« Previous | Main | Next »

BBC Homepage: your feedback (#2)

Post categories:

James Thornett James Thornett | 18:30 UK time, Friday, 2 December 2011

Thank you for all your feedback on the BBC Homepage redesign. There have been a lot of comments on my blog post from Wednesday and lots of you have also sent emails and completed our survey.

Most of the comments on the Internet Blog have been critical of the new design, with many requests to bring the old homepage back, so I wanted to explain again why we have made these changes.

  • The homepage was too narrow in focus - 79% of referred traffic went to BBC News and BBC Sport during July this year. We want to do much better at highlighting all of the content available from BBC Online
  • Research showed that the BBC Homepage is often confused with the BBC News front page and we want to clearly differentiate between our News site - the place to go for the latest, breaking news from the UK and the World - and the homepage that should represent everything the BBC does online.
  • Detailed customisation of content was used by under 10% of the old homepage audience and many users told us that they would prefer simple filtering rather than wholesale customisation.

Moving back to the old design is not something we are considering but we do want your feedback to help us continue to develop and improve the new homepage.

Comments on this blog are just one of the ways in which we are gathering feedback and we will be assessing over time the response of the millions of users that come to the Homepage each day by monitoring how the page is being used and which items are proving more, or less, popular.

A number of themes have emerged from the blog comments received so far and although I have provided feedback within the comments section I would like to explain again how we are tackling these points.

Messy design: There is too much white space and not enough colour.

There is criticism of the amount of white space being used and the large number of images which make the page appear messy and un-organised.

The previous design of the homepage was often criticised for being too boring and containing too much text so for this version we have deliberately introduced more images and increased the amount of white space on the page to allow these images to really stand out.

We want the content to promote itself with good images, strong headlines and clear labelling that helps our audience know which BBC service that content is from.

There is not enough news and sport on the homepage

We saw this feedback during the beta phase and increased the amount of headlines available in the news and sport module. We have also raised the position of news and sport higher up the page compared to the previous homepage so there is now more news and sport content available at a glance.

However, many users have told us they want more than just the top headlines and that is where the News & Sport filter underneath the carousel can be used to select only news and sport content within this area of the page.

As I have said above, the previous homepage was very good at providing news and sport content but it was less good at showcasing the best content from the rest of the BBC and so this new homepage will inevitably not contain the same level of detailed news and sport coverage as the previous version.

For users that want even more news or sport content then there are links at the very top of the page to our dedicated homepages for BBC News and for BBC Sport.

Customisation: I want the content that only I am interested in.

This seems to be the feature most requested by people commenting on the blog.

However, it was a feature of the old homepage that was not used by the majority of our audience and during research for the new homepage we were told by users that they preferred simple filtering of content.

We are already working on improvements to the location based content on the page so that the page is even more relevant to your chosen location and we have plans to introduce more detailed customisation features in the new year.

We have some ideas for this already - one of those being the opportunity to create your own carousel of content that you prefer - but I would welcome further suggestions on how we can make the page more customisable to your interests.

It doesn't swipe on a tablet/iPad or work on a mobile phone

This homepage is the 'desktop' version which is designed for use on a standard laptop or desktop computer.

There are optimised versions in development for a mobile edition and a tablet edition which will make use of touchscreen interactions, where the device allows, and displays the content appropriately for the screen size being used.

In the meantime, accessing www.bbc.co.uk on your mobile phone will default you to our current mobile optimised homepage, although there is a link to the desktop version if you wish to view this new homepage on a mobile device.

Thank you again for your comments on this blog and all of your feedback by other means. I do try to read every post, tweet and comment and we will be using all of this feedback to continue developing and improving the new BBC Homepage.

James Thornett is Head of Product, BBC Homepage


Page 15 of 15

  • Comment number 1401.

    #1365 DBOne I also saw the posts that led up to it being closed and I disagree. The issue here is a homepage that is not functional as such when you compare it to its predecessor. You may try and defend the changes, and that is subjective and your right to do so, but what is indefensible is the way complainants are being treated, which is very, very badly.

  • Comment number 1402.

