« Previous | Main | Next »

BBC Sport: Strategy, User Testing, and Implementation

Post categories:

Neil Hall Neil Hall | 12:34 UK time, Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Screenshot of BBC Sport homepage, showing football, cricket, and rugby stories

BBC Sport homepage

My name is Neil Hall and I work with Cait O'Riordan at BBC Future Media. Based in Salford, I am the product manager specifically responsible for the BBC Sport website. Working with our editorial colleagues at BBC Sport, I led the project team who delivered this relaunch.

Cait O'Riordan and Ben Gallop have already given you some insight into the relaunch.

In this blog post I am going to explain the strategy behind the changes we have made and how we went about implementing them.

I am going to focus in particular on the role of audience research, feedback and user testing in our development of the new site, an issue that has been raised by a number of you in the comments to the earlier blog posts.

Kick-Off

The first step was to gain as deep an understanding as possible about the way in which the audience used our current offering and consumed sports content online.

We began by going through all of the existing data we had about people’s usage of the site and added some additional tracking to our pages to monitor specific journeys – for example how people moved from story to story.

We analysed the results of the regular feedback surveys we post on the site, reviewing the thousands of verbatim comments left by our audience to find the common themes.

Finally, we commissioned some qualitative research around the site to watch our users in action on both the BBC and other sport websites during busy sporting days.

This initial grounding of research, coupled with an additional wider study into fans’ consumption of digital content around the 2010 World Cup, led to us to the following conclusions:

Live coverage is king for sport fans – but some of our live content was being missed

While our live text commentary pages proved to be incredibly popular with our audience, many users were missing the full range of live content we offered from live text, video, audio and statistics.

Our research showed that chief among the factors behind this where the layout of key sections, like the Sport homepage, which struggled to promote the full range of live coverage we offered and the deeply contextual navigation. This problem was most acute when there were a number of simultaneous sporting events scheduled, like the previous weekend with the Six Nations taking place alongside the Test cricket and usual programme of football.

The design of our new homepage is specifically targeted at providing a solution for these circumstances. It ensures we can reflect the balance of the best live and news content on the site, as it changes throughout the sporting week.

It should be easier to move between sections on the site and find the best content

One of the seeming paradoxes of our previous site is that while it was generally considered easy to use by our audience, we also received a steady number of comments from users in our surveys about how hard it was to get to specific information across different leagues or sports. I recall one user summed it up neatly by saying “you have to click, click, click to get anything”. We knew we had to make this type of journey faster in the new site.

Our data also showed us that we had relatively little traffic from story to story on the site. As we knew a growing number of users going directly to our news stories via search engines and social media we knew in the redesign we needed to make these pages work harder to promote the best content from across the site.

To do this we have redesigned the promotional links contained in the right hand side of our story pages to give greater prominence to the most relevant associated content and also showcase the best content we have on any particular sport in the “More From…” area. In the coming months, we will also deliver a new footer for the Sport site’s pages that will showcase the editorially selected content highlights from the past few days and the items ‘most viewed’ by our audience.

We should do more to encourage engagement and better reflect the passion of sports fans

One of the common themes that emerged from analysis of our audience’s feedback was that the design of the site was beginning to look tired and out-of-date, this theme became more pronounced after the refresh of the News website with some users even asking us when the Sport site was going to be updated.

In conjunction with this, we knew that some of our users considered the site to be bland in comparison to some of the other sport sites in the market.

To address this we purposely set out to raise the bar in terms of user experience and design with a particular focus on improving the appearance of and engagement around our live event pages, data, and video.

We will be launching comments on our news stories in the near future too, while the inclusion of Share Tools that allow people to post links to our content on social networks mean that it is now easier for our content to be shared and talked about it than it was before.

This research gave us a solid base to pin the foundations of the relaunch upon, and at this point our design team came into their own. If you are interested in finding out more about this process our Creative Director Scott Byrne-Fraser has blogged about it.

Technical Strategy

This refresh has been about more than just a change to the audience-facing proposition. From the start of the project it was our aim to drive efficiencies on both the editorial side in terms of content management and from a development perspective.

To that effect, we have significantly refreshed our technology infrastructure allowing us to deliver better services for less cost, enabling us to add to the desktop site easily in frequent small steps and making it much simpler to get the best BBC Sport content available on multiple devices.

It was clear from the outset what a major undertaking this would be. There were already six major systems involved in delivering the BBC Sport website, each containing an enormous amount of invaluable domain and business logic.

The biggest changes we have made involved us building on the dynamic semantic publishing work we did for the 2010 World Cup and the continued migration to the BBC’s dynamic web application platform.

These changes mean that Sport content can be more flexibly used – for example, combined with other content in new and interesting ways like our Live Scores and Football Tables pages.

There will be more to come on this blog about the technical side of this project in the coming weeks.

Validating the New Design

Working in parallel to this back-end technical work, the designs for the new site soon began to take shape.

Our user experience design team began by producing ‘a concept car’ version of the new site and rapid prototypes of the key new features were shown to groups of users and then refined to become something much closer to the site you see today.

From this point onwards, we took a number of steps to validate this design with our wider audience before we began to build the new-look site.

Initial quantitative testing was undertaken with more than 1,000 UK and International users of the BBC site to ascertain indicative insights about the look, feel and content of the proposed site designs.

This peek at our new-look was well received with most users preferring it to the existing site so we moved on to building a high-fidelity prototype of it to test in-depth with users in London and Manchester.

We always recruit a mix of people to participate in these sessions – men and women, various education levels and employment types, some with cognitive/perceptual impairments, and with varying levels of interest in sport – from our most loyal users to those that only visit sports sites for major events.

This piece of research was incredibly informative for us. We watched from behind the two-way mirror as people got to grips with the new site and its layout.

It highlighted some pinch points for us around specific user journeys on the site – for example, the way in which people used the navigation and the layout of indexes - early enough in the process that we were able to make changes ahead of building the final proposition.

After our round of improvements to the prototype we re-tested it again with more sport website users across the UK and once we were confident in our design we pushed on with building the site.

In the illustrations below you can see how some of the site’s features evolved based on our rounds of user testing:

The Navigation

early mock-up of navigation - mixed sports and events - with final version

An early version of the navigation that featured both a mix of sports and events, above the final design

Creating an effective horizontal navigation that allowed people to quickly access all their favourite sections of the site was one of the fundamental challenges of this project.
In the designs above you can see an early version of the navigation (with a placeholder header) directly above the navigation you can see on the site today.

You can see that we proposed a mixed model of events and sports in there, with a link to Live Scores before the More Sports drop down on the right hand side.

