set to have no wind in March". I use a laptop and I certainly amn't interested in 'customising' a third of my screen to enormous thumbnails (a contradiction in terms) of rainclouds, and sprawling banners instead of little buttons to take me to the TV and Radio homepages. And after that, what is there room for? Zilch. For goodness' sake, a BBC homepage without default (small) links to Radio and TV right at the top? Quite incredible. You have just made the unmissable entirely missable.

  251. At 06:34 PM on 02 Mar 2008, Gerry wrote:

    I have tried out most of the customising options and can see these could be useful but everything seems to take up too much space on the page, especially the photo which can't be removed/reduced in size.

    Also, why have those ridiculous weather "illustrations"? They don't give any more information and in fact are less clear than the standard weather symbols which are still used on the five-day forecast.

  252. At 07:13 PM on 02 Mar 2008, Olly wrote:

    Where is the link to the BBC iPlayer? I know it's often in one of the main boxes but there doesn't seem to be a static link anywhere on the page; unlike the old site where it was clearly labelled.

    As this is one of the main reasons for visiting the BBC website; surely it should be there somewhere?


    Olly

  253. At 09:13 PM on 02 Mar 2008, Fred Lomax wrote:

    Could somebody tell this Dumbo how to find the home page? I can't get away from the search page.

  254. At 10:07 AM on 03 Mar 2008, Richard wrote:

    For those of us who hate the big ugly feature box THERE IS A SOLUTION!

    Use Firefox, install the GreaseMonkey extension and save the following code into a text file named "bbc_no_featurebox.user.js"

    // ---- copy the code below ----

    // ==UserScript==
    // @name BBC Homepage - Hide Feature Box
    // @namespace
    // @description Remove the big ugly feature box
    // @include http://www.bbc.co.uk/*
    // ==/UserScript==
    document.getElementById('hpFeatureBox').style.display="none";

    // ---- copy the code above ----

    Now drag and drop the text file onto your Firefox browser window and install the script.

    Now, whenever you go to the BBC homepage, the big ugly feature box will be magically HIDDEN! :D

  255. At 10:12 AM on 03 Mar 2008, Richard wrote:

    Sorry, slight error in the GreaseMonkey code to hide the feature box.
    It should be...

    // ==UserScript==
    // @name BBC Homepage - Hide Feature Box
    // @namespace
    // @description Remove the big ugly feature box
    // @include http://www.bbc.co.uk/*
    // ==/UserScript==
    document.getElementById('hpFeatureBox').style.display="none";

  256. At 10:25 AM on 03 Mar 2008, Rhys Fry wrote:

    We should have a vote on whether to keep this page or revert to the classic style.

    I'm for the old style.

  257. At 10:38 AM on 03 Mar 2008, Paul Addison wrote:

    Love the new design: clean and very easy to use. Provides ways in to lots of different sections which I can then paste on my customised homepage.

    Just one thing: I'd love to be able to move the editorial window.

    Nice work.

  258. At 11:08 AM on 03 Mar 2008, CLAIRE wrote:

    Can't stand it...sorry!

    I want to see the news and the weather
    I don't want to customise myself

  259. At 01:26 PM on 03 Mar 2008, Mike wrote:

    It's too wide; it's really annoying having to scroll the page left and right as well as up and down. I shan't be visiting it very much, if at all now.

  260. At 06:08 PM on 03 Mar 2008, Mike H wrote:

    Well, I've spent a bit more time with the 'new improved' homepage...

    ...and I really don't like it at all!

    The ability to configure the new version seems to have necessitated the use of standard 'building blocks' in the way the page is laid out. Thus it is possible to move a chunk of the page and have it fit elsewhere without major problems.

    The downside of this approach is that there is a lot more wasted space on the page (due to the 'blocks' that constitute the page having to be interchangeable). Whereas, under the relatively fixed layout of the original design, it was possible to squeeze a lot of information and links onto the page, this is much reduced with the new design.

    It could be improved by reducing areas of wasted space - that stupidly big advert area is a prime contender, as is the totally superfluous analogue clock and the over-sized BBC logo. In addition, the large bar that is dedicated to the buttons used to access the customisation page and set the user's location, etc, could be much smaller.

    Nice idea but, in my view, it only gets 2/10 for a poor implementation.

    Can we have the option of using the original layout? It was much better than the current offering.

