Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo! Sports Redesign Sparks Controversy, Disdain From Users

coastal984 writes "Yahoo! launched their latest redesign over the past couple of weeks, revamping their utilitarian Yahoo! Sports section with a new-age, modernized look, which features a much darker, graphical background, and light, larger text. Only problem is, the sports buffs that frequented Yahoo! Sports loved the basic, easy to read and comprehend presentation that the old site used (Which was a predominately plain white background, and smaller, dark text. Thousands of users took to Yahoo's uservoice page to express their discontent, begging for the old design back."

172 comments

  1. One word by kodiaktau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrible.

    1. Re:One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And creepy. They have links on the front to nearby hockey teams. I know they track me, but at least pretend you do not know where I am and let me fill it in myself. Oh, and Go Senators!

    2. Re:One word by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Why? Is it the the slowness of it all (reminds me of download.com), or the stark use of a white backdrop against a black backdrop maybe? (which yeah doesn't look great).

      At least it doesn't have that stupid new fad of very light grey text on a white backdrop.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    3. Re:One word by kramer2718 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Honestly, it isn't as bad as the Flickr redesign. That one was both uglier and far less functional.

    4. Re:One word by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Judging by the other replies, I seem to be one of the few people who actually finds the redesign to be easier to read. I always hated the old design, though I'm not a regular visitor of Yahoo Sports in any way. Come to think of it, that may be why - are we sure this isn't just a case of Change is Bad?

      --
      And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    5. Re:One word by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I was ready to dismiss this submission as "who gives a fuck about a bunch of whiny twats upset that a page has changed". But damn if it isn't absolutely hideous, cluttered, and difficult to read.

    6. Re:One word by Andrewkov · · Score: 2

      I came here to say the same thing. Yahoo is on a roll.

    7. Re:One word by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It didn't work for me. It gave me a bunch of New York City teams... However I am closer to Boston then NYC. Although I am in New York state.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:One word by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh Change....

      So this change is going to mess your productivity of what... Checking Sports scores. Yep that sounds productive to me.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:One word by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

      LOL.

      Why be a victim? Use Greasemonkey and all that ugliness will just melt away.

      Oh, don't know how to write javascript code? Yes, that's a problem.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    10. Re:One word by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      I came here to say the same thing as well. I hardly use flickr at all anymore. Used to be a great community and a fun place to get feedback on your photos. I was even a paying pro member for years. It started with minor annoyances like "partners" offering services, even on pro account photos (which had strictly forbidden advertising). Now it's just way to Bing-y all the way around. Can't find a damn thing, and flowing all the photos in different sizes and shapes is just terrible. We need white (or black) space.

      It seems like Yahoo! really doesn't try to get any feedback from their users before doing shit like this. Google's no better at getting feedback, but at least they're not so god awful about the execution.

    11. Re:One word by lgw · · Score: 1

      Even if it's just "change is bad", why piss off a large base of content users? People have no loyalty at all to web services, just momentum. Any bump that gets users looking elsewhere is a horrible mistake.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:One word by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it isn't as bad as the Flickr redesign. That one was both uglier and far less functional.

      And the damn non-optional Yahoo! bar across the top. Like Flickr users want to be reminded of that.

      And photostreams, groups, etc. become a collage of seemingly randomly-sized pics. If I'd wanted Snapfish, I'd have asked for Snapfish.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    13. Re:One word by mattmarlowe · · Score: 1

      +1 Apparently someone at Yahoo just thought if they could get enough new flickr users, it would bring in more profit for yahoo.....so they stupidly went for an over the top UI + essentially unlimited uploading plan that has made it too cumbersome for established users to keep using the site for what they were doing before (sharing photos, participating in discussion groups, and commenting on/browsing other photos)...

    14. Re:One word by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      Judging by the other replies, I seem to be one of the few people who actually finds the redesign to be easier to read. I always hated the old design, though I'm not a regular visitor of Yahoo Sports in any way. Come to think of it, that may be why - are we sure this isn't just a case of Change is Bad?

      Really? A partially-transparent background with a huge colorful distracting picture of a stadium behind it is easier to read? The huge animated advertisement at the top and an unintuitive fixed nav bar on the left and a sometimes-floating-sometimes-fixed nav bar on the right? Are we sure this isn't just a case of Shiny is Good?

