9rules Homepage: Scrivs’ Critique
Yesterday we launched with a new homepage and Mike offered his thoughts with regards to why the changes were made. I have spent the last 2.5 years on this site critiquing and bashing a lot of other sites on the web and I only thought it would be fair to have a go at our own site for once.
What?! Why would someone in the company critique their own site? Wouldn’t it just be better to wait till everything is done perfectly before launching it? In our case Mike and I are two creative types (and I use “creative” loosely here) that differ on certain aspects of design. However, he is good at what he does and I have learned to trust him with certain issues when we can’t agree on them.
Take a look at my favorite version in comparison to the current version:
The old version had more visual pop to it. The color combinations that Rundle was able to pull off were something I had never seen before on the web. With the current version I feel that the gray background is just too bland for what many people might have loved about previous versions. The gray carries over to the navigation at the top and this is something that Mike and I disagree with on a daily basis. I personally can’t stand seeing a gray background and then the same gray used for the navigation. He likes it.
The gray makes an appearance again behind the ads. To nobody’s surprise I hate it there as well. I believe the ads can stand on their own without a background and if a gray background must appear somewhere in there to breakup the content then maybe it would best be served with information on how you can advertise on the 9rules homepage.
My final gripe (I just had to use the word gripe because I don’t think I ever had before) is the “From Our Featured Blogs” section. I think the green background is too light and the entries seems to run into each other. This is actually something Mike agrees with me on and we are thinking of simply placing a small border underneath each entry to break it up visually a bit better.
So Why Launch?
Again, I think a good question to ask is why launch if I have these issues. Well for one the site desperately need the new functionality displayed currently to drive more traffic internally towards our communities. Also when dealing with your own site I knew I had to watch out for being overly critical to the point of nothing ever launching. The problems I have with the site are aesthetic and shouldn’t effect the performance or usability of the site and therefore I felt it was okay to launch with these “issues”.
What are your thoughts? Am I insane or being too picky?
Hmmm, looking at the screenshot of the current version the background seems to be a bit of a bluish-gray, but on my monitor it is completely gray. What color is it for everyone else? That bluish color doesn’t look too bad.
By Scrivs on February 2, 2006 2:08 pm
Nevermind, Mike confirmed that it should the pure bland gray that I see everyday.
By Scrivs on February 2, 2006 2:14 pm
I completely agree with you on almost all your points. Sorry to say, but imo, this is the “worst” version of 9Rules to date.
It isn’t bad, not at all, I love it, but the previous versions were just better.
By the way, it gets the scroller on 800×600.
Good luck whatever you choose to go with.
I will still love 9rules.
By Alex on February 2, 2006 2:19 pm
Well I think that we are fortunate that our “worst” version is still beautiful. Mike and I are always tweaking things so I am sure things will change over time, but again we needed to get this funcationality out the door so we could move on to other things.
By Scrivs on February 2, 2006 2:23 pm
Hrrrerrm, I think I agree. While the new version is far from ugly, in my opinion it sort of looks like those generic search pages offered by an expired domain.
Plus, I realize that a site isn’t Web 2.0 compliant without a pastel color scheme, but I say the darker, bolder scheme is a better choice.
By Richard Medek on February 2, 2006 2:26 pm
Honestly, I hate it. Go back to the black – unintentional rhyme. You could have rearranged things but kept the color scheme. I look at the new one and it just seems bland to me.
By James on February 2, 2006 2:52 pm
Yep, I’m not that crazy about it either; but isn’t that bad. Once you start looking at it, is just like that ugly dog you may have. ;)
By Javier Cabrera (CSSelite) on February 2, 2006 2:57 pm
I also liked the first version of the site. While this new one is nice to look at, there’s almost too much information there. It’s hard for me to focus on any one thing. Could be just me though :P
By Jacob G. on February 2, 2006 2:57 pm
What I don’t really care for is that it’s an overload on the senses as far as content is concerned. There really is nothing for my eye to land on. You’re pulling content (a lot of content) from 5 different sources — 3 in the same visual space. That’s overwhelming.
