This layout is just going back to the original layout for me.
As I started coming to this site when it was just the guy himself doing all the test extremely thorougher tests I might say, and at times probably was better tests etc back then than today but things move on and you can't expect 1 guy to do everything so no real problems there.
So having said that I'd say I've been coming to this site since the late 90's.
This layout is pretty much a copy of that layout from back then, the site was simple not cluttered and didn't have many ADs on the pages.
I come and go over the years but in the last few years I have found this site to be hard to use and find stuff, I've been using the net when the WWW got fired up and I was using BBSes before then and I'm not old by any means you probably think I'm 50 but I'm no where near that age.
The old layout I would rate it as really poor, ADs put all over the place running all over the tests and other articles and just a complete mess to get the newest tests on GFX cards or cases etc, you had links running off to forum pages right next to the next test page link.
To be honest about it I stopped using Toms as it was just wasting my time, even though the tests are good the waste of time trying to find and get the real info of just too much of a chore really.
I'm not fussed about the forums I'm not fussed about the 50 different ways and AD can be placed into an article, I've had some AD placement screw up and run over the article text so you can't read anything or the whole test etc anyway.
At least now it's been cleaned up, and become useable again.
As I said last time this site doesn't make money off the readers directly, it makes money off the people who buy stuff from the companies who send in stuff to be tested and they in turn buy those products due to the tests on this site, those are the real ADs for these companies.
If you can't read the articles then this site looses readership anyway, as they will be turned away from the site and they will go elsewhere for test info.
The forums don't really mean much and probably around just so the site owners can do simple readership info and keep an eye on what is the current hot product to have at the moment, as many benchmark sites don't have forums on them.
Anyway this new layout is clean and easy to read and follow, and those are the important things.
I don't really understand why you'd want to keep with the old layout anyway.
But of all parts of the site given it is a big site, yes? Especially given its interest of use, the newer layout kinda takes that away.
Obiovusly though of it is probably hard found within many interests. Given taken the forum for example to say as well. Im only using them more for anything of something wrong, or to be constructively critically, without critically, to say.
Why that would be, who knows sometimes, but of it though without obviously are many things of interest within ideas of interest pretaining to one.
If even say an older site of say layout was in use early then the ones changed, hard saying, since i myself wasn't around to even know the difference, but that would also say that the changes to the site were of been in conflict of different interest of use, correct? against what is now?
So, oh well, to say. The interest is place of that in one amlost without one, but still but on one thats place some almost to seem even against that one. Who knows why half the time.
I havent been using toms as long of course but still of it though for the use is fairly nice, and of it despite any other use of sites or this one, to be of an interest it has taken for itself at a time. Which seems to have put itself into a different of place for itself since many other times.
But of taken time for being more of an inclining interest into the site, knowing of probably better or worse is there for what has changed.
But again, though finding sites for an interest is probably hard though, since use seems to vary over time. Which is easily understood though of course.
But of it alot to understand and with it though the most is to work with with whats understood. I dont think i can even disagree with this one, but probably found to be somewhere of course.
Till then, the changes and what use of the site is there and how say useful the new changes are.
Note though, the fact of arguement* with change of current use despite practical place of interest within use of site, against interest of agruement. Should amount to nothing but still.
Also, Note, the place of "less" effort to place a note. If not, just as well.
Obiovusly though of it is probably hard found within many interests. Given taken the forum for example to say as well. Im only using them more for anything of something wrong, or to be constructively critically, without critically, to say.
Why that would be, who knows sometimes, but of it though without obviously are many things of interest within ideas of interest pretaining to one.
If even say an older site of say layout was in use early then the ones changed, hard saying, since i myself wasn't around to even know the difference, but that would also say that the changes to the site were of been in conflict of different interest of use, correct? against what is now?
So, oh well, to say. The interest is place of that in one amlost without one, but still but on one thats place some almost to seem even against that one. Who knows why half the time.
I havent been using toms as long of course but still of it though for the use is fairly nice, and of it despite any other use of sites or this one, to be of an interest it has taken for itself at a time. Which seems to have put itself into a different of place for itself since many other times.
But of taken time for being more of an inclining interest into the site, knowing of probably better or worse is there for what has changed.
But again, though finding sites for an interest is probably hard though, since use seems to vary over time. Which is easily understood though of course.