The results of the user testing made it clear that having a Live Scores link next to More Sports meant many people were missing the More Sports drop down – while the mixed economy of events and sports was confusing people.

In the second version we tested, we removed the Live Scores link and subtly tweaked the arrow next to More Sports to make it clearer that this was a drop down menu.

Removing the Live Scores link afforded us more room on the left of the navigation that we used to consistently promote the most popular sport pages, leaving the Olympics as the only ‘event’ in there.

These small changes had a big impact with our respondents in the second round of testing easily finding the More Sports link and navigating around the site as we had hoped.

The Football Index

The shade of yellow and the content layout have been big talking points in comments on these blog posts. Both were mentioned in our early round of user testing.

In these designs you can see an early version of the Football index alongside the later version we tested that is much closer to what you see on the site now.

You can see that to start with we had a much brighter yellow in our header that was more closely aligned to the shade used in the BBC Sport TV branding.

In our first round of testing this was highlighted as an issue and we toned it down for the second round of research we conducted, where the colour we launched the site with was used and barely commented on by our users.

We also simplified the complexity of some of the modules on the page, for example the Comment & Analysis and Video & Audio areas, to help make the layout clearer for our audience.

These simpler modules also had the added benefit of being faster for our team to develop.

With these tweaks made, the Football index tested strongly in our second round of testing. Users were able to easily get to the content they wanted to and there was significant praise for the new-look stats modules in the right-hand side too.

We ensured that people were clear on the news hierarchy of the page, with the top three stories on the left being supplemented by the headlines links in the central column to ensure there were 10-12 headlines in the users’ first screen.

Some of the features you see in the designs did not make our initial scope for launch but you may see them on the site in the future.

two screen grabs of different versions of the football index

The left hand side shows an early version of our football index, which evolved after user feedback to the version on the right

Flexible Promotion on the Front Page

The way in which the audience responded to the flexible promotion of the new front page module was one of the highlights of user testing.

In the designs below you can see a selection of the modes available to our editorial team to best reflect the sporting agenda at any given moment.

The aim of the module is to better reflect the balance of news and live content on the sport site, for example on the left hand side showing a clear top three news stories, while the right shows live events that are occurring at the same time.

Our prototype showed the front page of the site in various different scenarios, from a quiet Tuesday afternoon to a busy live sport day.

With such a bold promotional module we were concerned that the users may not understand the editorial hierarchy of the content in there at the various points of the week.

But users were quick to spot this and many felt the transition between modes and strong use of photography better reflected the feel of a live sport day or major news story.

The use of blue to signify live also went down well, with users understanding what the colour meant after they had completed some sample journeys through the site.

Mock-ups of different combinations of appropriate promotional boxes.

This image shows our early thinking on the range of modes for promoting different content types on the site’s front page

A final phase of quantitative testing took place from December 2011 – January 2012 with 2,000 UK online sport users. The survey evaluated the audience reaction to the site with its findings showing the new designs were seen to have a wide range of content, a modern look and feel and were of high quality.

Reactions to specific content shown were consistently very positive and looking across a number of pages in further depth, results confirmed that the site was easy to use and had a clear layout plus demonstrated the availability of live content.

It's Out There!

At the time of writing it’s about a fortnight since we launched the new site. We are monitoring all of your feedback across the BBC blogs, surveys and social media, in addition to conducting some detailed analysis of our traffic to monitor audience behaviours on the site. Thank you for taking the time to give us your thoughts if you have done so. If not, you can still comment in the survey.

We want to give the new site time to bed down so while we are fixing bugs following our launch we are not planning any immediate major changes.

We will continue to evolve the new site based on audience research, including what you tell us via our various forms of feedback.

Our team has moved onto delivering improvements to the site in fortnightly cycles. We have already delivered solutions for a couple of issues discussed on these pages around the tool bar at the top of the pages and the auto-playing of videos in our live event pages.

We have also launched our Olympics service and there will be much more to come as we build to Olympics 2012.

Neil Hall is the Executive Product Manager for Sport at BBC Future Media

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    The blue for live events is a great choice, and the ease of access to popular pages is also great. Love that you've got rid of the inverting behaviour for the top BBC navigation, very annoying and potentially confusing decision.

  • Comment number 2.

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

  • Comment number 3.

    It is clear from the vast majority feedback on all the other sports website blogs that the the results of your ill judged user testing has been a complete failure as the site is no longer fit for purpose. Sorry to break this to you as you seem so keen in your presentation. My advice would be to avoid any connection with this revamp on any future c.v.

  • Comment number 4.

    P.s. your website videos do not work on my ipad as they are written in HTML4 which ipads cannot show video on, HTML5 would have been an idea

  • Comment number 5.

    On my desk top pc the last image just shows as a large black block. I assume like much of the sports website itself this was not properly tested before going live. I use Firefox by the way.

  • Comment number 6.

    Thanks for explaining why you have done what you have done.

    I don't normally pay attention to this sort of thing so I don't know if publishing such a response is normal or whether it is as a result of the deluge of criticism you have received. What I don't understand is how you can have gone through this process and yet have come up with a website which appears to have alienated such a large percentage of your regular users. When the News & weather sites were updated I noticed that it had taken place, noticed some improvements and some things I didn't like but just got on with usuing the site. This is different. I genuinely cannot abide the new site. I keep trying to use it and end up feeling exasperated and irritated. The design does not work for me at all and I have ended up usiing other sites for my sports news. Sorry.

    judging by the reaction I have heard from my friends in real life I am not the only one to think this. Everyone I know hates the site. I have never before heard people discussing a BBC website redesign in real life. That is some achievment and not in a good way.

    I am aware you must be feeling a bit uder fire at the moment, but I would be interested to know why you think this has backfired so badly.

  • Comment number 7.

    The BBC web pages were some of the best designed and easy to use pages on the internet in my opinion. Now they are some of the worst, have you read the feedback on some of the blogs Ben Gallops for instance? Nearly 2000 people who use the website regularly hate it. The pages look like they have been designed for two year-old's each item trying to be more garish than the next. Have you never heard of subtlety– the overall effect is just so overpowering? On top of this things are hard to navigate and do not work. You and your team should be ashamed.

  • Comment number 8.

    @wibblebrother - I love reading the comments in response to BBC redesigns. If you didn't notice the negativity about the News, Weather and Home page, then lucky you, because the response was as vehement (if not more so) than with Sport. In fact a lot of the commenters decrying that the new sites were "so much worse, why did you have to change the old site, it worked really well" didn't know that the previous redesign also attracted a lot of "Oh no, I can't use this new site design" comments. Were those previous commenters completely wrong then?