The fact that header type in each of these sections is so small adds to that confusion.
I would recommend you try to view the site with a fresh set of eyes. Look at it from the perspective of a first time visitor who had no prior experience with a blog network or 9r specifically. Someone who is expecting to do what most people do when visiting a site — give you milliseconds of scan time, looking for something to catch their eye.
On the positive side, I like how the overall look is maturing. It’s not as adolescent with all the bells and whistles of the first and second iterations. However, it seems as though you taken one step forward and two back in that what you’ve gained in simplicity by minimizing the gizmos, you’ve gained in displaying a massive amount of content on the front page.
By Mark on February 2, 2006 2:59 pm
I liked the dark design best too. It wasn’t nearly as functional, but it was much prettier. What I’m seeing is that this version is more functionally-driven than it is pretty.
I’m not a big fan of the gray either. But I live in Vancouver, the rain captial of the world, so I see more than my fair share gray. I may be biased.
The first thing that I’m not completely keen on with this version is that there is so much information right up front. The lists seem too long or something. For an index page, it seems like a lot of information to cram into one space. I understand the logic and appreciate the benefits, but it just seems like too much reading right up front.
The ‘featured member’ box is kind of misleading to me, because it’s not a ‘feature’ per se, it’s just a randomly generated link to a member of the network. I had to refresh a few times before I figured that out.
I’m not really feeling the nav either. It disappears in the sea of grayness. If someone wasn’t familiar with the site, I think they would miss it while being overwhelmed with the amount of content right up front.
Hope that’s not too harsh. I liked the dark design best too. It wasn’t nearly as functional, but it was much prettier. What I’m seeing is that this version is more functionally-driven than it is pretty.
I’m not a big fan of the gray either. But I live in Vancouver, the rain captial of the world, so I see more than my fair share gray. I may be biased.
The first thing that I’m not completely keen on with this version is that there is so much information right up front. The lists seem too long or something. For an index page, it seems like a lot of information to cram into one space. I understand the logic and appreciate the benefits, but it just seems like too much reading right up front.
The ‘featured member’ box is kind of misleading to me, because it’s not a ‘feature’ per se, it’s just a randomly generated link to a member of the network. I had to refresh a few times before I figured that out.
I’m not really feeling the nav either. It disappears in the sea of grayness. If someone wasn’t familiar with the site, I think they would miss it while being overwhelmed with the amount of content right up front.
Hope that’s not too harsh.
By Lindsay on February 2, 2006 3:09 pm
Hmm, well a big problem we are encountering (which will be worked on at SXSW) is the Information Design of the site. As you can imagine we have a lot content to work with and using that content to drive traffic to our members’ sites is a neverending thing we are looking to improve.
Keep up the constructive thoughts. Although they sting for about a second it’s good to hear these things.
By Scrivs on February 2, 2006 3:18 pm
The only thing that really stands out on the homepage are the ads. Everything else looks washed out and nondescript. Content seems to flow a lot further down the page now, as opposed to the old layout where it was much easier to get a “snapshot” of the network without scrolling.
It definitely needs more cowbell. ;)
By Jared Christensen on February 2, 2006 3:19 pm
The new design isn’t that bad, but I have to agree that the old design had more pop to it. The content on the old site was easier to read as well.
By Josh on February 2, 2006 3:20 pm
I agree. The previous version not only looked better, but I think it had a more logical grouping of content.
I don’t hate it, but I don’t really like it either.
By Alex Cabrera on February 2, 2006 3:24 pm
It seems to me having the index page and the communities page is a bit redundant from an ID standpoint. What if you took the index page and trashed everything below the ads and replaced it with the icons / descriptions from the communities page. Change the rollover function displaying from “blog by …” to a summary of the most recent post from that blog.
Do that, and then boost the color a bit and maybe that’s one possible solution for you.