    The new home page is lightweight. There is not enough news, I cannot select an additional sub area for local news, and I do not want sport on my home page.
    Additionally I feel like the BBC has lost all authority now as the content is mostly about itself only. We know how to get to the what's available content if we want it. I do not bother to use the BBC website as my home page anymore, what a shame.

  • Comment number 1403.

    Are there any statistics available comparing the number of visitors and referred traffic to other parts of the site from the old & new version of the home page?

    Also straying off-topic anyone visited the new sports site which is still in the early stages of development? http://beta.bbc.co.uk/sport/

  • Comment number 1404.

    I note that the carousel still jumps about at the slightest provocation. How about acknowledging at least that this small feature alone is undesirable? Probably no chance at all...

  • Comment number 1405.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 1406.

    The new 'improved' BBC website is a huge step backwards, poor design in so many ways.
    Having enjoyed daily perusals for years, I no longer wish to view it.

    Far too much white space with insipid text and typefaces which are difficult to read.
    The layout is a muddle and looks like a cheap "off-the-shelf" design with ZERO originality.
    Is it hoping to mimic the SKY website?

    The old one was perfect!
    Clear, authoritative design and information was easy to navigate whereas now I am often confused by the apparent random layout and have had difficulty finding sections like 'Local News'.

    Before, the daily colour changes were original and made the previous BBC website stand out in a positive way.

    Why change a classic, well designed website into a bland and confused mess?

    Is this the image the BBC wishes to project of itself?

    What a wretched waste of money.

    In mourning...

  • Comment number 1407.

    I have posted comments before of my dislike for the new homepage.

    @1403 The new sport homepage looks fine. I think many others who are said to hate change will also find this changed page quite acceptable.

  • Comment number 1408.

    Dear BBC - if I am to put up with the new BBC homepage - could you at least resolve why on the latest (and most popular) Firefox browser on a PC the content in the scrolling window is cut off?????? I'd send you a screen shot but I can't find where to send you it! Grrrrrrrrr. Thanks.

  • Comment number 1409.

    I will once again (5th time) ask a simple question that no one has answered.


    Today (10.37pm):
    5 World News Headlines.
    8 FOOTBALL headlines.

    Yestreday (4.44pm):
    5 World News Headlines.
    7 FOOTBALL headlines.

  • Comment number 1410.

    Good morning - the BBC Sport website is off topic on this post.


  • Comment number 1411.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 1412.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 1413.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 1414.

    The new homepage is rubbish and the moderation of this blog too reactionary.

  • Comment number 1415.

    let me rephrase my comment @1412, as it was referred because of the fact Sports is off topic.

    The new homepage that is the topic of this blog has 8 Football headlines as sports headlines. This is not reflecting the content available elsewhere on the BBC. Why? Even the new other beta (not to be named) has Cricket as it lead story.

  • Comment number 1416.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 1417.

    OK my response was posted before “The BBC Sport page is OFF TOPIC” reply was made!

    So I will do this again!

    It is now blatantly clear that The BBC Homepage Virus that is known as the GEL concept is being rolled out across the whole site, News, Sport, Radio etc

    The BBC are not now and are never going to take any notice of the comments, complaints, suggestions etc being made by those that use the homepage or site as a whole.

    Want my feedback (NO) well here it is anyway, IT'S A MESS, a jumbled up miss match of pictures and headings with no structure, it’s a challenge to find anything that was easily on hand before.

    The GEL concept is flawed simple as, it should be called MESS


    I Hope this is "ON TOPIC" not that anyone is taking any notice!

  • Comment number 1418.


    I think it's great that we're hearing from the other side of the discussion so I'm glad you're commenting, it's just a shame it's not from anyone representing the BBC!

    However, I have to disagree with your points in #1365:

    1. The beta survey questions weren't balanced, as has been described here, people may understand a question but not agree with it. These are two different things. I for one gave explicit comments that the carousel was not a good idea in my feedback. This was also mentioned in the original blog post about the beta.

    It may be frustrating if you don't get the answers you want, but that's not an excuse to push ahead regardless.