But of it alot to understand and with it though the most is to work with with whats understood. I dont think i can even disagree with this one, but probably found to be somewhere of course.
Till then, the changes and what use of the site is there and how say useful the new changes are.
Note though, the fact of arguement* with change of current use despite practical place of interest within use of site, against interest of agruement. Should amount to nothing but still.
Also, Note, the place of "less" effort to place a note. If not, just as well.
I don't like the new layout and looks has very little to do with it. The old layout is better because it is much easier to trace not only what news stories I have read but also all the different hardware reviews.
As it is now only the latest review is visible on top of the page and I will instantly forget next time whether read it last time or not because they are without context and memory is associative. If they are on a list as they are in the old layout I will more easily figure out that I read say the GPU Roundup of July 2011 but not the 6950 review. The reviews are long so I don't read them immediately but I pick from the list occasionally. As it is now I will forget what was on the front page last week and never look it up which leads to a lot of good reviews being left unread by a lot of viewers.
So I would very much like to go back to the old layout.
As it is now only the latest review is visible on top of the page and I will instantly forget next time whether read it last time or not because they are without context and memory is associative. If they are on a list as they are in the old layout I will more easily figure out that I read say the GPU Roundup of July 2011 but not the 6950 review. The reviews are long so I don't read them immediately but I pick from the list occasionally. As it is now I will forget what was on the front page last week and never look it up which leads to a lot of good reviews being left unread by a lot of viewers.
So I would very much like to go back to the old layout.
I think i had used a few sites, before alot had say changed over to the "forum" say concept and place of use. So idk.
Rather that to say has much to do with changes with the site i dont know. But probably still of interest.
Of though still lacks the topic of place within just the site. Probably doesnt make much a fact to say changes to the site are any better placed and worse off at times.
To "tell" or "say" anyways.
Rather that to say has much to do with changes with the site i dont know. But probably still of interest.
Of though still lacks the topic of place within just the site. Probably doesnt make much a fact to say changes to the site are any better placed and worse off at times.
To "tell" or "say" anyways.
dormantreign
Distinguished
- Oct 6, 2010
- 473
- 0
- 18,810
dormantreign
Distinguished
- Oct 6, 2010
- 473
- 0
- 18,810
Both faved!i don't like it at all,
i had chosen the old layout and it's not available any more.
i think i'll stop visiting, i like legit reviews and canucks site better, in both layout and content. i don't have to read silly articles about that girl who made a pop song and bills new age toilets.
and why did you stop the weekly show on toms games? have you realized that destructoid makes the ~same show and kicks ass? this best of media *** has a faul stink.
good bye....
i had chosen the old layout and it's not available any more.
i think i'll stop visiting, i like legit reviews and canucks site better, in both layout and content. i don't have to read silly articles about that girl who made a pop song and bills new age toilets.
and why did you stop the weekly show on toms games? have you realized that destructoid makes the ~same show and kicks ass? this best of media *** has a faul stink.
good bye....
- Jan 5, 2010
- 5,931
- 117
- 26,640
This is why we went through three different versions of the beta and integrated nearly every one of our user's suggestions during that process. This isn't PR speak either - you are welcome to check out the previous feedback threads and developer comments preserved here on the forums and see how the process evolved.
Quite a number of people in this thread alone like or appreciate the changes. If we were afraid to make additional changes based on the consensus of feedback, this thread itself (and the three previous like it) wouldn't exist.
Keep the feedback coming, friends!
I guess this is kind of on topic. But one thing you really need to improve is the search bar. Don't agree with me? Listen to this.
I wanted to text someone an article from Tom's guide, so I put the exact article title into the search bar on tomshardware.com and the result wasn't on the first page. So I say fine, whatever, I'll use Google then. I type in the exact article name plus tomshardware and it's the first result. Isn't there something wrong with that?
I know Google has way more money than tomshardware, all things considered, but still, it's something that's so important (to me at least) that it's worth considering paying Google themselves to fix it.
I wanted to text someone an article from Tom's guide, so I put the exact article title into the search bar on tomshardware.com and the result wasn't on the first page. So I say fine, whatever, I'll use Google then. I type in the exact article name plus tomshardware and it's the first result. Isn't there something wrong with that?