  261. At 06:58 PM on 03 Mar 2008, Martin Wace wrote:

    Looking at all the various commenst on this page, and the other pages, there is a resounding thumbs down for this joke that is called the 'new homepage'. It is shoddy, amateurish, hardly functional and as for being 'customisable' - don't make me laugh. I read that the customisation issues will be overcome by having users sign up and then have to log in. What? Log in to a public service homepage? You have to be joking! Why not sack, or to be kind... redistribute... the 'design team' and give us back the old homepage. Sorry had to stop for a few seconds there, I typed 'design team' and burst out laughing. I should have referred to them as the "Year 3 IT class".

    Just because new technologies are available it doesn't mean that the BBC has to leap on the band-wagon and apply them, badly at that, to their website. Keep it professional looking and keep it functional.

    Martin Wace

  262. At 07:33 PM on 03 Mar 2008, Nick wrote:

    I must say, the "overwhelmingly positive" response that you guys seem to think you've gotten with this update, seems to be lost on me.

    I've just done a scan on the comments on this blog, and roughly 65% of the people who have commented on it, have said they don't like it. Surely thats an overwhelming majority? Of the other 35%, about 10% said they were indifferent, and 25% said they liked it.


    Hmmmmm. For the love of god, look at the feedback and change the site back.

  263. At 10:37 PM on 03 Mar 2008, Nigel wrote:

    I agree with the majority. The new homepage may be fun to play with, but it is not a serious alternative to the original. Please either change back or at least give the option of using the original layout.

  264. At 10:59 PM on 03 Mar 2008, B Lawson wrote:

    I have never complained about anything on the web before but the new homepage is terrible. There is too much wasted space on the bit you can see, its nowhere as easy to navigate, a definite backward step.

    The only thing that will keep me using the new BBC home page is the introduction of a link to the old one.

    Sorry but after years of using the BBC as my home page I'll be off to find a different one.

  265. At 11:55 PM on 03 Mar 2008, Polly wrote:

    tut, tut, tut. It's a real shame that the majority don't recognise greatness when they see it.

    Just to pick a few -

    Anne (250)
    I don't WANT to customise my homepage. I have an open mind and that's why I chose (past tense) to have www.bbc.co.uk as my homepage, because BBC editorial choice pushed interesting titbits to the fore every day. Why should I have to say in advance that I am or am not interested in Technology...

    What do you think the "advert" is for - it's not an advert. So far we've had links to science, history TV education to name a few.

    Claire (258)
    Can't stand it...sorry!
    I want to see the news and the weather. I don't want to customise myself


    Errrr. You can see the news (in more detail than before if you customise) and the weather??? Don't customise yourself - stay as you are and enjoy the site - just better informed.

    Mike (259)
    It's too wide; it's really annoying having to scroll the page left and right as well as up and down. I shan't be visiting it very much, if at all now.

    get a monitor/graphic card that was designed in this century. At some point a major corporation had to make a decision to "drop" old technology - live with it. BTW your telly won't work in 4 years either, make sure you're better prepared =)

    Mike H (260)
    totally superfluous analogue clock and the over-sized BBC logo

    Over-sized BBC logo??? Hardly. The BBC clock is a lovely touch, a statement of the Beebs past - what do you recommend, cramming in a dozen links to your favourite pages - that'll look class

    I could go on, but hey, it's a long enough thread already =)

  266. At 12:18 AM on 04 Mar 2008, Chris Mckee wrote:

    Chints Chints Chints.
    I guessed it would go live after the previous post by Richard where he threw a strop and took his ball home.

  267. At 09:34 AM on 04 Mar 2008, Penny wrote:

    I do not like one specific aspect of the new homepage - in fact I really hate this aspect.

    I have selected my tailored content - for example sport, and out of sport I only like cricket. I hate football But you insist on deciding what the top sports story is and guess what - it's usually football. In fact the top 3 are usually football. So like it or not, you put damned football on my "personalised" homepage. I don't want football.

    Yesterday it was Andy bloody Murray and his big tennis gob and that's enough for me to go and find a new home page altogether, although the BBC's been my favourite first port of call for 10 years.

  268. At 03:12 PM on 04 Mar 2008, Martin Wace wrote:

    Quoting from Bronwyn's diatribe at the top of this page: "From a visual point of view, we reduced the size of the fonts, toned down some of the colours and created a more compact, space-efficient design." Ummmm what? How BIG were the fonts before? More compact? Wow it must have been HUGE! Efficient design? Who are you trying to kid?