    My recent favourites were the two comments next to each other in Twitter complaining about the BBC designers "putting too much whitespace and padding everywhere", and then that "they don't seem to have heard of using padding to space things out".

    I think it's a bit naïve to assume that the BBC doesn't have ways of tracking exactly how people are navigating through their site - in fact this article points to exactly that fact. Any change in navigation will almost by definition decrease the navigation path for many people at the expense of increasing it for others - the "best" solution isn't one that minimises the number of clicks for Joe Smith, but minimises the number of total clicks for the total set of users.

    On a side note, maybe everything - I mean absolutely *everything*: articles, scores, tables - should be loaded on the Sport homepage. Zero clicks for everyone, right? ;)

  • Comment number 9.

    WOW more and more blog posts telling us how you did this and why you did that and it’s just a bug here or there.

    Negative response? Close the blog and start a new one, spread the criticism around as much as possible!

    Add links for feedback on the section home pages and then remove them the next day!

    Have none of the team read “THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES” maybe someone should go and look it up and have a read!

  • Comment number 10.

    I wouldn't bother expressing an opinion, it will be removed

  • Comment number 11.

    "Live coverage is king for sport fans – but some of our live content was being missed"

    I think you'll find that putting lots of content on the page but making the page so unfathomable that nobody can navigate around it will NOT ensure that Live Content will not be missed.

    Wake up!

  • Comment number 12.

    "Our data also showed us that we had relatively little traffic from story to story on the site. As we knew a growing number of users going directly to our news stories via search engines and social media we knew in the redesign we needed to make these pages work harder to promote the best content from across the site.

    To do this we have redesigned the promotional links contained in the right hand side of our story pages to give greater prominence to the most relevant associated content and also showcase the best content we have on any particular sport in the “More From…” area."

    Translation: You're coming in from search engines to find what you want. Rather than just give it to you we want to fill your screen with other stuff you didn't come for so we can try and change how you behave and try and keep you on our site.

    And I thought adverts were banned from the BBC (in the UK). What do you call a message promoting the use of you service to someone who doesn't want it?

  • Comment number 13.

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

  • Comment number 14.

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

  • Comment number 15.

    "the audience-facing proposition"

    "the dynamic semantic publishing work"

    "the BBC’s dynamic web application platform."

    "to ascertain indicative insights about the look, feel and content of the proposed site design"

    Nice use of buzz words - it's a shame the counter point is as simple as "horrible", "unfathomable", "garish". There's a certain strength is pointed, clear words isn't there?


    Creating an effective horizontal navigation that allowed people to quickly access all their favourite sections of the site was one of the fundamental challenges of this project - unless of course one has to scroll so far down to read the "headlines" that the menu long since left the top of your monitor and is now on some A.T.C. radar...

    where the colour we launched the site with was used and barely commented on by our users - you are joking I presume. Was veryone issued with lemon-colured spectacles?

    being supplemented by the headlines links in the central column - I think the clue is in the name .. HEADline

    may not understand the editorial hierarchy - you think the user should / has to? Wow!

    We will continue to evolve the new site based on audience research, including what you tell us via our various forms of feedback. - so .... you'll be reinstation the previous web site then? No? You've not been told clearly enough?

    allowing us to deliver better services for less cost [except for the cost of the development]. A question: is this measured as less cost per story, as less cost per employee or as less cost per visitor. With the delevopment costs and a decreasing user-base the cost-per-head will be huge!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    I cannot beleive we've got yet another blog. Why can't his be addressed completely? Why can the BBC not at least be consistent (it wasn't test / yes it was; it can't be changed / yes it has been; the old and the new can't co-exist / yes they are etc)

    It's a purile attempt to disguise the strength of feeling and the numbers expressing them. No matter how many blogs you close and open it seems you'll always get

  • Comment number 16.

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

  • Comment number 17.

    Interesting to read another person giving reasons for the changes, it still doesn't change the fact that it is so much worse than old web site, and I do not like it one bit.
    It doesn't help to get people to like it when it doesn't work - live scores with manual up dates are a disgrace.
    I still find it hard to believe that this site actually got positive feedback in trials but thank you for switching off the auto-play videos (although site should never have been launched in that state)

  • Comment number 18.

    "@wibblebrother - I love reading the comments in response to BBC redesigns. If you didn't notice the negativity about the News, Weather and Home page, then lucky you, because the response was as vehement (if not more so) than with Sport"

    Well, I've checked out the responses to the Weather & they seem far more mixed than the Sport responses which are 90% hostile. I actually did prefer the previous iteration of the News (& Weather) pages but the changes were not enough to put me off.

    I think it is facile to say that these responses are just a reaction to change: Say there was a mythical world where someone changed a site to deliberately made it worse. How would we ever prove that this was the case if 'all change is good'. People have specific problems with the Sport site at the moment and to write this off as just resistance to change is a wee bit trite.

  • Comment number 19.

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

  • Comment number 20.

    To wibblebrother #18

    "how would you prove"

    You could ask all the people who love the old site and hate the new one whether they posted how much they liked the old one when it was launched and then form an estimate of how much more likely they are to post a criticism rather than a complement. It's important that everyone sees the comments of criticisms of varying value - the useful ones specifically describe how the site needs to be amended.

  • Comment number 21.

    I think we, the moaners are flogging a dead horse here, makes me wonder why this webpage exists. We have all, well ninety-odd percent of us, remarked upon how much we dislike the new site, yet it is still here. We all loved the old site, shown by the fact that we have posted here, so please, please, pretty please can we have the old site back. It was easy to navigate, well presented and it had a nice colour scheme and the new site, well it has a bit in the middle

  • Comment number 22.

    @Brian192 (#5), what's your exact Firefox and OS version, and which image exactly?

    @Bear

    As per house rules, use the appeals process if you disagree with a moderation/hosting decision, not the blog. Such comments are off-topic here, which is why I removed them.

    I particularly want to draw attention to this part of the rules against disruptive comments:

    • Flaming: This means posting something that's angry and mean-spirited.

    I definitely err on the side of not deleting criticism of the BBC, but when it gets personal and unpleasant, house rules give my colleagues the same protection I'd give anyone else.

    Dear everyone:

    Please let's keep criticisms polite. If you'd like an answer, it helps for them to be specific and constructive (eg #4).

    To help the conversation flow for everyone, I will remove flames and off-topic comments.

  • Comment number 23.