    2. James' response about reviewing our suggestions was far from the kind of answer we were expecting. He asked for specific, constructive critisism, which I and many others gave. This was ignored and the only real reply we got was 'we're looking into making the carousel customisable'.

    He totally ignored the main issue which is the carousel itself. It is a poor vehicle for displaying the amount of information they are trying to display.

    3. The approved online strategy point 1 Remit states four very simple goals:

    a) The remit of BBC Online is to promote the BBC’s public purposes, by providing innovative and distinctive online content and distinctive propositions that reflect and extend the range of the BBC’s broadcast services.

    b) BBC Online should offer UK users greater choice and control over how they consume BBC content by providing a range of recent broadcast output on-demand.

    c) BBC Online should enable the BBC to develop a deeper relationship with licence fee payers and strengthen the BBC’s public accountability.

    d) BBC Online should, at all times, balance the potential for creating public value against the risk of negative market impact.

    As far as I'm concerned, the new homepage fails on all four counts, so how it can be used as a justification is beyond me.

    4. You bemoan the old page for being an RSS aggregator but the new site is exactly that as well. It's just an aggregator in a badly-fitting, uncomfortable dress.

    The iPlayer content is aggregated from the iPlayer page — how is this any different to the old homepage except that iPlayer content is not separated from the other information.

    I think the old homepage did a great job of highlighting the top iPlayer content.

    5. Yes, people who are interested in news can go to the news site, those interested in sport can go to the sport site and RSS lovers can use an alternative site, but frankly, why should they have to? The old site did all three better than the sum of its parts so why is it a surprise that faithful users are unhappy when the functionality is taken away from them?

    You asked why people are so animated about it — I think other people have covered this already so I won't go into too much detail but basically it comes down to this:

    The new page was created without any apparent requests from dissatisfied users of the old site.
    The BETA feedback appears to have been ignored completely.
    It was put live in an incomplete, anti-accessible state.
    Since it's launch all of our concerns and comments have basically been stonewalled or shoved under the carpet.
    The few times we've had a response it's basically ignored the majority of concerns raised, even after James asked for specific feedback.
    The two opportunities the BBC have had to keep us content (and quite) with the /customise and /cityspace pages — they acted like a child who takes their ball away because the other boys aren't playing the game they want to play.

    It all smacks of incompetence and doesn't reflect well on one of the biggest, and most loved, institutions in the country.

  • Comment number 1419.

    From time to time I stumble upon a web site that I like or that offers me something useful.

    From time to time I add such sites to my favourites and even, as was the case with the BBC site, make it my first port of call or "my" home page.

    From time to time sites change. Some change for the worse and some for the better and some changes take a while to get used to.

    The previous change to the BBC Homepage was, for me, one of the latter. I didn't like it at first but I persevered and once I fully understood the concept I was able to tailor it to meet my requirements and moved it from my favourites to my home page.

    The most recent change is (despite trying to work with it) is, for me, one of the former, a change for the worse.

    When a web site no longer serves me I usually shrug and find somewhere else.

    I do not complain, usually. But I have complained and offered constructive suggestions about the recent changes to the BBC Homepage at both the beta stage and since implementation because I care.

    My complaints and suggestions, and those of others here, have been met with a complacent and dismissive attitude that I find hard to understand.

    You ask for feedback but if it's not the sort of feedback you like you appear to resent it. Unlike many web sites or organisations on the web you have an audience that cares. Your failure to interact constructively with that audience in this interactive environment is bewildering.

    If you continue with this intransigence your site will become just another web site that will be followed and dropped by a transient audience with no care or affection.

  • Comment number 1420.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 1421.

    1403.At 09:13 14th Dec 2011, Keith wrote: " - Are there any statistics available comparing the number of visitors and referred traffic to other parts of the site from the old & new version of the home page?..."

    The trouble is that we who are using this Blog are an insignificant proportion of total BBC Users

    Try this...


    Look at the Grey Tabs, especially Traffic Stats and its Tabs

    It doesn't tell us a great deal yet because the new HomePage has not been going long enough but in time (3-6 months) it might

  • Comment number 1422.