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    15. Re:One word by nabsltd · · Score: 2

      If you don't have location services enabled in your browser, it's based solely on the public IP address you are presenting to their server and what method their server uses to determine where that IP exists in the physical world.

      For a long time, most IP locators thought I was in Virginia because that's where the WHOIS entry for my IP listed as the address (one of Verizon's main centers). Now, they locate me correctly because Verizon delegated the IP range to me, and my WHOIS is correct.

    16. Re:One word by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      I personally have trouble focusing on lettering when the background color/shade varies.

    17. Re:One word by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it isn't as bad as the Flickr redesign. That one was both uglier and far less functional.

      There's no way I'd be using the new flickr if it wasn't for the redesign. That helped so much.

    18. Re:One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't tell me, let me guess: You're also one of the Special Ones who just loveslovesloves the MS ribbon and has multiple orgasms over Win8.

    19. Re:One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no way I'd be using the new flickr if it wasn't for the redesign. That helped so much.

      You must be trolling. Perhaps you mean that you wouldn't be using the new flickr because, were it not for the redesign, there wouldn't be a new flickr?

      The site is practically unusable now. For example, before you could type in a search term, click a button, and get 72 thumbnails of images in a second. When you were done looking at them, you'd click next, and a second later you'd have 72 more.

      Now it takes several minutes to look at 72 photos in the search results, and an additional minute for the 72 after that, and an additional minute for the 72 after that, because all of that javascript is painfully slow at reflowing the photos, and it just gets slower and slower the further you scroll down the page.

      The rest of the site is similarly affected. Anything that used to be quick and snappy you now have to wait a minute for. So if you used to browse flickr for an hour a day before, you'll now be browsing for 60 hours a day just to look at the same amount of content, because the site now takes 60 times longer to do anything.

    20. Re:One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes my eyes hurt. DO NOT like the background. Need to switch back to a white background.

  2. Are you kidding me? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I figured the submission was overblown and whiny hate due to change.
    But holy cow that site is HORRID. I hope some management gets fired.

    Looking at it I can only think of this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFZh92MUOY

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Are you kidding me? by kodiaktau · · Score: 1

      I have been intentionally ignoring Yahoo! since they noted a logo change, because I didn't want to see the constant flap. Really this seems to go against reasonable design and tries to look too much like print magazine. Having a clean interface is much more important than having tons of background images and hard to read fonts. I just had a conversation with my daughter about the importance of typography in print material and right there on Yahoo! I see the rules thrown out the window.

    2. Re:Are you kidding me? by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

      The background is way too busy and distracting. Also white text on black backgrounds are not easier to read.

    3. Re:Are you kidding me? by alen · · Score: 1

      it looks like this horrid android theme i've seen
      i used to follow some android themer on google plus and he was all proud of this mostly black theme that he spent days "creating"

    4. Re:Are you kidding me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Wayback is getting Slashdotted.

      From what I could see of the old site, and the new site, the functionality changed to a side-menu rather than a top-menu. Didn't use the old, won't use the new, but my main complaint is the giant video advertisement bar at the top of the page. All other gripes pale in comparison to having 33%-50% of the on-load page area covered by an ad.

    5. Re:Are you kidding me? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      My thoughts, exactly. It looks incredibly amateur and tends to violate every bit of readability common sense. Blech.

    6. Re:Are you kidding me? by bberens · · Score: 1

      This. People get into an uproar over the tiniest of changes to popular websites. The new sports site looks very pretty but I can't hardly read the text.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    7. Re:Are you kidding me? by kegon · · Score: 1

      I hope some management gets fired.

      They obviously didn't use a designer for this project. I'm not a designer but I'm pretty confident that I could come up with a better design than that.

      But does anyone care ? I mean Ya-who ? I used to use them for email but they kept "upgrading" (i.e. redesign with less features) the service.

  3. Both users complained? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> Disdain From Users

    Yes, both of them objected. (I don't really blame Yahoo for taking another shot at a service no one's used for the last ten years.)