    "There's also more customisation: users can now choose the colour of the page, or leave it to rotate, picking up the colour of the main feature image. " Customisation? Hardly any, and what little there is gets lost when you run file clean-ups on your computer! Customisation.... HUH!

    It seems a good majority of respondants are not impressed by the (very poor) use of the new technologies. There was a perfectly good BBC hompage what was the point it replacing it with something that is poorly designed, poorly thought out, poorly implemented and generally attrocious?

    I hope everyone in the 'design team' - from the arrogant Richard Titus, all the way down - is taking note of the responses voiced in this and the other 'comments' pages. I am being kind by assuming there IS actually a design team... or is it really a case of this being a project given to a Year 3 IT class?

    I have a solution. If there IS a design team have them sacked and return the old homepage - it looked good, wasn't HUGE and the navigation was easy.

    New technologies have their place and I and not adverse to them. But, the BBC homepage is not the place for them when those technologies are used so very badly. I just looked at Netvibes - seems they have figured out how to at least apply the technologies (and they haven't taken the HUGE FONTS route!).

    Martin Wace

  269. At 08:26 PM on 04 Mar 2008, Inno wrote:

    Guys, well done for all the efforts you've put onto this project.

    However, this homepage is too complex for an average user and packs less visual impact (content wise). We are used to lots of stories (links) without scrolling ones.

    Alternative HomePage
    I have now changed my HomePage to news.bbc.co.uk. Now please don't go and mess (ohh change) this one as well.

    Thank You.

  270. At 05:32 AM on 05 Mar 2008, Ganesh wrote:

    Too much colors do not allow your eyes to settle on content...and I also must say that customisation is silly. As a reader I am not interested in whether 'Sports' in on right or on 'left'...I will read it wherever it is.
    Can you do customisation of content - read '100 words' story or read a '1000 words' story of any event...

  271. At 12:02 PM on 05 Mar 2008, Mike H wrote:

    tut, tut, tut. It's a real shame that the majority don't recognise greatness when they see it.

    Ha ha ha ha - is that irony or are you being serious? ;-)

    It sounds a bit like the usual "we are right and the majority of the people making adverse comments are wrong" approach that is so often taken by the BBC.

    Is Polly (265) a BBC spokesperson, I wonder?

    To answer the question, yes, along with many of the earlier respondents in this thread, I'd prefer to be able to see more information on the homepage in preference to unnecessary items like the clock - however much it might be considered "a lovely touch" and "a link to the BBC's past".

    As is so often the case in today's media industry, content loses out to what we are told is "style". The allocation of an otherwise useful area of the page to something as pointless as an analogue clock is taking the dominance of style over content a stage too far.

    The previous version of the homepage managed to strike a sensible balance by looking good and at the same time containing loads of information and links to other areas of interest.

    The new page loses out in both respects - the information content is much reduced and the "style" benefits are, at best, dubious.

  272. At 01:50 PM on 05 Mar 2008, Polly wrote:

    Hi Mike (269), fraid I'm not a spokesman for the BBC, just a humble designer =)

    With regard the clock, you may find it pointless, but it's not just a case of removing it and adding links willy nilly, that would unbalance the information structure somewhat.

    You also state,
    "The previous version of the homepage managed to strike a sensible balance by looking good and at the same time containing loads of information and links to other areas of interest.

    The new page loses out in both respects - the information content is much reduced and the "style" benefits are, at best, dubious."

    Below is a link to an image of the old homepage, paste it into your address bar, take a look and let me know exactly where the extra "information content" is that you refer to. I think you'll find less information and just a mass of links.

    http://homepage.mac.com/eyedropper/blog_images/2005/guest_ed/guest_ed_page_vicky.jpg

    I don't see, after comparison, how anybody could argue that the new site contains less information content - that's simply not true.

    Regards
    Polly

  273. At 04:09 PM on 05 Mar 2008, Gina wrote:

    I like it, but it's slow to load, and I have 10MB broadband. When I click in and out of it, it takes ages for the squares to fill up and I get a few seconds of just empty boxes.

  274. At 06:16 PM on 05 Mar 2008, Ian Moore wrote:

    How on earth can you say that the response was "overwhelmingly positive"? Having skimmed 269 comments that is just not true.