    @22. At 00:23 15th Feb 2012, Ian McDonald wrote:

    Flaming: This means posting something that's angry and mean-spirited.

    I definitely err on the side of not deleting criticism of the BBC, but when it gets personal and unpleasant, house rules give my colleagues the same protection I'd give anyone else.

    -----------------------------

    Ian - I realise this is "off topic" but, as you raised the point, does this mean "something that's angry but not mean-spirited" or "something that's not angry but is mean-spirited" is not considered Flaming?

    Secondly would you clarify 2 points: how would to react to the criticism of the new site as far as it might upset the (professional) pride of one of your colleagues - would you react to this as "unpleasant"? Also do you treat comments regarding how your colleagues spend their employers money the same as how I spend mine bearing in mind the former is paid for by the public via a "tax" and the latter is most definitely not.

    If you could help us with some guidance then we can stay more "on topic" as these are not dealt with by the "House Rules".

    Thanks

  • Comment number 24.

    "Initial quantitative testing was undertaken with more than 1,000 UK and International users of the BBC site to ascertain indicative insights about the look, feel and content of the proposed site designs. This peek at our new-look was well received with most users preferring it to the existing site .... "

    I think that virtually everyone who has commented across the various blogs on this subject will be finding this hard to believe.

    It is unfathomable to me that even a significant minority, let alone a majority, could find the new site more visually attractive to the old one at first glance, and any extended testing with people who are interested in sport would surely have flagged up the navigational and layout problems which have been the subject of so many comments. Surely some in your panel asked why they could no longer find the European football scores and why there wasn't an overview of fixtures by date rather than league?

    It is unusual for the BBC to respond in this way (well done for doing so, by the way) - I can't recall any attempt to describe the testing process when the furore about the BBC Home Page was running. I can only assume that the feedback you are getting from all sources must be telling you that you have got this wrong and you are not carrying your audience with you. It would be interesting to know what you have lined up for your fortnightly programme of revisions.

  • Comment number 25.

    Well said BarkingP, I couldn't have said it better myself. They really have wasted their time and our money by replacing an exemplary website with a quite awful one.

  • Comment number 26.

    @Think Tank

    The house rules are clear. As I've said before, I enforce the house rules more strictly if a conversation is longer and has more contentious comments.

    Specific criticism of the BBC sport website is on-topic, and obviously not what I mean by "unpleasant". Equally obviously, I'd never moderate a comment for pointing out that we're funded primary by license-fee payers.

    Some comments have included personal unpleasantness aimed at the folk writing these blogs; this is abusive and disruptive, and may also be offensive and off-topic.

    As I said: please keep your criticisms polite.

  • Comment number 27.

    #24 I think the key word in the quote is "peek". Show someone a glimpse (which is how I interpret peek) of what it might look like and you may get positive reposnses. However, to get a full and proper understanding of what the new site feels like it has to have been used extensively by users for a period of time. I suspect this is where the research has failed.

  • Comment number 28.

    Well done Neil for giving us an extensive insight into the way the new sports web site was set up. However, there are some very deep flaws in the reasoning behind the changes, the way you did the testing and how the new site was introduced:

    Why would the user ever want to go from story to story? If I am looking for the cricket, why would I be interested in other live sport going on? What you say is: we want to push as many of our wonderful content through your throat. Many people using the internet have a clear idea which information they are looking for and they don't want to be distracted by content the editors are wanting them to see. The outcry about the presenting of the football fixtures highlights exactly that.

    Regarding to the testing, there is a massive difference between putting a major restyling before ones eyes at once or introducing it item by item. You disregard this completely in your blog. So the positive responses to the latter are of little value if you don’t properly introduce the changes. You are now trying to catch up but the damage has already been done.

    Finally, without actually saying so, you have already admitted to some major mistakes. Yesterday evening the vidiprinter was back in place for those who were able to find the link. I am sure the football fixtures will sooner or later again be sorted by date instead of by league. If you really value the thousands of comments more changes are unavoidable.

  • Comment number 29.

    #28. Re: the Videprinter. On my PC it doesn't update automatically (causing much use of the F5 key). Anyone else find this?

  • Comment number 30.

    @GMaB (#29)

    By videprinter, do you mean the live event pages? Ben Gallop blogged about issues with those that sound similar.

  • Comment number 31.

    Neil, thank you for taking the trouble to go through all this, it is much appreciated after all the comments on the relaunch.

    As someone who has commissioned consumer market research for over 30 years, I do feel you've fallen into two common traps:

    1. Those invited to participate in research, particularly user-testing, can be markedly more positive about their experience than the general public. Your piece doesn't say what the final phase of quantitative testing in Dec 2011 & Jan 2012 actually involved. Was it live beta testing? 2,000 strikes me as too few participants.

    2. Failure to see the wood for the trees. Amid all the very detailed testing of individual aspects of the site it can be easy to overlook how all the detail comes together in the final design. I really don't wish to be rude about something that is the culmination of a process involving many thousands of man hours, but your new homepage really is an unpleasant viewing experience. An assault on the eye, as I think I described it in another comment.

    I do hope people at the BBC are genuinely listening to the criticisms of the redesign.

  • Comment number 32.

    Thanks for the detailed information you've provided, but it would appear somehow the testers & feedback received were hardly representative of the opinions being voiced on the numerous blogs on this subject which overwhelmingly do not like what has been delivered.
    You state: "We want to give the new site time to bed down so while we are fixing bugs following our launch we are not planning any immediate major changes." - This is not what the majority of feedback seems to require, most want you to simply revert to the old design & colouring?
    Also
    "We will continue to evolve the new site based on audience research, including what you tell us via our various forms of feedback." - This would seem to infer that the site is here to stay & there is actually little scope for users comments to be actually adopted.
    Please also don't forget that based upon what they have seen so far many like myself no longer visit the main pages & only check the numerous blogs to see if common sense has prevailed & our opinions do actually count regarding the new design.
    Please give us back the previous version or at least use it's basic design & colouring to incorporate/accommodate as few changes as possible.

  • Comment number 33.

    In response to Ian I am on Firefox 10.0.1 operating system windows XP. The large black block is above "This image shows our early thinking ........"
    I will try it on a windows 7 computer in Firefox later to see what results I get.

  • Comment number 34.

    Thorough research but it reads as justification without inspiration. Great digital delivery design requires more than customer research. Think Apple. Successful planners look at the future. What will users want that they don't know they want today?

    This post “to explain the strategy behind the changes” mentions neither of the words “smart” or “phone”. The word “devices” is mentioned once, with no drill down. Planning needs to consider all three of these words; they are central to any strategy.

    Sadly, the recent revamp is poor for smartphone users.

    There are world-leading digital content delivery planners here in London. Go use them.

    My comments are relevant to all BBC online content delivery. I am aware of budget constraints especially following the licence fee review that savaged BBC online. Changing use of devices is moving fast. Strong, brave leadership is needed.

  • Comment number 35.

    A couple of things..

    Firstly thank you for your feed back

    1 - When the first blog was published, it stated that "... for example a survey of 2,000 people..." and yet in your blog above the figure is now 1000! ("... Initial quantitative testing was undertaken with more than 1,000 UK and International users ...")

    Which is the correct figure? and will you concede that as the number of complainants in recent blogs is higher?

    2 - In the above blog, you show an example of the earlier version of the football page alongside the one you have implemented. You state:

    "The left hand side shows an early version of our football index, which evolved after user feedback to the version on the right"

    yet one look at the actual live football page shows that the one being used is NOT the on the right, at least the header isn't. (not sure about the rest of the page as both versions you show above and the current live version are far too crowded and mish-mashed to be able to read)

    3 - Next you state:

    "But users were quick to spot this and many felt the transition between modes and strong use of photography better reflected the feel of a live sport day or major news story.

    The use of blue to signify live also went down well, with users understanding what the colour meant after they had completed some sample journeys through the site."

    I agree with this but, and it's a big but, WHY do you insist on placing text over the pictures/videos/graphics? This does not work.

    4 - Regarding the yellow you state:

    "In our first round of testing this was highlighted as an issue and we toned it down for the second round of research we conducted, where the colour we launched the site with was used and barely commented on by our users."

    Would it be fair to say that as the yellow was toned down, the "testers" possibly noticed the difference and therefore concentrated their comments on other areas whilst still not particularly happy with the yellow?

    Also would you not agree that the yellow is still far to bright and prominent, at least according to a large number of posts in these blogs?


    and finally (for now), will you agree that the site went live far too soon and has not been tested to the standard it should have been, as the presence of bugs show?

    Thank you

  • Comment number 36.

    @brian192 (#33):

    This is a problem with seeing the blog post, rather than BBC Sport, but I'm happy to look into it here.

    This is the web address of the large image that you can't see. If you follow the link directly, can you see the image?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/02/13/jigsawvariants_edit_595.jpg

  • Comment number 37.

    Re 36
    Thanks Ian. I was able to magnify the image from the link you provided and it was then readable.

  • Comment number 38.

    When considering the user feedback here, I suggest you look at the device source (computer or tablet or smartphone) and consider the feedback by device source. I am making what may be a rash assumption that your dashboard analytics can detect device source.

  • Comment number 39.

    When I log in (to post a comment) using my phone, the "Sign in with your BBCiD" page has a tick box next to "Remember me on this computer". Is your system device aware?

  • Comment number 40.

    Neil,

    Thanks for taking the time to write this blog. People will always oppose change, but I feel that they are right to do so in certain areas. My biggest concern is with usability and I would therefore take issue with the following statement:

    'I recall one user summed it up neatly by saying “you have to click, click, click to get anything”. We knew we had to make this type of journey faster in the new site.'

    Here is a personal example of how you have achieved the complete opposite:

    PREVIOUSLY
    - Click 'Division' (e.g. 'Championship'), then click 'Results' to see all results from that division (i.e. scores/goalscorers/cards) going back to the start of the season.

    That is a grand total of two clicks from arriving at the BBC Football homepage.

    CURRENTLY
    - Choose 'Competition' (e.g. 'Championship') from the dropdown box, then choose 'Results'. After two clicks I can now see all the scores, but I must click the arrow to the left of each match individually in order to see the goalscorers and cards. This requires a further 12 clicks (plus loading time) in order to see this information for just one round of Championship matches and a massive 552 clicks (plus the initial two to navigate there) if I want this information for an entire 'Championship' season.

    This is a usability nightmare and will lead to me looking elsewhere for such information in future if improvements are not made.

    A restyling is fine, but usability has to be the key for any website and I feel very let down on this front.

  • Comment number 41.

    Ian, no, I mean the BBC Videprinter page:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/live_videprinter/default.stm

    This page is unchanged so far with the new layout, but it used to update as goals went in. Now I have to refresh.

  • Comment number 42.

    Neil, What size screens did you use for the people when testing the site? The whole design seems most inflexible and has not used the capabilities of html/css for flexible rendition according to the window size. I really find the wasted grey areas on either side annoying. I have a 17" screen which I wouldn't regard as being large by today's standards. Given that one of your objectives with the horizontal menu (which I like) was to make use of width this unused space just looks like poor design. Incidentally one of the advantages of the customerisation of the old home page was that it could be used to optimise for my actual window size, now if you'd introduced that capability to the sports page ( as the Met office have done to theirs) then....!

  • Comment number 43.

    Re your sentence:

    "While our live text commentary pages proved to be incredibly popular with our audience, many users were missing the full range of live content we offered from live text, video, audio and statistics."

    If the live commentary pages were incredibly popular, why did you change them? I generally don't get a lot of time to check scores etc if I'm on the move, and I'm looking at them on a smartphone screen. As such, I want the important stuff in a text format on a single page I can read quickly. I don't care about audio or video content if I'm connecting via mobile internet. So why do I now have to jump through dozens of pages to check what used to be available on a single page?

    Fair enough, some people may want all the extra content, but many don't. Please give us the choice.

  • Comment number 44.

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

  • Comment number 45.

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

  • Comment number 46.

    Think Tank we can never seem to get to the truth because they are all afraid of losing there over paid jobs and it is up to peoplr like us to just keep on complaining and hope someone hears us in higher places

  • Comment number 47.

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

  • Comment number 48.

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

  • Comment number 49.

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

  • Comment number 50.

    What's the point in pre-launch testing if you don't test the functionality of your most important pages? Live football is the top left story/event on the website every football night and Saturday and Sunday afternoon. It's beyond debate that this page doesn't work. Even when it eventually does it will still have inferior functionality to the older version. We want to be able to see everything that's going on with as few clicks as possible, that's not rocket science and we used to have it, but no more.
    No football fan would have approved the new fixtures page so who tested that?
    Why do you engage with one person who has an image that doesn't load but ignore all of us telling you the same thing about your functionality?
    The more you throw design "jargon" at us in these blogs but at the same time ignore our clearly stated problems with the new site the faster you will drive us away.
    We want the site to be good, why do you think we're engaging (well trying to anyway) in this dialogue?
    A little humility would be a start, engaging in a genuine dialogue about the genuine design errors would be better, fixing them would be best of all.
    All we want is a website that works and doesn't hurt our eyes.
    Some of your ideas are good. Some of the new functionality is good. If you address the core problems we've endlessly repeated on these blogs you'll end up with a decent site and keep/win back your audience. If you don't you won't.
    I hope this author-facing proposition will be read in the spirit in which it was written, in good faith and trying to help. Thank you.