By Mark on February 2, 2006 3:35 pm
when i first saw the black design, i was floored. you’re right, it was something rarely seen at the time (and now even), and when you switched to the skittles i wondered why you felt like the change..
of course, being a designer, i understand that often you get sick of the design by the time it launches..
i love the new emphasis on the content.
but perhaps the bold / colored header is more effective at drawing you in and establishing the commanding brand you (we) want.
By jason on February 2, 2006 3:42 pm
“Where do I go? What do I click on??? HELP!!!” “Where do I go? What do I click on??? HELP!!!”
By David on February 2, 2006 3:47 pm
I guess I just don’t understand the reason for the redesign. The old version looked great, it “popped” just as you said, and it worked. At least for me.
I’m not a fan of the new version at all. I agree with just about everything you said about it, including the fact that all the colors seem to be too light and blog entries aren’t separated well.
Revert, please.
By Patrick Haney on February 2, 2006 3:53 pm
Lots of content from “members” in a nice, simple to use interface found here
Not too far removed from what you’ve got going on or are trying to achieve, either.
By Mark on February 2, 2006 3:57 pm
New version is way to flat, no focal point. i have no idea where i should be looking and my eyes just run all over the place. Old version was much better.
By Jon H. on February 2, 2006 4:04 pm
I think I’m with everyone else. It’s pretty busy and the separation of the various sections isn’t well executed. About the only thing I dig are the footers on the Recent, Random and Featured sections.
Even from a functionality standpoint, I don’t think the execution is all there. You wanted to drive traffic to the communities, but adding a link at the top isn’t enough IMHO, especially since my eye skips it entirely and goes straight to the logo. I’ve grown to ignore about the top 25 or so pixels of sites these days as many are either simply strong borders, ad space or supplementary (less important) navigation. I look for the content, and even sometimes ignore navigation unless I’m drawn to want more by the content.
My biggest peave though is the contrast and boldness of the “What is” text. I can’t pull my attention away from it. With everything else less saturated and screened back, it really stands out. At a minimum, I’d choose a gray instead of black. You want the focus on the member content, but all I see is “WE HIGHLIGHT THE…” screaming at me.
By Lance E. Leonard on February 2, 2006 4:14 pm
Scrivs, I’d have to agree with you. I liked the older version better. The colors of the old version “popped” more. One thing too, that I dislike about the new site, is that the “Random” button is missing for the Blogs. =( . Bring it back, pleeease???
By Oscar Campos on February 2, 2006 4:30 pm
The green version, while nice to look at in the provided thumbnail, would almost certainly have become one of the very few Web sites with actual, demonstrable problems for colourblind people, as nearly all shades used are in the confusable band (red/green/yellow/orange/pink).
By Joe Clark on February 2, 2006 4:35 pm
The first version was much more lively, had a tangible personality and the fonts were bigger and more readable (at least on Safari v2+).
Give us a stylesheet switcher :)
By Geof Harries on February 2, 2006 4:38 pm
Of course, youtube is another good model to follow. What I thnk you could borrow from both Google Video and Youtube is that they minimize their own exposure (brand) to bring the focus to the content of the folks who have their videos posted.
Think about the similarities to what 9r is trying to achieve. Your brand, really, is only as good as your members content and your ability to deliver it. I think you could initiate a similiar layout to Google and YouTube where you change the logo area of your members blogs from a small icon, to a std. thumbnail size, while decreasing the area devoted to hyping 9r. I mean, it’s not like you guys don’t have enough sites of your own where you can keep the buzz of 9r flowing.
By Mark on February 2, 2006 4:40 pm
I much prefer the first version, and agree with every single one of the points you made. I just loved the first design as soon as I saw it, I bookmarked it and kept visiting it for inspiration, I took a screenshot to put in my personal arhcive for inspiration, and I still look at it sometimes. I much prefer the first, although this one is nice, it’s nothing groundbreaking and aesthetically pleasing as the first.
By Matt Dempsey on February 2, 2006 4:47 pm
This is my last post on this, promise.
Regarding placing the thumbnail sized logos on 9r , I’d imagine your members would appreciate as much brand exposure on 9r as 9r has on their individual sites.
Given how apparently simple and fair your agreement is with your members (I say apparent only becuase I don’t know for sure) it seems like it would be the right thing to do.
Just a thought.
By Mark on February 2, 2006 4:52 pm
Google isn’t designed, it’s a complete lack of design. I don’t think the effort to promote so much content from so many different sites is appreciated, especially considering Mike’s habit to continually evolve his work.
Sure this current version could use a little more color to help guide the eye down through the site but I don’t think it’s as bad as some of you are claiming it to be. I guess it’s a good thing no one had to pay money to join eh? Because then you would really have something to complain about.
Enjoy our click-throughs.
By Greg on February 2, 2006 4:55 pm
One of the things that we’re consciously trying not to do (even though it’s sooo tempting!) is to get away from the type of site design that goes into the galleries and wins design awards and whatnot. In the past the 9rules design was so heavy that I felt it overshadowed the great member content, so our current design mantra (shown on the interior pages within 9rules) is very minimal and unobtrusive, and maybe we took that a bit too far on the homepage. These comments definitely gave us some great feedback, so we have our change lists in order :)
“Regarding placing the thumbnail sized logos on 9r , I’d imagine your members would appreciate as much brand exposure on 9r as 9r has on their individual sites.”
I’m not sure 9rules gets a lot of brand exposure on our members’ sites — I’d say the vast majority of members have a 9r leaf that’s about 75×75px or less (sometimes icon-sized, which is cool) so it’s not as though our members are giving us a ton of free advertising or the leaf pictures are monstrous. I do agree about giving our members more exposure on our site, and that’s why basically every pixel underneath the header is a link out to a member site or article. We don’t even have the latest 9rules Blog entries on our homepage :)
That being said, I do think that we have lots of room for improvement. If I could think of a site with lots of content I’d like to emulate, it wouldn’t be Google Video, but Flickr. There are some similarities between 9rules and Flickr (some intentional, some just happened) because I think Flickr does a fantastic job of content-driven design. If I could go as minimal as Flickr, I would, however Paul would shoot me haha.
By Mike Rundle on February 2, 2006 5:12 pm
Good designers redesign, great designers realign.
I really liked the old version and like most of the commenters above, I feel that the new design looks overloaded with information. The whole layout just seems to bland compared to the old one.
I like the two blue boxes in the left column though, those look great. Combine the old colors, header and right column with the new left column and you have a winner.
By Andreas Climent on February 2, 2006 6:27 pm
While I agree with most of the previous commenters that the old design has much more ‘pop’ and a much more unique look I do thing the new design is TONS better when it comes to the real purpose of the 9rules homepage: showcasing member content efficiently. I guess the previous design was really ‘hard to beat’ aesthetically. The color scheme really rocked and it’s very unique as well.
However: functionally the new one is a huge improvement and I do believe this counts more than all the prettiness in the world. Functionality is simply the most important thing for this particular website. Therefore, taking everything that ‘matters’ into account I believe the new design is an improvement. And heck, it may not be as pretty as the previous design but it’s still pretty damn slick!
By Marco on February 2, 2006 6:52 pm
Didn’t you guys just recently change the design for the CSS Reboot in November? What was wrong with that design?
By Aaron Alexander on February 2, 2006 7:07 pm
there needs to be a clear list of member sites, associated with favicons (or not). it’s very frustrating that recent posts are attributed to the authors, not the sites their on (except by favicons). it’s also annoying to try to locate a site i vaguely remember based on what communty it might be lumped into.
I’ve kind of stopped using the site as a portal because of this redesign. I’ll occasionally browse the featured and recent links on the front page, but i tend to go no further, and can’t fathom using it as an index, as i used to. Maybe this isn’t a bad thing; maybe the function of 9rules has simply changed.