  275. At 11:10 AM on 06 Mar 2008, AndyP wrote:

    RE: The dictated feature tab

    I don't want to be force fed what the BBC deem to be the topical issue of the day. This unmoveable, opinion driven tab takes up a quarter of my display. If there is a feature you think is of interest why not provide a simple link?

    I'm all for change and improvement but I'm afraid this is just bad design.

    Disappointing

  276. At 12:27 PM on 06 Mar 2008, Martin Wace wrote:

    Having read the response from Polly (item 272) I had to laugh. She is brave in saying that she is a designer if indeed she is one of the people responsible for the amateurish, shoddy and un-customisable 'design' we have had foisted upon us.

    I took Polly's advice and looked at the old homepage (via the link she gave). The old homepage looks just great. It has more information in a smaller area. That means not so much scrolling. And that neat column on the left... yeah that navigation bit!... who, oh WHY, has it slipped to the bottom of the page in the new... the new... err 'design' (sorry for the hesitation there... was trying to stop laughing as typed the 'd' word.)

    As I have stated previously, the overall look of the new homepage suggeststhat it was a project for a Year 3 IT class ("Now children, I want you to make a page for the internet! Yes, you can use nice big letters and make the boxes really big!")

    New technology is just great, I love new things. BUT if those new technologies are not used properly there's no point in using them. It is clear that the BBC 'design team' has no idea how to use them.

    No users seem like that HUGE advert... sorry.. 'feature' panel at the top right of the page. There is no point it it. The 'design team' may think it looks good, but it detracts form what is already a poor page.

    Finally... for now... 'customisation'? Ummm WHAT customisation? Oh, you mean that fiddling about we can do to use up our time to try to make the page look something like acceptable? There's no point in saying it can be 'customised' if yo lose al the changes you have made when you clear out junk files (good housekeeping practice!).

    Martin Wace

  277. At 03:09 PM on 06 Mar 2008, T R wrote:

    The OLD homepage is to Google as the NEW homepage is to Yahoo.

  278. At 06:32 PM on 10 Mar 2008, Ramin D wrote:

    I've been struggling with this page. I would like to dive in and join in the customisation revolution, but it doesn't work for because I would have to break my personal data privacy rule:

    "All cookies will be cleared at the end of every session"

    To keep one cookie is too much of a pain (if at all possible) even if it is the BBC, so I am stuck with the default settings and these don't match my news interests even remotely.

    I don't want to support the "old page was better" camp too much but it did allow me to navigate more efficiently away to other pages of interest.

    I notice that the cookie/customisation issue has been mentioned at least 10 times previously. I'm adding my voice to that camp. Cookies were not the way to do this.

    Surely the best solution would be if we could log in to bbc.co.uk as we do with yahoo and google accounts or more relevantly other news sites such as the Guardian or FT. Then the customisations could be saved and accessed from any browser or machine.

  279. At 02:29 PM on 11 Mar 2008, Leyton Jay wrote:

    I love the new BBC homepage. I think it's a model of simplicity really in terms of what the Beeb stands for and offers.

    It's been my homepage since day one of it being in beta and I've told hundreds of people about it. Everyone I know who uses it suddenly seems to talk to me about science, technology, international affairs and allsorts. We all seem to know alot more about stuff recently.

    Everytime I boot up Firefox its one of my homepages and is a pleasure to use.

    We've followed the recent shuttle mission from start to finish and now onto the next, we know all the sports news and we're all using iPlayer pretty much all the time now. We all play Celebdaq too.

    Its great having something so useful that permiates my social group so subtley. Thanks BBC.

  280. At 10:30 AM on 12 Mar 2008, Roger Carter wrote:

    If you use Firefox, use this 'stylish' script to remove the annoying feature box:

    http://userstyles.org/styles/5629

  281. At 01:10 PM on 13 Mar 2008, Leyton Jay wrote:

    No thanks, I think the feature box is great. As a Web Developer think it brings balance to the page (visually striking elements are essential) - whatever's in it grabs me.

    But I do wish I was able to move it around like the other blocks.

  282. At 12:14 AM on 14 Mar 2008, Dan G wrote:

    Surprised the BBC didn't see this coming, though I realise there's been a skills drain there recently.

    Obviously the "beta" page was showered with praise as only people interested in change would click the "try the beta" link, and only IT nerds (and I count myself as one) follow the Internet blog, and they love this "web 2.0" stuff.