    Matt (#1417) - there is little wrong with the BBC's GEL specs in my view. The problem is that the BBC doesn't comply with them.


  • Comment number 1423.

    1422.At 12:48 14th Dec 2011, Russ wrote: "Matt (#1417) - there is little wrong with the BBC's GEL specs in my view. The problem is that the BBC doesn't comply with them"

    "We pioneer design innovations that surprise and delight. We introduce the unexpected but always take our audiences with us"


  • Comment number 1424.

    Perhaps we should have complimented the BBC more on the old homepage. It never occurred to me to do so. I never thought it was under threat so I rather took it for granted.
    Last time it was changed I thought was made better, so I don’t want to be cast as someone who is averse to innovation. Nor do I want to be thought of as a serial blogger or complainer. I have never made a comment on a blog before this one. However now that I am roused I am determined to see this through. And I have to say that I have found great spirit, wit and determination in these posts as well as perhaps some intemperance. I also value the comments of those who like the new homepage and defend it. But honestly there are literally only a couple of those among the thousands who are against it. On the whole I think those posting here represent the spirit of the BBC more than those who have decided how things will be, whatever we think. We are usually a quiet bunch, and not easily roused, but to those at the BBC having nervous meetings, I say please take notice of your core audience and rethink.

  • Comment number 1425.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 1426.

    It's appalling & I agree with every comment above that expresses negative sentiment towards the site. What I can't believe is the arrogance that the decision to implement will not be reviewed give nthe strength of feeling against the homepage. Asbsolutely appalling and very dissapointing.

    Does anyone know of a better alternative I can switch to.

  • Comment number 1427.

    Isnt comment 1425 off topic for this blog?

  • Comment number 1428.

    1424.At 12:56 14th Dec 2011, Fulmar wrote: " Perhaps we should have complimented the BBC more on the old homepage. It never occurred to me to do so. I never thought it was under threat so I rather took it for granted..."

    Yes, a lesson for us all

    We're an apethetic lot until something goes wrong and then we jump up and down and complain like mad

    if James were to ever change his mind and revert to the old Portal, I'd send him a big 'Thank you' card with lots of kisses, a bunch of flowers, a big box of chocolates and a barrel of wine!

    We can but dream!

    I still wonder why they never asked our opinion of the old Page before embarking on the new project

  • Comment number 1429.

    Dear Powers that be ....
    I am really upset about all this. I haven't had time to look thoroughly at all these comments, so maybe I've missed something, but am I correct in thinking we have no explanation of why the BBC won't answer the sensible requests to set up the old homepage as a parallel web site? Surely it wouldn't be that difficult or costly to reinstigate it, and then, by monitoring the clicks and footfall, you would have positive proof which is preferred. The BBC would still have all their regular loyal devotees of the former sensible and more direct route into the wonders of the BBC, and any new whizzy wonders with minds which flit about like butterflies who are attracted to and prefer the new look could use the new one to aimlessly dabble about in. This would surely increase BBC footfall numbers overall and promote the Corporation in the popularity stakes of “most used web sites” which is ultimately what you seem to have been wanting by introducing the different style.

    All you have achieved so far is to antagonise the huge numbers of people who love the BBC and what it stands for. Not only are the BBC providing a very unpopular design and disfunctional route into the hidden depths of the BBC webpages but it is also deliberately 'managing' (I won't go so far as to say 'responding to') the whole debarcle in a very strange undemocratic and illogical/'hidden from view' manner which ultimately just makes the ‘general public’ very suspicious, and if others are like me, then very sad too.

    I'm not going to waste time repeating comments so many others have eloquently proferred nor make reference to the weird and wonderful methods and interpretations of statistic collection ("if statistics prove anything and statistics prove they do"). Please just listen to these very reasonable comments and requests and make some judgements based upon this tidal wave of similar opinion. We cannot all be wrong and we are all roughly saying the same thing. If you could monitor my own computer (perhaps you are?) you would see I have hardly been on any BBC sites since the new homepage except to check out to see if has been removed yet; this blog page and occasionally the news pages are my only diversions now. What I would casually have perused and been amazed at as a lucky chance discovery previously just never comes into my ambit of computer usage at all now. My computing life is much the poorer for this. Sad, very sad ...