I know Google has way more money than tomshardware, all things considered, but still, it's something that's so important (to me at least) that it's worth considering paying Google themselves to fix it.
Ok so you are actually telling me this is what the majority of the users on Toms Hardware wanted? Your telling me this is good web design?
Below is an actual undoctored screenshot of Toms Hardware US home page on my work monitor (1280x1024). Close to 75% of the screen is taken up by the freaking Forum Live Feed!!!!!!!!!
While I love the latest news section you also made that gigantic as well. As a web designer myself the only conclusion I can come up with as to why you made these sections so large and made the fonts so big is that you wanted it that way for people with tablets trying to click stuff with their fat fingers. The design works perfectly for that but for someone with a monitor it just really pisses them off because there is so much screen area wasted. Now we get about 40% of the information we used to and have to scroll 75% more just to get that!
Below is an actual undoctored screenshot of Toms Hardware US home page on my work monitor (1280x1024). Close to 75% of the screen is taken up by the freaking Forum Live Feed!!!!!!!!!
While I love the latest news section you also made that gigantic as well. As a web designer myself the only conclusion I can come up with as to why you made these sections so large and made the fonts so big is that you wanted it that way for people with tablets trying to click stuff with their fat fingers. The design works perfectly for that but for someone with a monitor it just really pisses them off because there is so much screen area wasted. Now we get about 40% of the information we used to and have to scroll 75% more just to get that!
deadllyshadow
Distinguished
- Jul 26, 2011
- 44
- 0
- 18,530
13thmonkey
Titan
- Jan 10, 2006
- 24,790
- 350
- 75,790
Having real issues with IE9, buttons only seem to work in compatability view, i.e. the drop downs to select a page from an article, or the submit button. Have emailed UK contact but no response, not even a thanks, we'll pass it on.
Also I see so few articles now... isn't that what you are all about? not just production but it is hard to see what articles there are.
Also I see so few articles now... isn't that what you are all about? not just production but it is hard to see what articles there are.
I don't know why I'm still here, but this is infuriating, and I'm full of coffee.
I don't know if I'm explaining something here that you (or the 'designer' responsible for this) already understand, but I'll try, anyway. I build websites for fun and profit, for what it's worth.
I said in one of the previous beta threads that the first step of any redesign is to clarify the objectives. What are we trying to achieve with a redesign? Now, you guys, as far as I can tell, have chosen not to share those redesign goals with us, and that's your prerogative.
But asking for feedback -- and claiming you received substantive feedback -- without telling people the parameters of that feedback (ie How well you achieved the goals of the reworked site) means that feedback is mostly uninformed, opinion-based, and worthless. You got those kinds of 'notes' because you asked the wrong questions, without giving users enough to go on in terms of your goals. A few other designers offered you some substantive criticisms, which were largely ignored, it seems.
Claiming that the designers listened to any real extent is disingenuous.
Now, further, based on what I quoted above, and what I've read elsewhere from 'official' voices here, there's a massively important distinction that has been utterly missed: there are two fundamental things to consider in reworking a site (that are constrained by host of other things like technology choices, platform, browser compatibility, backwards-compatibility, page weight and much more, of course), and those are:
1) Layout
2) Design
Layout and design are separate, inter-related things. By wantonly mixing those things up in your complaint that different users asked for different things -- font sizes and pagewidth, really? -- it seems like the designers have not successfully separated and addressed those two things.
Now, there are serious issues with the new layout (in matters of content accessibility, device independence, graceful js degradation of user experience, usability, content balance, liquid sizing and more), and there are also serious issues with the design of the new home page (alignment, font choices, font sizes, colors, and more).
These are, of course, all mashed up by users who -- as always is the case with redesigns -- don't like change, or don't like what they see and don't exactly know why, because they're not designers themselves, or design-aware at least.
But ignoring the complaints of users -- even uninformed ones -- is done at your own risk. Simply saying 'oh, site users always hate change' is a dangerous path to walk down, even if it's true, unless you are 100% confident in your redesign.
And you shouldn't be collectively confident in this redesign, because it is stone cold terrible. The layout is clunky and unbalanced, it's messy and misaligned, font choices are terrible, it looks like a design from 2002 that wouldn't even fly all that well then, but gussied up with utterly unnecessary and poorly-degrading js gewgaws. I love progressive js enhancement, but this isn't the way to do it.