    However normal users don't. Check out a Google or Facebook page -- very simple, very straightforwards, though Facebook is losing market share having moved too far towards MySpace with profiles that can take minutes to load because of all the "customised" junk in them.

    The old homepage worked so well exactly *because* it was a "mass of links" -- humans are very good at parsing long lists, there are dozens of UI studies on this. The new clunky "Fisher Price" page has far fewer links, thus less utility. On top of that you expect the user to put time and effort (several times over if they have more than one computer) into fixing, sorry I mean "customising", the new page. Do you not realise that people actually want is a well-designed page presented to them they can just *use*, without having to fiddle with it first?!

  283. At 09:41 AM on 14 Mar 2008, Leyton Jay wrote:

    Sorry I stopped listening as soon as you mentioned Facebook and the word 'simple' together in the same sentance.

    Facebook is probably the most confusing, badly designed application with the poorest navigation ever to get big.

    Loading times and a clever back-end are the only reason it's popular.

    What Dan G (comment 282) fails to realise is that although humans are indeed good at parsing lists, they have to want to do so. Humans are also very good at complex mathematics, running marathons and going to war - but I dont WANT to do any of those things. If I see a page devoid of imagery and full of lists, I feel like it's going to be alot of effort to navigate, despite me being able to do it.

    What captures the imagination? What makes a page seem exciting? What makes you want to read a page rather than "parse" it? Pictures, design, customisabilty (if thats a word)!

    "The teacher can only open the door, the student must enter themselves."

    In a similar way the BBC should only show the most popular, interesting and exciting items on the homepage as that invites the user to customise and/or delve deeper.

  284. At 11:51 PM on 21 Mar 2008, Chels wrote:

    Please bring back the old page .. or at least the option to have the old page back ! It was far better !!!! This new one sucks !

  285. At 05:46 PM on 24 Mar 2008, John McMullan wrote:

    Some two weeks ago I commented on your new home page that it takes much longer to reach. I had the routine reply but no comment or explanation.

    For a year or so BBC has been my home page via which I access the internet. Now it takes about ten times longer to reach so, unless it can be rectified, I shall move elswhere but would rather stay.

    I have skimmed through the blogs to 284, 21 March. Many (most?) seem adverse. A common complaint his too muc information with preference for the previous simpler version. Perhaps you should now simplify and this might get the old speed back?

    PLEASE POST A REPLY.

    John McMullan.

  286. At 01:36 PM on 25 Mar 2008, Leyton Jay wrote:

    John McMullan........? What browser are you using? If the answer is Internet Explorer, that'll probably be your problem.

    The new homepage does have some extra overhead (like Javascript) which might increase loading times in the order of milliseconds but they provide the essential functionality. Any problems you have loading the new page are probably to do with your browser struggling to rendering the code or your computer being sloooow and you can't blame the BBC for either of those things.

    As a professional Web Developer I've always found the BBC's code to be very clean, crisp and lightweight.

    I suggest you try out a far more standard compliant browser like Mozilla Firefox or Opera, both of which are free, faster than IE, with better accessibility, cool feautes and just generally better.

    I saw the old homepage a couple of times and it really didn't grab me, I actually saw it as an obstacle in the way of the content I wanted. It never occured to me to set it as a homepage, but when I tried the new one in beta, it was the 1st thing I did. I use the new one as one of my 3 homepages (another cool feature of Firefox!)

    I emplore you to look at the new page with fresh eyes, take a minute to customise it and drag the content around and use it for a few days. Delve into it instead of cursing it.

    I find it really useful, I dont have time to Google everything I want to follow and I don't have time to parse endless lists of headlines.

    It's not what you're used to and it's not a traditional approach, but in a digital-age where data-aggregation and information-architecture are now fields of research in their own right, this is a more effective way forward.

  287. At 09:05 AM on 31 Mar 2008, James wrote:

    I like the new design and I hope it stays. It is good to see the BBC being dragged into the 21st century. The old fixed width design that caused half my screen not to be used is (almost) gone and is being rightly consigned to dustbin. My only criticism is in the roll out. Half the news stories today use the old layout instead of the new layout. Stories are in the new layout whereabouts the category index pages are in the old? Not confusing just looks pants.

