|
Forum Category: Members Helping Members |
 |
 |
  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
Originator |
Date Posted  |
|
|
| |
Phasing in our New Site |
          
DENVER, CO |
12/30/2017 14:16 |
|
|
|
|
Posted
By:
          - DENVER, CO |
|
|
Date
Posted: 12/30/2017 14:16 |
|
|
|
|
I know my critique is harsh. Sorry about that, I’m not trying to be a dick here, but you’re not getting it. Your responses indicate you don’t understand that you’re making bad choices for the future of the site. You think your answers are legitimate justification for your choices, they aren’t, they’re the exact opposite of good reasons for doing things the way you’re doing them.
I don’t need you to make a point-by-point response to this, I’m just giving you some free advice, you can take it or leave it. You know what they say about free advice, but if any of my consultants were giving you this advice I’d be invoicing you at $2500/day for their time, so it’s probably worth a little bit at least! ;-)
“People get used to certain layouts. The "Mobile", "Main site" or "Responsive" options simply let you select the one you want as a default. … Many websites do this”
“People get used to” is not a justification for poor design, nor is the fact that other websites also are poorly designed. No other website I use requires me to do this, they simply work in the mobile browser.
“If we removed that option, we would also get complaints.”
There couldn’t be a worse reason to justify not changing. One of the most classic failing business choices: throwing good money after bad.
“On my iphone I'm always pinching and zooming to read website content from virtually every website I use.”
Not me. Go to the following sites on your phone, every single one of them can be read and navigated without pinching and zooming, because they are designed for the small screen.
www.westword.com
www.fortune.com
www.forbes.com
www.denverpost.com
www.ncaa.com
www.cnbc.com
Just a few examples of websites I used daily BECAUSE they don’t irritate the fuck out of me. I abandon any website that I can’t read without using zooming gestures, and so do young people, they won’t tolerate that. You’re using as justification for poor design, your personal tolerance level of poor user experience, that comes from the time when you had to zoom every website because they were all full-size websites smashed into a mobile browser, assuming others have your same tolerance level. They don’t.
“I've displayed the old and new sites side by side in a previous thread. The differences are quite substantial. I'm sorry, but I just don't fully agree with you on this item. Do you use Facebook? Facebook is far more complicated than LL is for controls and features.”
There may be substantial differences, my point is they are not noticeable to me, an end user who is not invested in knowing every detail that is different, as you are. I have noticed zero value-add in the changes.
Your example of Facebook makes my argument for me. Facebook is far easier to use than LL. In fact, go to Facebook in your phone browser, no zooming required to read it. And there’s only 3 buttons you use to do 99% of your interaction, notifications, newsfeed, and post.
“However, based on your comment, I am planning on allowing you to turn on and off certain features on the homepage. If you don't want to see the top panels, I will let you remove those.”
Sorry, but that’s a horrible idea, placing burden on the user to improve their experience instead of making the site simple and easy to use.
“My graphics designer is also chomping at the bit to make some changes. If you are interested, I'd be more than happy to include you in the design discussion and prototypes. But please stay tuned.”
I appreciate the offer, but I don’t have time for that.
“The bottom of the page has a Q&A that explains all of this. But most people don't change their member name, so it's not an issue.”
I know, that’s my point. Instructions at the top of the page, Q&A at the bottom. It’s disorganized, and you shouldn’t need either for what should be a simple request submission.
“If we remove it, it will stay on the old classic versions of LL.”
That’s a mistake. You have limited resources. You shouldn’t spend 1 minute maintaining legacy code, or features that aren’t core to your mission or what your strategy should be, instead of investing that time into change.
“The advice section has a specific purpose…”
Advice is available all over the internet. There is nothing differentiating about this feature on LL. Should not be part of your core mission.
“After 17 years of site development, it's very difficult to remove features that members have gotten used to. LL is a very developed site. We offer features that other lifestyle sites don't come close to.”
Again, one of the worst reasons for not changing, “people are used to stuff”. On its own, offering features other sites don’t is not a competitive advantage, it’s a disadvantage if all those features create complexity that is a barrier to customer acquisition.
“We will be offering 9 out of the 10 items you are requesting. And two others that I can think of off hand that you haven't considered. But yes, the mobile app is definitely going to be the lean and mean version of LL.”
That’s good to hear. If we like the app we might renew our membership.
“Keep in mind also that for those that don't like change, we have maintained the previous versions of LL. There are buttons on the login page that allow you to set your default preference.”
See my prior comments about maintaining legacy code and requiring users to appy settings to get what they want out of their experience.
“I appreciate your detailed feedback. This is the type of constructive criticisms and suggestions that I am always seeking.”
Again, sorry for being harsh, I do wish you luck.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return to Denver, Colorado Swinger Personals
Denver, Colorado Swinger Club List of swinger clubs
Denver, Colorado The Swingers Message Board, find Swinger Info here
Denver, Colorado Lifestyle Lounge Magazine, The Online Swingers Magazine
|
|