And let's be honest -- it is exceedingly (or at least reasonably) easy these days to use adaptive layouts, sniff out the browser and platform people (with media queries or...) are using and serve up different css or entirely different php accordingly, and tailor the experience, rather than this stone-knives-and-bearskins one-size-fits-all.
It is also not at all difficult to offer users a choice of layouts or homepage content displayed, using cookies or user accounts.
Every site loves signups for capturing users -- if a choice of layouts or content formats on the front page were offered as an incentive for account signups, it would be win/win for users and the site as a whole.
Let's be even more honest -- the reason the content is locked at 990px is so that those massive, intrusive, background-image ads can be served up, not for any reasons of good design or level of difficulty in adaptive layouts. That's the call made by the site, and I have no problem with non-intrusive ads (which those aren't), but again, it's disingenuous to pretend differently, and the obvious evasion calls everything else said about decisions made into doubt.
Look, I'm not trying to be a d*ck here. I hate it as much as anyone when my users revolt over design decisions I make for my sites, and it can be disheartening and infuriating.
But it's important to try and look at things with a dispassionate eye, and to as honest as possible with your userbase.
One last thing -- according to Alexa (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tomshardware.com), visits have dropped rather precipitously, which is what I predicted earlier. Whether that's accurate or not, I don't know, but if it is, I hope that you take the advice offered by myself and other web designers here, and have a good think about how well this new design serves the community you've got here.
The reviews and roundups and other original editorial content here are the best around. I've depended on them for building my own machines for over a decade. Once again: burying that content is burying the site as a whole, for most.
Let me be clear about what I mean by 'burying' the content, as well, from a usability perspective. It has been suggested that 'it's at the top, in the carousel -- how can anyone think it's buried!?', but that's the wrong tack.
In the old design, if I wanted to see if there was a new article on any specific topic (graphics cards, CPUs, whatever) I'd load up the front page, scroll down, and bang! see immediately (because visual memory works that way) if there'd been something new posted. Number of clicks required: zero. Amount of thinking required: zip.
Now, I need to click on the carousel for the topic, check it, then click on another, and check it, and so on. Because the 'slides' all have the same position and size, it's much harder visually to figure out -- especially if I'm on different machine or browser and the a:visited link css won't have fired -- if I've read it before, or if it's new since my last visit. Number of clicks: many. Amount of thinking required: too much.
This is a usability and layout issue, separate from issues of design per se.
Carousels/sliders are a major (and verging on annoying) trend these days, and can enhance user experience if they're used right.
I would suggest (again) that this is not one of those times.
In the old design, if I wanted to see if there was a new article on any specific topic (graphics cards, CPUs, whatever) I'd load up the front page, scroll down, and bang! see immediately (because visual memory works that way) if there'd been something new posted. Number of clicks required: zero. Amount of thinking required: zip.
Now, I need to click on the carousel for the topic, check it, then click on another, and check it, and so on. Because the 'slides' all have the same position and size, it's much harder visually to figure out -- especially if I'm on different machine or browser and the a:visited link css won't have fired -- if I've read it before, or if it's new since my last visit. Number of clicks: many. Amount of thinking required: too much.
This is a usability and layout issue, separate from issues of design per se.
Carousels/sliders are a major (and verging on annoying) trend these days, and can enhance user experience if they're used right.
I would suggest (again) that this is not one of those times.
Also, since I'm on a roll here, I get it: hardware sites are almost *supposed* to be ugly. It's the engineer-design aesthetic, which is almost anti-design. But that doesn't need to be the case.
Anandtech's (one of the few that is actually well-designed, after Engadget, which isn't the same sort of site, anyway) content took a bit of a turn for worse after they went all blog-style, but they are coming back a bit with more technical stuff.
Anyway: it's not an impossible information-architecture task to take the kinds of content that Tom's provides and present it both usefully and attractively. Beautiful and usable are not dirty words.
Anandtech's (one of the few that is actually well-designed, after Engadget, which isn't the same sort of site, anyway) content took a bit of a turn for worse after they went all blog-style, but they are coming back a bit with more technical stuff.
Anyway: it's not an impossible information-architecture task to take the kinds of content that Tom's provides and present it both usefully and attractively. Beautiful and usable are not dirty words.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram