A New Look to Moz-Solo - Let Me Know What You Think

[Anonymous]

Please let me know if you like it and if possible how it looks on your mobile, how fast it loads up and if it would be easy to scroll and read through.

http://s16.postimage.org/exyr6fkr9/mso.jpg

http://s16.postimage.org/exyr6fkr9/mso.jpg

Thanks

[davidt]

This is a minor point but it is a factor in deciding on adding any images to the site. Small variances in page load time make a large difference so asking someone how it loads up is not the best study, for example this page on usability (http://www.svennerberg.com/2008/12/page-load-times-vs-conversion-rates/) quoted a couple studies:

"For Google an increase in page load time from 0.4 second to 0.9 seconds decreased traffic and ad revenues by 20%. For Amazon every 100 ms increase in load times decreased sales with 1%."

The image would take long to load on the first hit due to its size but once it's cached it would be much faster than the regular page.

Also, currently the mock has images crammed without whitespace and wouldn't be usable in its current format. It doesn't include the text / caption for the image on the right. The replaced "Main" heading and breadcrumb navigation while not really needed for the main page help to be consistent with the other pages on the site.

[Anonymous]

This is a minor point but it is a factor in deciding on adding any images to the site. Small variances in page load time make a large difference so asking someone how it loads up is not the best study, for example this page on usability (http://www.svennerberg.com/2008/12/page-load-times-vs-conversion-rates/) quoted a couple studies:

"For Google an increase in page load time from 0.4 second to 0.9 seconds decreased traffic and ad revenues by 20%. For Amazon every 100 ms increase in load times decreased sales with 1%."

The image would take long to load on the first hit due to its size but once it's cached it would be much faster than the regular page.

Also, currently the mock has images crammed without whitespace and wouldn't be usable in its current format. It doesn't include the text / caption for the image on the right. The replaced "Main" heading and breadcrumb navigation while not really needed for the main page help to be consistent with the other pages on the site.

With all due respect, this site is not Google or Amazon, it's a place people come to learn about Morrissey, so things that apply to a search engine and an online retailer don't apply to this site. I don't think you would lose traffic over another second of loading time. Anyway, I very much doubt that a connection can be made between loading time and revenue. Intuitively, you'd want a site to load as fast as possible, but you still want the site to catch a person's eye, otherwise he or she might not frequent it either. There are also other factors. Yahoo lost to Google because of it's search algorithms and other features, though both sites took the same time to load. These sites are bad examples and even Google has that Google-Doodle Logo thing, which Morrissey-Solo used to have. Comparable sites can be news sites and fan sites. Images' size are inconsequential these days of streaming audio and video. "Whitespace" and a caption can be easily added, it's only a mock up. We can make a mock up HTML dummy front page and test how long it takes to load on people's mobile the first time.

[davidt]

With all due respect, this site is not Google or Amazon, it's a place people come to learn about Morrissey, so things that apply to a search engine and an online retailer don't apply to this site. I don't think you would lose traffic over another second of loading time. Anyway, I very much doubt that a connection can be made between loading time and revenue. Intuitively, you'd want a site to load as fast as possible, but you still want the site to catch a person's eye, otherwise he or she might not frequent it either. There are also other factors. Yahoo lost to Google because of it's search algorithms and other features, though both sites took the same time to load. These sites are bad examples and even Google has that Google-Doodle Logo thing, which Morrissey-Solo used to have. Comparable sites can be news sites and fan sites. Images' size are inconsequential these days of streaming audio and video. "Whitespace" and a caption can be easily added, it's only a mock up. We can make a mock up HTML dummy front page and test how long it takes to load on people's mobile the first time.

I know this is not google or amazon obviously, but it's the principle which you seem to want to ignore - adding images would add to the page load even though it is relatively small. I know it's easy to add whitespace and a caption - my point is you are saying 'see, it wouldn't take that much more space' but the mock up is so crammed for space it's not really usable.