  • Comment number 51.

    "One of the common themes that emerged from analysis of our audience’s feedback was that the design of the site was beginning to look tired and out-of-date, this theme became more pronounced after the refresh of the News website with some users even asking us when the Sport site was going to be updated.

    In conjunction with this, we knew that some of our users considered the site to be bland in comparison to some of the other sport sites in the market."

    I find these views extremely dubious. Who were these people? I suspect they may be BBC Sports Website designers, their families and a dog called Colin?

    Look at the feedback over all the countless blogs that have been started since 01Feb - All have begun with a unconvincing and desperate sounding introduction from Cait and Ben and following sustained adverse comments have sunk and been scrapped ....only for new blogs to be started seemingly to dissipate the anger and vitriol vented by your audience who care so much for the previous 'old and tired looking' website.......BUT it worked so well and did exactly what the audience wanted (based upon comments across all the blogs).

    "Some of our users considered the site to be bland in comparison to some of the other sport sites in the market"

    So....it seems style is more important than substance......how tacky. The new website looks cheap and not very cheerful, mind you judging by the sentiment in and around London, the Olympics are nearly as unpopular as your new website.

    The lack of response from Cait and Ben speaks volumes and Neil it seems they've asked you to go 'over the top'.

    The new website is clunky, difficult to navigate, cluttered, poorly thought out and not fit for purpose for covering 'Live' sport. Still no Vidiprinter, Football scores and tables that remain a total shambles and no one at the BBC will acknowledge the mess they have created.

    I imagine 'Ride out the storm' is written on every whiteboard, every e-mail, every memo and uttered around every table where the website team sits in an ivory tower.

    Well......we are not going away.

  • Comment number 52.

    are all negative comments going to be removed

  • Comment number 53.

    @51 "Well......we are not going away."

    Actually, going away is exactly what I'm doing. I only come here to see if any of the perpetrators of the 'change' ever admit to having made a huge mistake. I'm not hopeful, there are too many egos involved ...

  • Comment number 54.

    @53 "Well....we are not going away"

    Away from the blogs that is! They can weave their way from one blog to another...but its almost become a BBC minority sport in itself!

    I use other websites for my sports info....and I've no interest in the McDonalds sponsored 2012 Olympics especially as the BBC have ruined the website for such a tedious few weeks of sponsorfest.

    Its time that the BBC Website designers actually answered the main complaints....there must be nearly 2500 posts across all the blogs highlighting basic failings.

  • Comment number 55.

    I am not a fan of the new design and a few things puzzle me. For example, when I looked at the list of europa league fixtures for 16th February on the football home page only 12 games are listed. It may be be that some games have been played on other days, but I am pretty sure 14 games are scheduled for this date. It makes me wonder if there is a limit to the number of fixtures that can be included in the fixtures template.

    I am very pleased there is a dialogue between the BBC and its website users over recent design changes, especially if you keep us informed of remedial action you are taking in light of the feedback you've been receiving. I can't help but wonder why some elementary design errors have been made, but I am hopeful you will do all in your powers to satisfy some of the clamour for action to minimise the strong feelings of dissatisfaction the redesign seems to have generated among users who were happy to use the previous format.

  • Comment number 56.

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

  • Comment number 57.

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

  • Comment number 58.

    I'm sure that the BBC are now ignoring any comments made. They believe the more they post telling us how brilliant the new site is the more users here will shut up and believe them

  • Comment number 59.

    "We should do more to encourage engagement and better reflect the passion of sports fans" - that's a quote from your piece above. How about "engaging" with all the sports fans who have commented here?

  • Comment number 60.

    Ian, Are you going to respond to my Videprinter question? You asked for clarification, which I gave. Since then, nothing.

  • Comment number 61.

    And why has the time between posts been increased from 3 mins to 5 mins? Is the timing of this change a coincidence?? 3 mins is bad enough, but 5??? Why?

    You're having a laugh.

    BBC Sport Online: Dead Beyond Dead!

  • Comment number 62.

    #4 - We are working very hard to make BBC Sport video work on these devices but it is complicated by the rights restrictions which apply to most of our media. The main issue is that the nature of sports rights agreements means we need to ensure encryption on those devices to ensure we can geographically protect those streams (as sports rights are usually sold by territory). We are committed to making this work for users of recent Android and iOS handsets in time for this year’s Olympic Games.

    #12 & #28 – Interesting point on our promotion of related material. We have deliberately kept the promotional material in our story pages contextual – for example showing the latest news from our Football section in the right-hand-side of our Football stories. The idea being that this is content that a user reading a Football story is likely to be interested in.

    We have heatmaps that allow us to see what links our users are clicking on in our story pages and the early indications are that some people are interested in this material. For example, at 11:10 today I could see that some of the most popular links our users were clicking on in our Thierry Henry story were the top two stories in the "More From Football" module which were about Rangers’ financial troubles and the FA charging West Ham’s Ravel Morrison.

  • Comment number 63.

    Neil, I hope this is not your last post responding on this blog. You haven't exactly grasped the opportunity to talk about some of the more fundamental issues being raised in many blogs on this change:

    * Sports Home Page is too cluttered
    * Live text pages don't work and have too many fancy graphics. The old site was good.
    * Videprinter not working properly
    * Garish colour scheme
    * Lack of feedback on all of the above by any of the bloggers
    * No admission that a mistake has been made, even as users are leaving in droves to other non-BBC sports sites
    * Responses from the BBC have been skirting around the edges of issues
    * Why have there been so many different blogs on this subject? And why are most of them now closed to comments?
    * Why has the time between posts been increased from 3 minutes to 5 minutes? It was mildly frustrating before, now it's a joke

    Thanks you for a response. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

  • Comment number 64.

    Apologies if this comes across as mean-spirited, but I find the new Sport pages to be really horrific. Sorry but I have not even read this blog, I just feel this needs to be said.

    I have used the site for as long as I can remember and my jaw nearly hit my desk when I saw the new pages. It looks like it has been designed by some young children who thought they were making a new CBBC page. The entire experience is simply confusing and I do not see the benefit to the average user.

    If that mish-mash is what people want then society is truly lost. I thought the BBC had more class than to resort to this type of presentation. However, I am hardly surprised following the whole F1 episode, and closing the old 606 was also a crazy idea.

    It seems that the BBC are rather out of touch with what the majority of people actually want and the people making the decisions really need to think again. I could not see any obvious link to sports blogs for example, which are surely one of the more popular aspects of any sports site these days?

    As I say, apologies for the complete negativity but the re-design is a major own goal IMO.

  • Comment number 65.

    @62 Neil, let me say, first of all, that I am very relieved that someone with some direct responsiblity for the Great Rebotch is still breathing and able to "engage" with the masses.
    Do your heatmaps tell you how many people are hitting the Home page and then clicking on these blogs to see if there any antidotes or amendments in sight?
    Are you now going to address some of the other issues raised here such as the cluttered, garish nature of the whole product, the many bugs and overall lack of class?

  • Comment number 66.

    @62 Also, can you tell us if we are likely to hear from Yellow Leader, ie Ben Gallop, any day soon?

  • Comment number 67.

    "For example, at 11:10 today I could see that some of the most popular links our users were clicking on in our Thierry Henry story were the top two stories in the "More From Football" module which were about Rangers’ financial troubles and the FA charging West Ham’s Ravel Morrison."

    OMG how many times can you miss the point - these used to be so easy to find and right click, open in new tab = read at your leisure the stories that interest you

    Now you've even taken the right click off some 'supposed' links - and I use supposed as the mouse changes to the I for some reason rather than the universal hand for links

  • Comment number 68.

    I am afraid that there is little point in us all complaining about the changes that the BBC continue to introduce without rhyme nor apparent reason. They seldom take notice of their customers (us), as they occupy their own little universe - justifying their existence and salaries to their peers by such regular revamps.
    They always quote huge 'Customer satisfaction' surveys but who participates in these? - do you and I get asked?
    The previous BBC Sport website was both clear in contents and easily navigable.
    No-one complained about it.
    I find the new version is garishly illustrated, poorly laid out, and difficult to navigate. I have moved to other sites for my sports news. End of.

  • Comment number 69.

    @67: I think that may be just you as it's still possible to load articles in new tabs via right click or holding down Ctrl when clicking on the link. It's possible you've got a browser add-on installed or similar that's blocking this.

  • Comment number 70.

    @45. At 19:46 15th Feb 2012, Think Tank wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration

    ------------------------------------------------------

    Now, at the risk encouraging the ire or Dr Ian (for I know POSITIVELY that posts about removal of post will be removed as off-topic):

    Is one permitted to ask the moderator(s) about when a post might be moderated? Given the predilection of the BBC to close blogs sown (sometimes in less than 24 hours) I am concerned that the moderation process is now taking longer than 24 hours.

    Am I in danger of being permanently in-limbo; Referred for a posting on a closed blog?

  • Comment number 71.

    Keith. forrester.

    no it happens for me a lot of the time too. Some of the text "headlines" dont have 'open in new window' or 'open in new tab' when right click on them. used few different machines/set-ups now and its been the same - it seems to only affect the text elements of headlines with pictures/video associated with it.

    I've found that you have to right click on the picture/video associated with the "headline" to have the option to open in new tab.

    I'm so glad I'm not the only person annoyed by this who used to go to the homepage then opens all the stories they wanted to read into new tabs, then reads them. But then it appears that they didnt ask their users how they used the site at any point before or during the re-desing. Just 2000 'users' who may or may not have ever used the website before.

    We've been told they are going to listen to feedback, on numerous blogs now. We're still waiting.

    Finally,

    "Live coverage is king for sport fans – but some of our live content was being missed
    While our live text commentary pages proved to be incredibly popular with our audience, many users were missing the full range of live content we offered from live text, video, audio and statistics."

    So why do your "live" pages no longer automatically update? Why am I now greeted by PLEASE MANUALLY REFRESH THIS PAGE? I dont think theres anything now live available on your live pages!

    It doesnt matter how much research you did prior to this launch, the garish design and layout aside, the new site just doesnt work on so many levels.

    Why do you all keeping dodging the fact that you've got it wrong?
    Nobody likes criticism but if people commenting felt they were genuinely being listened to by seeing the glaring mistakes they are pointing out being aknowledged and corrected then the new site change and comments would have been more constructive, and an actual chance to improve/evolve.

    Instead, we have patronising posts telling us that we must be wrong because your research of some people who dont use the site regularly said it should be so. We have blogs being closed and re-opened in an attempt to gloss over the criticism and we have moderators who post exceedingly arrogant responses to your users; I'm thinking 'its Dr not Mr Ian McDonald' from previous blogs.

    The feeling at the moment is that you aren't listening to the problems that have made a great site completely dysfunctional.

    And you wonder why people begin to get anno

  • Comment number 72.

    it chopped my post by a smidgen. should read.

    and you wonder why people begin to get annoyed and flame?

  • Comment number 73.

    Why can't you put a voting box on the main sports page asking YES I like the new webpages and NO I do not?
    This is easily done and would show you a true reflection of the feeling of the users.No one would be able to vote more than once and this might satisfy us if results were updated as people vote as on other sites.

  • Comment number 74.

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

  • Comment number 75.

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

  • Comment number 76.

    Football fixtures/results/live scores. Used to be simple, whatever was happening/had happened was show in a collated format. Now you've got this awful drop down bar which means you basically have to go through every league to find which the scores and fixtures. Can't you just show all the relevant fixtures/scores for that day?

    And whilst we're on the subject, why are random European leagues on the drop down? Does anyone really care about the Scottish Third Division? Do avid fans of the Austrian League really need the English BBC website to show their scores? Please, just return to clear and concise football fixtures and scores pages, not too much to ask is it?

  • Comment number 77.

    Amongst a myriad of other questions I have:

    What's the thinking behind the headlines in a narrow strip down the middle of the page?

  • Comment number 78.

    is the bbc now part of apple? because both the homepage and sports pages seem to be designed for the ipad user only and not for those that only use a pc or laptop for internet access. it seems that the testers had ipads and came back sayhing how great it was on an ipad but in reality is very poor on a pc or laptop.

  • Comment number 79.

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

  • Comment number 80.

    Sorry guys but this revamp is a disaster. Too much info and colour in your face... what was wrong with the old look? In this world people always think there is a need to re-brand....maybe you should have done wider age group audience testing. Not happy with the new look.... :(

  • Comment number 81.

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

  • Comment number 82.