  • Comment number 1430.

    The old homepage was intelligent with personalised content. This new homepage focuses on being clever (which it is), but is much less personalised, which is very suprising as the web is becoming increasingly personalised, just as the BBC abandon the concept. Because of this a large part of the page is dedicated to elements I have no interest in - I have to say it feels like there is a dumbing down taking place here.
    I generally love the BBCs concept of changing things and mixing it up, but this is just a mistake. I hope that the BBC, can make the amends to this page, to bring in the elements of the old home page that we loved so much.

  • Comment number 1431.

    I mentioned, in reply to earlier poster @1408, re Firefox issues, that the HollyOaks Homepage on my Firefox 8.0.1 mac DOES work... but got moderated out, as I mentioned that I had experienced a posting restriction or bug that required me to register again, Now I am locked out posting on boards on both usernames.

  • Comment number 1432.

    It is obvious that the BBC is going to ignore the very many critical comments since the inception of the new design. I now have changed my homepage to the news section which, while good in itself, cannot be tailored to my requirements as previously. I am sad that an example of excellence had to go down the road of total mediocrity in the name of progress.

  • Comment number 1433.

    I've just re-visited the new home page (first time for at least ten days) - indeed on two consecutive days! What suddenly struck me was that on the old site, I could see at a glance not only what I had chosen to see, but also what, if it was still there, I had seen previously. On this new site I have difficulty identifying what it is someone else has chosen for me to see, let alone whether or not I have read it before.

  • Comment number 1434.

    Hi there. I thought the new homepage might grow on me with time. It hasn't. I now just ignore it and click on the appropriate menu item from the top of the screen (news sport weather iplayer etc).

  • Comment number 1435.

    As we pay for a service, then why are we not listened to, go back to the old format the new one does not work, I have tried to use it again and its just not happening for me, the number of complaints that are coming in for this home page must make you think there is something wrong, yes there is something wrong its rubbish.
    I am slowly getting fed up with the BBC web site I think I will go else where for the news and weather.

  • Comment number 1436.

    Thanks for the feedback on accessibility issues, in particular comments such as #1010 which have given us some specific, useful information that we can use to fix any problems.

    Wherever possible it is really helpful if you can provide us with detailed information on the screen reader, browser, operating system and other technologies that you are using so that we can try and replicate the problem on our test machines and then work out the best solution.

    My team have identified specific problems with keyboard tabbing on Opera and Firefox and I’m working with them to fix these.

    We have a number of other improvements that have been suggested by users and although there’s a Christmas break coming up, we hope to release several updates in January to improve the accessibility of the page.

    If you see any other bugs of this kind then you can send feedback directly to our accessibility team at accessibilityteam@bbc.co.uk and they will be able to gather this information together and help us make the right improvements to the homepage.


  • Comment number 1437.

    I'm still incredibly disappointed by the lack of response by the BBC on this issue. Approaching 2,500 posts between the two blogs, mainly with negative feedback regarding the new homepage. Not a squeak from James for over 24 hours. What are you doing guys? Frantic meetings around the boardroom table? Or heads in sand?

    Incidentally, running the new homepage in Firefox 8.0 in Win7 doesn't work properly - the lower part of the carousel is cut off and it's nothing to do with my system or monitor. Frankly, with so many glitches in various browsers why can't you just admit that your one size fits all mentality has failed?

    Can't give us back the old homepage or won't give it back? Ok, just use the feedback you have been receiving to revamp your beloved new page to provide the same functionality as the old one without the glitches (including horizontal scrolling); but I guess that's going to cost the BBC and thereby the licence payer more than resurrecting a piece of older code that did the job satisfactorily in the first instance.

    And by the way - still no response to my escalation of my original complaint. Shame!

  • Comment number 1438.