The site is similar to Google in that people come to find out the latest, relevant information they might be interested in. Considering the tradeoffs, I don't think it's compelling enough and I am not hearing a lot of feedback from others on if this feature would be welcome.

Benefits:
1. highlight important / 'positive' articles that some may miss
2. more pleasing design (with some work)

Negatives:
1. increased page load
2. increased real estate at the top of the screen taken
3. increased editorial work
4. modification to code which may be redesigned within a year

[Iona Mink]

I quite like the addition of photos and I think there is room for a more visually appealing front page.

However, ultimately do I care? Not really. I almost never visit the front page but access articles via the forum.

I think you are not getting strong emotion either way because no one is all that fussed. At least, I am not.

I would however welcome a change in background colour to that lovely blue that used to be... but that's a completely separate issue...

[Anonymous]

I know this is not google or amazon obviously, but it's the principle which you seem to want to ignore - adding images would add to the page load even though it is relatively small. I know it's easy to add whitespace and a caption - my point is you are saying 'see, it wouldn't take that much more space' but the mock up is so crammed for space it's not really usable.

The site is similar to Google in that people come to find out the latest, relevant information they might be interested in. Considering the tradeoffs, I don't think it's compelling enough and I am not hearing a lot of feedback from others on if this feature would be welcome.

Benefits:
1. highlight important / 'positive' articles that some may miss
2. more pleasing design (with some work)

Negatives:
1. increased page load
2. increased real estate at the top of the screen taken
3. increased editorial work
4. modification to code which may be redesigned within a year

Photos and news are intertwined. I don't think space is an issue, I can easily space things out, I just thought it looked better this way. You prefer space that is unused and in your words - empty real estate. You can always take things off to increase load time, but some things are worth it. Google can easily let go of their graphic logo and replace it with a text logo, but they wouldn't do that. You obviously don't acknowledge the importance of graphic design. I don't think the recent article and forum comments are less crammed in or are indispensable if you want to decrease load time. I don't believe these photos take more time to load than the thumbnails currently used. Finding disadvantages is very easy. Not a lot of people go into this section of the forums, otherwise I'm sure we would have gotten more feedbacks. I wouldn't call adding an image to an HTML page a 'modification to code' and resizing or cropping an image (which takes a few seconds) is considerably less work than any other editorial task I can think of.
I understand you're not interested in making any changes and that's fine, I'd be sure not suggest anything in the future.
Thanks for your time.

[Anonymous]

I quite like the addition of photos and I think there is room for a more visually appealing front page.

However, ultimately do I care? Not really. I almost never visit the front page but access articles via the forum.

I think you are not getting strong emotion either way because no one is all that fussed. At least, I am not.

I would however welcome a change in background colour to that lovely blue that used to be... but that's a completely separate issue...

Well, no one cares because the current design is depressing, it's like living in the 90s in the mIRC forums.
Why do we have broadband if we're not going to use it?
"I tried, I tried, I really really tried"

[Iona Mink]

Photos and news are intertwined. I don't think space is an issue, I can easily space things out, I just thought it looked better this way. You prefer space that is unused and in your words - empty real estate. You can always take things off to increase load time, but some things are worth it. Google can easily let go of their graphic logo and replace it with a text logo, but they wouldn't do that. You obviously don't acknowledge the importance of graphic design. I don't think the recent article and forum comments are less crammed in or are indispensable if you want to decrease load time. I don't believe these photos take more time to load than the thumbnails currently used. Finding disadvantages is very easy. Not a lot of people go into this section of the forums, otherwise I'm sure we would have gotten more feedbacks. I wouldn't call adding an image to an HTML page a 'modification to code' and resizing or cropping an image (which takes a few seconds) is considerably less work than any other editorial task I can think of.
I understand you're not interested in making any changes and that's fine, I'd be sure not suggest anything in the future.
Thanks for your time.