    Dear Designers

    The site is now dreadful. Far more difficult to navigate. You are trying to cram too much. Do something about it, or is this like "POINTS OF VIEW" where people complain and the BBC just put somebody on who tells them why the BBC were right all along?

  • Comment number 83.

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

  • Comment number 84.

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

  • Comment number 85.

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

  • Comment number 86.

    To paraphrase the debate so far:

    BBC: 'Tada! Look at our lovely new website.'

    Consumers: 'Urgh! It's terrible.'

    BBC: 'Come on, give it a chance: all our extensive research and testing says this is exactly what you want.'

    Consumers: 'But it's horrible. Ugly, unfriendly and confusing.'

    BBC: 'No, no! It's what you want. We did loads of research and this IS what you want.'

    Consumers: 'Sorry. Don't like it. Can we have the old site back please?'

    BBC: 'Look: this is what you want. We have research to prove it. And just look at all the work we've done to bring this to you.'

    Consumers: 'Congratulations! The BBC has made its' very own Edsel.'

  • Comment number 87.

    Navigating around the sports pages is a nightmare. Switching between the leagues of football takes so long, and its difficult to find latest resuts etc.

  • Comment number 88.

    re 83:

    Severe sense-of-humour failure on the part of the Mods!

    Lighten up guys...

    Yes - I know - this one will go in the bin too but's that's OK. It's a posting for the Mods and they will read it....

    Admit it - you might have just smiled ... a bit ... No?

  • Comment number 89.

    Thank you for taking the trouble to explain your thinking with this blog but it is still purely a self-justification for the decisions and and design; not what is needed i.e. a strategy to make changes based on the almost wholly negative feedback made by the users.

    I say again, theory is fine, but what you needed, and what all major web sites do, and what especially public funded ones should do, is run a parallel beta site to ascertain the UX of real users before putting their feedback/suggestions into practice and then after a general consensus of satisfaction, put the new web site live.

    The fact that this wasn't done leads me (a professional web developer of 15 years) to to think that the people responsible for this change lacked competence and somebody should be taking responsibility for the ensuing mess that is the new BBC sport web site.

  • Comment number 90.

    Just like to say something else which is the nub of the problem, the license payers are the shareholder, stakeholders or owners, out it whichever way you like of the BBC web sites.

    Yet this major redesign of a very popular site was presented to them "a fait accomplis", and there has since been a stubborn refusal to reinstate the old site or make the major changes required according the many positive suggestions given by users in these blogs.

    That smacks of arrogance, of over confidence and even a contempt for the license payers. Not the right way to go about ensuring future renewals of the BBC charter.

  • Comment number 91.

    Under this post you will find the "More from this blog..."

    On both the blog "(BBC Sport: Strategy, User Testing, and Implementation" and "BBC Sport: Live Beyond Live" there is no mention of the latest incarnation of Ben's blog "More on our new website".

    Could this be because the number of postings is uncomfortably high?

    Surely both " Strategy, User Testing, and Implementation" and "BBC Sport: Live Beyond Live" are directly linked to "More on our new website"?

    Maybe BBC Sport need to do some better testing on the blog engine as it pertains to their blogs. It's almost as bad has having a page with a link to "Live" scores and then not having any live scores....

    Any plans to change the number shown against the blogs as a graphical line indicating the number of posts? Only problems I can see is that (unless the blogs are closed even more frquently) the size of the line may mean it wouldn't fit on the screen AND it would probably be a red bar on a green background (WDL anyone?)

  • Comment number 92.

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

  • Comment number 93.

    #91 No, its because this is BBC Internet blog and not the Sport Editor's Blog. The box only lists blog entries within the current blog and not all BBC Blogs. Ben's blog is linked with the posting text and in the BBC Online in the News block on the right.

  • Comment number 94.

    #81 Not sure but in case you are referring to me I do not work for the BBC, have no intention to. I do not work in web design and have never done any work for a BBC supplier and have no future plans to. I guess that just makes me odd (in the context of the posters of this blog) rather than part of conspiracy...its a shame the later sounds more exciting.

  • Comment number 95.

    DBOne you could be soo right but your "rightness" merely highlights the "wrongness" of the assumpttions behnind the redesign.

    For you see, for all the "colour coding of panels" I can still use this page the way I want to and used to be able to with the sports page - namely extract the information I want - I didn't even register the differing colours at the top - not that the BBC had a blog in the Sports Editors blog and more in the Internet blog!

    I have no idea if the Cookery blog exists (nor do I care) but do you think there is chance that the New Sports Page blog (part 9) will be in the cookery blog? As has been mentioned numerous times before by other posters, Why all the blogs?

    Surely all of the micro-blogs are all directly related to the new Sports site?

    BTW I'm not sure the "no" part of your response is correct. A better word would have been "Maybe" as, even if the different mini-blogs is a factor, unless you know that diffusing ctitisisms is not a motive, then that may be a factor too.

  • Comment number 96.

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

  • Comment number 97.

    Can't get used to this new site. It's really bad.
    Can you please make some changes? Old site was great.

  • Comment number 98.

    I'm sorry, but I really can't grasp the manner in which the new site was designed & tested.
    Evidently 'user personae' were created to view & encapsulate a 'user experience' which were part of the model on which this change was made.
    Quite simply, if all the feedback, comments from general users were all demanding the level of changes made there were better options available to test them before making a launch.
    Given the extreme changes in design, testing resources available (& apparently used) in arriving at the decision to launch in this format, surely it would have been far simpler & cheaper to run the 'beta' new version in parallel with the lamented 'old' site for a lengthy period.
    Asking all real users of the 'old' site to visit both options, then provide some simple feedback on the comparison, would certainly have provided the BBC with more realistic evidence on the new design than that on which the changes were evidently made.
    Given the evident emphasis placed upon user feedback & comments in making the changes, surely it's not too late (with the much vaunted new web content management system) to re-launch the old site & ask for such feedback?
    If not, please could some consideration be made to re-instating & promoting the feedback link on the home page as was there shortly after launch?

  • Comment number 99.

    This is all highly amusing. Well done BBC. Change the site to pink... do it!

  • Comment number 100.

    Think we may as well face it, the BBC have wasted so much of their time and resources, and of our money to be able to back down from this jumbled monstrosity of an invention that they call a website to give the people what they want, a working website that does not make vomit upon visting. It's time to go in search of a new place to find our sports news, although I fear there are none that are as good as the highly polished and easy to use, yet simplistic and exemplary old version of the BBC sports pages. You will be sadly missed, but never forgotten. Over and out x

 

Page 1 of 2

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.