By kevin on February 2, 2006 7:16 pm
Personally, I like the color scheme. However, like others have mentioned, I have no idea where to click. There is no focal point of the layout.
By Jake Tracey on February 2, 2006 8:57 pm
Gotta say Scrivs I did prefer the old version a lot more…its one of the reasons 9rules was in my mind and others the network with the “wow” designs, now…well it just doesn’t have the same wow factor any more.
By Duncan on February 2, 2006 9:51 pm
I really liked the way you were able to choose and add the blogs that I liked .. like mini bookmark. I don’t see that anymore. But, maybe that kept me closed minded to the ones that I added in this bookmark and liked to see on the front page, instead of discovering new ones that keep popping up. Because, let’s face it – right now on the current page, if you don’t like the random posts showing up – just hit refresh.
I think you are doing more of a disservice to the new design by questioning it. Sure I liked the old version. But is it better? Who Cares! With the influx of new members to the ‘clan, you need to grow and change … So move on! (and, if tweaking need to be done in the background, just do it – don’t talk about it!)
By HART (1-800-HART) on February 2, 2006 11:51 pm
Agreed. The dark site oozed class, the light site oozes search engine park page. I vote for the new information presented in a simpler manner, put into the old design. Easy, right? ;)
By JJ on February 3, 2006 3:39 am
Previous design was kicking butt. Looked unique, you knew you were reading 9rules in less than a blink.
Current design, is, well, just standard. Content is cool, for sure, but what do readers want if not cool content with kickarse design ?
BTW all the favicons almost never show for me.
By Ozh on February 3, 2006 3:54 am
Hmmm… Seems to me that I am the only one here who actually likes this redesign more than the previous one. It is a lot easier on my eyes and the light shades appeal to me. The gray areas also look OK to me.
I guess you can never do design by community.
By Varun on February 3, 2006 4:35 am
Well, I stumbled across the redesign after getting lots of links from the 9rules forum (why hasn’t that monstrosity been reskinned?).
I have to say I really like the redesign. The black was far too heavy and made the nav and identity the predominant thing. I guess at that early stage of the company that wasn’t such a bad thing but its good to see you have the confidence to move away from bugling the brand identity.
To me – the things that should have focus, do (the content) and the things I don’t care about (the brand, the nav, the background) don’t.
Good work.
By Kev on February 3, 2006 5:12 am
This is amazing, about 40 comments on just 1-2 days! :o
By Alex on February 3, 2006 8:04 am
I like the new one, but I do like the older better. It was fresh and invigorating!
By John Labriola on February 3, 2006 9:48 am
Sounds like your critiques are cosmetic ones, and I agree with all of them except the grey behind the ads. I like the layout of the new home page over the previous one, but I do think the color can be punched up.
By Chris K on February 3, 2006 10:38 am
[Sorry if duped. Checked and didn't see the first time I tried.]
For me, there’s been a steady trend towards “dislike” from the dark palette. (I understand the actual layout has had to change to accomodate new features and whatnot.)
I’d agree there’s no focus on the page(which for the content there really isn’t), except that I did find one: the ads. My browser window’s 1150px long, and reading text at the bottom, I’m still fixated on how much they stick out. I’m sure the advertisers don’t mind, but it might not be what you necessarily want.
Otherwise, almost all of the text has exactly the same weight(the color isn’t nearly enough differentiation), with a little bold here and there.
By Su on February 3, 2006 11:21 am
Based on the comments, well Mike, your fired :) haha j/k
I guess I am of the other grouping and that is I like the new site. It matches their other pages, something 9rules had an issue with in the past (the blog maintained an old style while the homepage was new, etc…)
There is a shitload of information going on, more than in the past, especially after the 3rd round, and they are trying to drive as much traffic as equal as possible to each member.
I don’t have the knowledge of Information Architecture that others have so even though it might be information overload, how is it any different then if you go to a news website like foxnews.com, cnn.com or whatever.
Personally, I think many of you are being drama queens about this…then again Scrivs did ask for it.
By Bryan on February 3, 2006 11:55 am
I didn’t read all the comments, so if this has been said, sorry…
I’m not going to say much about the aesthetic, except that I prefer the old version. What I do think you might want to look at is the Information Design, IA and/or layout of the current page. It’s kind of a mess. It doesn’t seem to have any hierarchy at all, well, except my eyes are drawn straight to the ads, which may be intentional.
Seriously, what is supposed to be the most important element on this page? I can’t tell. Maybe it’s done by design? If so it might not be working as intended. It could be the fact that there are about 7 different treatments for content areas, that while seem some what related, don’t fit all that well together. There is just too much going on.
I think the “theme” and “idea” is ok, but the execution comes of pretty messy — probably because it’s grown organically, etc. A common problem. Next time you redesign have a solid IA/Info design phase where you really look at the content and where it’s placed. You may consider cutting something (as a focus group of one I can say the random entries aren’t that useful) and look to the readers to help with that.
My .02.
By Keith on February 3, 2006 11:55 am
I prefer the old design as well. It has a warmth and personality that is totally lacking in the cold, pale, commercial look and feel of the new design that basically reminds me of just another search portal crammed with dubious links there only to justify showing me advertisements.
By WD Milner on February 3, 2006 7:42 pm
You are on target here. The new look is washed out. I also think the 760 fixed width look is not very conducive to the amount of content you are serving. You probably already know what I’m going to say, but a semi liquid layout that maxes at around 1000 pixels might work better.
By Christian Montoya on February 4, 2006 1:47 am
It’s even worse, information design wise.
By James AkaXakA on February 4, 2006 5:40 pm
My biggest gripe with the new version is the way the information is laid out.
I feel that there is simply too much information for most users to process quickly which will ultimately lead the user to become frusterated.
By Noel Hurtley on February 5, 2006 1:13 am
If you are really considering an iterative approach to getting this design right – I think it makes more sense to put the most visually appealing design into use (design 1) and then let the information architecture fall out from user’s comments over time.
visual immediacy is very important. Usability has a slightly longer (although no-less important) curve. But it is the visual impact that maybe carries more weight when you are trying to create and maintain a relationship with your users.
The new homepage lacks the type of personality that your users are now accustomed to. I feel that this is leaving your design open to negative criticism (or grumbling) which is not necassarely as useful as having positive criticism with an emphasis on improvement. Just my 2-pence-worth!
By Jamie Neely on February 5, 2006 3:14 pm
dude…where is the whitespace? bigger, go bigger! can’t cope with all that information.
By pepe on February 9, 2006 9:49 am
It’s probably already been said but the old version actually directed your eye to certain places. This one gives weight to nothing, and just appears cluttered. I’m sorry to say but if I had stumbled upon it randomly, this would be a quick click of the back button. As someone already said, it looks like a portal page for an unregistered domain. This is the worst iteration of the 9rules homepage, and I don’t think it’s “worst but beautiful.” I just think it’s worst and appears too complicated. If you put it up because you think it’s easily navigable, I think you’re wrong. I only looked for the sections you mentioned, otherwise I wouldn’t have even noticed them. There’s not enough visual weight here. Sorry, I really dislike this iteration. I LOVED the old one.
By Joe Clay on February 12, 2006 1:40 pm
While I don’t have much opinion regarding the designs, I think â€because we needed the new features†is probably the worst reason to launch a re-design I’ve ever heard. I’m as guilty as anyone for making sacrifices for a project on a deadline, but when it comes to your very own portal, the only site that matters for your company, I can’t think of any reason in the world to launch a design that you weren’t absolutely in love with.
Maybe I’m naïve.
By Matt on February 16, 2006 9:53 pm
I really like both of them. Personally, I love these styles of designs. The colors are very light and it is very eye friendly. The contrasts also helps to wake up from the light colors. Great design!
By Codes on February 25, 2006 1:09 pm