Is there a reason why you don't login/register?

[davidt]

I wouldn't call adding an image to an HTML page a 'modification to code' and resizing or cropping an image (which takes a few seconds) is considerably less work than any other editorial task I can think of.

Have you ever worked on a content website before? I have given my explanations on the tradeoffs but if you are just going to say 'adding this won't take much work, trust me I know' then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Have you ever worked on a content website before? I have given my explanations on the tradeoffs but if you are just going to say 'adding this won't take much work, trust me I know' then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Embedding pictures is the most fundamental part of HTML. You choose not to, for reasons that have nothing to do with web or graphic design or technicalities, but with your predetermined notion and vision of what the site should look like, which cannot be changed. As Iona Mink suggested, the General Discussion forum page, can might as well be the front page. It contains more article and less "fuss". It's simply a list of articles. I think that's more in line with your concept.

[davidt]

Embedding pictures is the most fundamental part of HTML. You choose not to, for reasons that have nothing to do with web or graphic design or technicalities, but with your predetermined notion and vision of what the site should look like, which cannot be changed. As Iona Mink suggested, the General Discussion forum page, can might as well be the front page. It contains more article and less "fuss". It's simply a list of articles. I think that's more in line with your concept.

The way you are proposing images are embedded are not easily done within the constraints of the software that powers the site vBulletin. If you have some expertise in this matter you are free to submit a plugin or code patch which would achieve your goal.

[Anonymous]

The way you are proposing images are embedded are not easily done within the constraints of the software that powers the site vBulletin. If you have some expertise in this matter you are free to submit a plugin or code patch which would achieve your goal.

well, then perhaps the problem is with vBulletin that is meant to be used for forums and not websites and is too rigid, so much so that you can't even add images. I guess that's the real tradeoff.

[davidt]

well, then perhaps the problem is with vBulletin that is meant to be used for forums and not websites and is too rigid, so much so that you can't even add images. I guess that's the real tradeoff.

First of all there are already images, just not in the location you want. Second, they can be added in the suggested design change but it would take a bit of extra work as I mentioned.

The vBulletin content management could certainly be improved. Here is a screenshot of an early version of the next version. I know they are adding better image handling capabilities.

13836

[Anonymous]

First of all there are already images, just not in the location you want. Second, they can be added in the suggested design change but it would take a bit of extra work as I mentioned.

The vBulletin content management could certainly be improved. Here is a screenshot of an early version of the next version. I know they are adding better image handling capabilities.

13836

I see there are a lot of templates you could use, maybe you could give them a try sometimes. At least they acknowledge there is a need for better graphics.

http://www.sharechef.com/vbulletin-suite-v4-2-0-nulled.html

Well, I'll try to stay positive as I preached, whatever you decide to do and whenever you decide to do it.

[!Viva Hate!]

I see there are a lot of templates you could use, maybe you could give them a try sometimes. At least they acknowledge there is a need for better graphics.

http://www.sharechef.com/vbulletin-suite-v4-2-0-nulled.html

Well, I'll try to stay positive as I preached, whatever you decide to do and whenever you decide to do it.

Why don't you just scrap the picture idea for now and try to come up with a better color scheme? That IS one of the things you initially complained about and one of the aspects that could actually be changed now if it looks good.

[Anonymous]

It looks just as dated and amateurish as the current main page.

[Anonymous]

Why don't you just scrap the picture idea for now and try to come up with a better color scheme? That IS one of the things you initially complained about and one of the aspects that could actually be changed now if it looks good.

I didn't complain about the color scheme and I don't mind it. Iona Mink did.

[!Viva Hate!]

I didn't complain about the color scheme and I don't mind it. Iona Mink did.

You complained about the color scheme by proxy:


The only color in the site were the banners and now they are also gone. It just looks like it is a site for software developers with the latest Java updates, instead of a fan site and a site about music and the arts. That's what I was alluding to when I said Davidt was a technical person. He's more interested in the site's code, etc. and there's nothing wrong with it. I just thought I'd suggest some kind of a change, which wouldn't require much work on his part.