    The BBC homepage has been my home page for as long as I have owned a computer, many many years and was always happy, now for the first time I'll have to find a new home page. Please listen to your customers and go back to the old style. I want to choose what I see on my home page, I don't like football, but I like F1, but I can no longer choose this. The new home page just looks like a big advert for BBC entertainment shows. Not happy :-(

  • Comment number 1439.

    Thank you very much, James, for responding to comment 1010 - it seemed to be a particular issue that needed addressing and you have indicated that this will happen.

    As my final comment on this blog, I would like to say:

    1) I don't mind the overall structure of the new web page - I'm happy to quickly look and then move onto News
    2) I would like a separation of News and Sport - surely we can have another tab?
    3) I would like a finer consideration of how information is bundled across the tabs, or even an ability of the carousel to carry out a bit of learning in respect of my browsing habits so that it caters more to what I am looking for
    4) I remain irritated by the inability of the carousel to remember the tab/pain I was on when I clicked and returned under Safari 5.1.2 OS X 10.7.2. It works fine with firefox, but not with safari (or Chrome, come to that)
    5) Overall, I am in favour of the changes on the homepage (and don't censor me for this, pleas Nick!) and across the BBC's webpages - the look is cleaner and more (ahem!) accessible.

  • Comment number 1440.

    Re 1436: It's very pertinent that James says "Thanks for the feedback on accessibility issues". But absolutely no comment to those who have expressed their strong feelings about the scrapping of the old page.

    It seems that it's a no win situation. If no one voiced their views he would say that people were happy with the new homepage; and after many people have taken time to express their strong views here and elsewhere, he simply ignores them because his mind is made up.

  • Comment number 1441.

    Finally, a response from James and it doesn't address many issues raised by the people who are actually concerned about the way the BBC is dumbing down the homepage. In comparison the link given for the sports page shows there is a gentle transition occurring that is in keeping with the previous version. Moderator, are different teams involved with different aspect of the site's redesign?

    What Mr Thornett can now do is answer the many remaining questions he has chosen to ignore.

  • Comment number 1442.

    Hello James!

    When are all of the other comments, questions and concerns going to be addressed?

    The carousel is very difficult to cope with .. It makes me feel dizzy ... and I'm only 51 !

  • Comment number 1443.

    It is very nice but sometime I found quiet hard to find what I want! So can you put quiet modern search technique inside bbc's website?

  • Comment number 1444.

    Thanks for the update James :)

  • Comment number 1445.

    The carousel has a major repainting bug when you use a window narrower than the carousel is wide. This is visible on the Homepage and in other areas where the carousel is used. I presume this will be fixed as it is simply a bug. Do you want a complaint raised or is my previous comment sufficient to get it addressed?

    It might prove to be awkward as the carousel seems to have its own rules.

  • Comment number 1446.

    I can hardly believe the response from James at 1436. When he says that ... "my team have identified specific problems with keyboard tabbing...." I had to laugh. When will the powers that be realise (or admit to) that the issue is not some detailed technical problem resolution but the fact that the new home page is awful for all the reasons that have been so adequately described on this blog.
    James let me put this to your team .... the public have identified specific problems as well as well as your team i.e. that the new homepage is not fit for purpose - so when are they going to fix that?

  • Comment number 1447.

    James, since you have asked for constructive ideas that may improve your new website I am going to make a suggestion that may improve the use of the tragic roundabout.
    Firstly go to the new met office beta site at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/beta/
    I know it looks like the well loved old site, but that is not my suggestion so please stay with me for a little while longer. If you look around the widgets you will find one labelled "Features" Now imagine it stretched horizontally for the full width of the screen, but remaining at its current height, showing four or five pictures, and having two arrows at each end, one above the other. One arrow to index the pictures by one position, and the other by a full page.
    Please note also the way that, on mouseover, the arrows gain a glow effect, but the pictures remain stable and do not lurch around like a drunken sailor. Note also the way that the "headline" for the story is at the bottom of the picture and rises to mask the picture when you put the pointer onto the headline. This method would let you keep a high picture count, give legible explanations of what the picture was about and stop the complaints of seasickness from your remaining visitors.
    As regards using BBCiD to store personal location settings, please don't. The one big disadvantage of my new homepage is that you have to log in to get the settings that you want where on the old BBC homepage I simply opened my browser and there everything was. Where I wanted it, no fuss, no mess, no hassle.

  • Comment number 1448.


    I'm back as host after a few days on other duties. I hope you've all been well.

    Unfortunately, the first things I'll do is let you know that I'll close comments on this post at 19:00.

    Although some new posters have come (welcome Matthew), and quite a few constructive comments (thanks for the bug report, SD), there have also been a fairly high number of disruptive and/or offensive comments.

    So now that James has replied to the important questions about accessibility, I'm going to close the post to more comments.

    I do hope to be bringing you another blog post about the home page soon.

    Thank you for the hundreds of contributions to this conversation.


  • Comment number 1449.

    Nice to hear from you again James. From your comments on accessibility I am not sure that you have picked up the distinction between physical accessibility and what might be termed cognitive. For some people, examples have been given, they need to see what they are looking for without having to click other buttons. The old website had a great deal of such information on it and that enabled people to click through to where they wanted to go. The new site requires a great deal more processing before you get where you want to be and that presents a barrier to many.

    On the substantive matter of the new homepage. I still can't believe the BBC is defending what seems to me to be second rate at best. This is no way to engage with the public and while I will continue to see what is going on I won't be using the home page and I will be looking at other ways to bring my views to the attention of senior peole within the BBC.

  • Comment number 1450.

    #1448 Typical.

  • Comment number 1451.

    @ 1448. Thanks Ian, so unless the comments are offering the BBC suggestions to improve the new homepage or are in praise of it, you don't want to know?

    I would suggest anyone now unhappy with the homepage lodges a formal complaint which the BBC will have to respond to.........eventually!

  • Comment number 1452.

    To whom it may concern: Thanks for not answering other than a very few of the homepage questions asked. Shameful and very very poor indeed.

  • Comment number 1453.

    Absolute waste of everyone’s time, WHY even bother creating (and then hiding) this blog, Christ it’s no wonder people are getting (for want to use other words) fed up!

  • Comment number 1454.

    @Essex Bart (#1451)

    I'd have welcomed Matthew as a new person in the conversation whether he'd criticised the homepage or asked for a change.

  • Comment number 1455.

    Sooooo back to the naughty corner for those of us who have dared to criticize the new homepage!

    BBC ... please act like a responsible body; we are all grown adults here and know what we DO and what we DON'T like. I would probably failed my web assignment ( ... a few yrs ago) if I had submitted a a webpage with soooo many issues as the new homepage. I do enjoy change ... when it is for better not worse!

  • Comment number 1456.

    @Matt (#1453) Closing comments won't make any difference to the visibility of this blog post.

  • Comment number 1457.

    Sad times. I have to agree, it's despicable to close this down just because you aren't getting the answers YOU want.

    Shame on you.

  • Comment number 1458.

    Re 1448

    "So now that James has replied to the important questions about accessibility, I'm going to close the post to more comments."

    He did, did he? Where?

    "I do hope to be bringing you another blog post about the home page soon."

    Later, Maybe.... Now where have I heard that comment before?

  • Comment number 1459.

    So that's the end of the blog?

    How very undemocratic.

    We only want the old homepage back......bah.

  • Comment number 1460.

    Ian. I would challenge your assertion that james has dealt with accessibility. He has touched on one aspect of it without saying what he will do. I think he has missed a significant part of accessibility.

  • Comment number 1461.

    @ 1448
    So that's it? Loads of issue unanswered, loads of disgruntled homepage users upping sticks, a complaints system that isn't fit for purpose,and the blog is closed down.

    I've tried to stick with you BBC but the way this has been handled is shameful for a national institution.

  • Comment number 1462.


  • Comment number 1463.


  • Comment number 1464.

    please do not ignore us ... please give us a homepage that we will love and respect as much as the old one :-(

  • Comment number 1465.


    This moderation is a total farce. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves for the way the homepage switchover has been handled.

  • Comment number 1466.

    @GoonerDC (#1463)

    This is what I referred to in my comment #1448.


Page 15 of 15

More from this blog...

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.