@loriqvc wrote:
I (stupidly) had some high hopes when it was announced that the Q was going to do a bit of rebranding and make some changes to the website; it has been a train wreck around here for years, so I thought just about anything would be an improvement. Well, I was wrong, and I really should have known better.
Just like the last major overhaul, the changes are cosmetic only, and again, many are for the worse. The fonts that have been selected for the new "look" are fonts that work great in print, but they're not a good choice for web applications because they are too small, thin, and light, and they do not display and align numbers well (which is why, I'm guessing, the site has at least two different fonts applied in item descriptions so you can actually parse the information). I also found it interesting that when I came to the forums, the previous fonts and style are still in place; it makes it easy to compare the old and the new and see where things fall short. (And it's not like the format in this section of the site is amazing, either.)
The big color blocks on the homepage do help a little with the layout and organization, but there is still WAY TOO MUCH on that page. If a customer wanted to view and explore everything presented there, it would take about 10 minutes, and studies have shown that people just don't spend that much time on web pages unless they are reading an article or are interested in a single specific item.
As before, if the Q is employing web designers to guide these sweeping updates, they are either inexperienced or inept ones. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the results speak for themselves. I'm definitely a fan of change when it is beneficial, but most of what is going on with the site so far today is a step sideways if not backward. I'll keep up some foolish hope for better things to come, but I'm not expecting much anymore.
you are not stupid. you, like me and many others, hoped for worthwhile improvements for "us". selecting print fonts etc is not for us. sadly, we set the bar too high (smile)
see, you have read research on what works and what doesn't.perhaps, they should hire you. being in the field, i agree with your summation and quite frankly, i'm shocked at what i have seen so far.
when i worked in the corporate world, changes like this were considered "busy work" to keep from laying people off. these tasks were given to low level developers, but their work had to be approved by umteen people and they had specs to work from. things were tested and customers were asked for their opinion BEFORE the changes went live (go figure huh?).
truthfully, the web site changes that i have seen so far, i could do all of them in less than an hour, minus creating the logo. there was an graphics art department that did things like that.
but, i'm speaking from the perspective of having years/decades of experience. this is why after having left the corp/entertainment world almost 20 years ago, i still get calls to work . . . usually to fix something that someone else or a group of people messed up or to manage a project, that the current project manager is blowing the budget. i say no, because today, people don't listen, they think they are rock stars, can't write, reading with comprehension is debatable and want to run before they know how to walk. and yes, the first thing i ask is how many people can i send on an extended vacation. they laugh and cry at my response at the same time.
trust me, when i say, just let it go. it's not worth the aggravation and our time is more valuable doing something else. if you aren't already in the IT field, perhaps you should be. there needs to be more people that understand that paying attention to detail is a key trait to have.
Blogs & Forums