Anyway, I think just a little change in the color scheme would work and make things look better. I mean, anything is better than the poop brown. And the logo could look better.

Perhaps something like this?
http://oi48.tinypic.com/qodpht.png

[Skylarker]

You complained about the color scheme by proxy:



Anyway, I think just a little change in the color scheme would work and make things look better. I mean, anything is better than the poop brown. And the logo could look better.

Perhaps something like this?
http://oi48.tinypic.com/qodpht.png

I agree totally about the logo font; however I do not mind the earth tone poop-brown.

[!Viva Hate!]

I agree totally about the logo font; however I do not mind the earth tone poop-brown.

Yeah, but you know me and how much I just hate brown. :lbf:

[Iona Mink]

Yeah, but you know me and how much I just hate brown. :lbf:

There also was the option before the last upgrade (I believe) to allow the background to change to blue. It would be nice if that could be reinstated although I am not too sure how difficult it would be.

[!Viva Hate!]

There also was the option before the last upgrade (I believe) to allow the background to change to blue. It would be nice if that could be reinstated although I am not too sure how difficult it would be.

Roughly, what shade of blue? When I think of Morrissey, I don't really see 'blue' in my mind. Black, white, grey, gold...but not blue or poop brown.

[Iona Mink]

Roughly, what shade of blue? When I think of Morrissey, I don't really see 'blue' in my mind. Black, white, grey, gold...but not blue or poop brown.

You're not going to like the answer. From memory it was a powder blue. With that said, I don't think it was something David chose but rather an option that came with vBulletin (I think...).

Gold?

DOFAnpb8I3E

[davidt]

Anyway, I think just a little change in the color scheme would work and make things look better. I mean, anything is better than the poop brown. And the logo could look better.


Maybe it's how your monitor is calibrated - I don't see 'poop brown', I see 'eden sepia'. This is the image the site's theme was originally based on from the start:

13969

As far as the logo, if it's just a change in font perhaps people can submit some other choices as there are thousands to choose from and it's subjective as to which one is 'better'.

[CrystalGeezer]

I saw this graphic and thought of Davidt's Google standard argument.

http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/Worldmapofdominatingwebsites_4fcef6068b61b.jpg

[Skylarker]

You're not going to like the answer. From memory it was a powder blue. With that said, I don't think it was something David chose but rather an option that came with vBulletin (I think...).

Gold?

DOFAnpb8I3E

I like you more and more each day.

Isn't that weird?

[Iona Mink]

I like you more and more each day.

Isn't that weird?

Shucks.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llmzqcHmQG1qafrh6.gif

No, not weird. I have fungal qualities.

[Skylarker]

Shucks.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llmzqcHmQG1qafrh6.gif

No, not weird. I have fungal qualities.

Man, I really hope you're not a dude.

[Iona Mink]

Man, I really hope you're not a dude.

That's a negative.

http://cdn2.screenjunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-big-lebowski-reunion-animated-gifs-6.gif

[CrystalGeezer]

Man, I really hope you're not a dude.

She's married.

[cornelius blaze]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8blzkciyr1rrj7f8o1_400.gif

[!Viva Hate!]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8blzkciyr1rrj7f8o1_400.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_labhhrgR5t1qzk8hr.gif

[nothappynotsad]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_labhhrgR5t1qzk8hr.gif

HAHA. That's hilarious.

[!Viva Hate!]

HAHA. That's hilarious.

The only Dr. Who you know is that Frankenstein looking guy.

[Skylarker]

The only Dr. Who you know is that Frankenstein looking guy.

I hope he dies soon. I mean regenerates. Yeah. That's what I meant.

[!Viva Hate!]

I hope he dies soon. I mean regenerates. Yeah. That's what I meant.

Fire burn!