  288. At 02:00 PM on 31 Mar 2008, Richard Jones wrote:

    Well done BBC. I was very impressed with the new design a few months back and wouldn't have thought your redesign would have impressed me so much and that you would embrace current web technologies so well. I was pleasantly proved wrong.

    Can't believe the number of negative reviews from users. Guess some people don't appreciate good design both aesthetically and from an Information Architecture view. Customisation is fantastic too.

    I am only writing this now as I saw the inner page design this morning and again was pleasantly surprised. Looking forward to when the whole site is done.

    Other feedback would be from a coding point of view. Some suspect stuff in there, most of which will be cleaned up when you get a better content management system in place. Other stuff like an ID of 'body' on the BODY tag!? I know you can do better than that ;)

    Would be nice if it was fixed-fluid layout instead of rigidly fixed and could it could do better when you scale text.

    On the homepage my only grievance is the clock and date in the top right. I have a clock permanently in the bottom right of my screen, a watch on my wrist and my iPod on my desk. Therefore I feel the clock is just there to fill the space. I have not been able to work out any justification of it and think the space would be better filled with something else. I doubt I will ever load up the BBC website to find out this information when it is much more quickly accessible elsewhere.

    Aside those few things...well done guys!

    Oh, I'm a professional web designer/developer who works on both corporate and creative websites.

  289. At 03:32 PM on 31 Mar 2008, John wrote:

    Horrible!!!

    Far too much wasted "white" space. As for customisation - I don't need that. The main image is unnecessarily big.

    By the way - why didn't we get any advance notice of the change? After all, a LOT of people use the news website for up-to-the-minute news. It would have been courteous to let us know that changes were expected.

    Considering the very large number of unhappy people will the BBC comment?

    Probably not. The message boards are full of complaints about Digital Onscreen Graphics and other intrusions into programming that the BBC has ignored.

  290. At 06:43 PM on 31 Mar 2008, John Gibson wrote:

    I cannot view the new home page using Mozilla Firefox. But I can view all the other BBC pages. If you change the other BBC pages in line with your new homepage I won't see anything!!!!

    I've reported this many time - got no reply - and you don't seem to care. I'm getting very frustrated.

  291. At 12:24 AM on 05 Apr 2008, Alex wrote:

    I think the new BBC site is very good.
    Why?
    Clear, simple, easy.

  292. At 04:05 PM on 07 Apr 2008, Leyton Jay wrote:

    Comment 290: John Gibson

    Mate, this really is a problem for JUST you. I've taken a look at the code and I use all browsers at home, on my laptop, at work and on mobile and there is no problem.

    It's something in your Firefox setup, it must be. The new BBC homepage is very standards compliant and Firefox is standards compliant. I couldnt possibly tell you what the problem is, but I can tell you it's not the BBC's problem.

    Sorry :(

  293. At 08:48 PM on 07 Apr 2008, Sharon Davlin wrote:

    I agree with just about all of the negative comments -- especially the excessive white space and overlarge logos and pictures. But these design failures are nothing in comparison to what I see today -- advertisements (non-BBC) on the BBC home page and the main News page.

    Advertisements are completely unacceptable. Subscription fees would be a far better way to generate income. I would pay almost anything (within reason) to avoid advertisements and maintain allegiance to the non-commercial tradition of the BBC.

    Do UK users see these advertisements? Or are only non-UK users subjected to this blight?

    My home page has been changed to BBC Radio -- please return the Home and News pages to non-commercial status.

  294. At 09:10 AM on 08 Apr 2008, Leyton Jay wrote:

    Comment 293: Sharon Davlin

    Hi, advertisements are just for non-UK users. Its not really fair that the rest of the world can watch and read news for free and we (UK license payers) foot the bill, so advertisements have just been introduced onto BBC News.

    Consider yourself lucky, every other news network in the world has always had mega mega advertising allover everything.

  295. At 10:40 AM on 08 Apr 2008, Nick Reynolds (editor, BBC Internet Blog) wrote:

    Comment 293: Sharon - Richard Sambrook (Director, BBC Global News) explains the decision to put advertising on the international BBC site in this blog post and talks about suscription here. Both posts are from the BBC News Editors Blog last year.

  296. At 10:15 PM on 10 Apr 2008, elena wrote:

    i really love this site..is amazing i found a lot of informations wich helped me a lot..thanks very much

This post is closed to new comments.

More from this blog...

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.