    1. Re:Both users complained? by evilRhino · · Score: 2

      Although I have largely abandoned Yahoo for mail and most news, Yahoo sports (mostly driven by fantasy sports) is one of the only things still driving me to use Yahoo (I also use finance, though the commentary is horrid). Seems like they would be better served by allowing signed in users to theme the site as they like.

    2. Re:Both users complained? by mcmonkey · · Score: 3

      >> Disdain From Users

      Yes, both of them objected. (I don't really blame Yahoo for taking another shot at a service no one's used for the last ten years.)

      Yahoo sports, particularly the fantasy sports, are pretty well trafficked. There's no competition from Google.

    3. Re:Both users complained? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yahoo sports, particularly the fantasy sports, are pretty well trafficked. There's no competition from Google.

      I head a guy describe the system that he uses at, IIRC CBS Sports - and it involved paying a hundred plus dollars to CBS to organize a 'league' with his friends.

      On the Internet, even. I don't know if Yahoo is charging, but apparently there is real money involved, and what sounds like a Freshman CS project running the 'matches' on the backend.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Both users complained? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been hosting my league at Yahoo for over 10 years now, including back when we used to pay for bonuses that included a trophy (or t-shirt) for the champion. While the new "look" of the fantasy sports section has some serious flaws, I must point out that they have done a lot of changes for the better over the last two years.

      The information provided by Automated Insights is absolutely magical. Seriously, reading weekly recaps for your matchup is something everyone in my league looks forward to, and they've expanded that this year to include draft grades too. I like all of the changes to the "main" table on my league page, especially being able to view matchups right there. I like the changes they've made to simple things like league forums and commissioners notes.

      I guess the TL;DR version of my opinion is: Yes, the reskin they draped over the website isn't great, but that will be updated, and the actual engines that run the fantasy section are still best in the business, and seemingly ever improving. I'll deal with it, especially since it's all free. That means more money for the prize pool!

    5. Re:Both users complained? by rgbscan · · Score: 2

      Yahoo is the 'free-est' of the 3 main choices. The basic league is free. They have only really one optional pre-draft add-on (premium draft kits) and one optional post-draft add-on (Yahoo customer service will review your trades for a fee). ESPN also offers free and paid leagues, with a few more paid features. Then there is CBS who basically doesn't offer anything the other two don't, even though they charge close to $200, but the design is much more professional, they have real customer service, and the mobile app is better.

      Really, I'm not a huge fan of the redesign but there sure are a lot of cry babies out there considering this is basically free all year long. I suppose that's why their userbase is so large. Yahoo is updating all of their properties, and the FF site hadn't changed since around 2003 with the addition of the drag and drop rosters IIRC. It's not great, but not terrible.... certainly a good start as long as they keep improving it.

      They've added many new features over the last two years and really invested in making it the best FF site. Things like draft grades, "Compare my team", Weekly recaps of your players formatted into a personalized email, league pick 'em, easier import of keepers and previous managers (so I as a commish don't have to find and select them). I can see it's a work in progress, but they do keep moving forward.

  4. Five Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who the fuck uses Yahoo!?

    1. Re:Five Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      For sports news, many many people. It's honestly the one part of yahoo that is good.

      Note: They don't just mash up news, they actually have a sport writing staff.

    2. Re:Five Words by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing that's the cause of the redesign. Seems to me like changing the design of a popular product is a sure-fire way to kill it. Or in the case of facebook and MS, test how much you can piss off your users without them actually leaving.

    3. Re:Five Words by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yahoo! is the place I get linked to by people when they couldn't come up with another place to link me to a syndicated AP article.

    4. Re:Five Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, hyperbolic much. I really think you could tone it down a bit Chuck.

    5. Re:Five Words by res_comicus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note: They don't just mash up news, they actually have a sport writing staff.

      ...that is better than many other major organizations, at that. Their Jeff Passan has been out in front of a good many breaking stories in the last several years, and their other guys are pretty solid, too. Best of all, they mostly don't go out of their way to start a "controversy or fluff story du jour" like other orgs do. (I'm looking at you, ESPN.)

    6. Re:Five Words by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Seems to me like changing the design of a popular product is a sure-fire way to kill it.

      Slashdot has been through a number of unpopular redesigns now, and yet here we all are discussing this as if it is going to have any measurable impact on Yahoo's readership.

  5. Fuck me ragged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who gives a shit what a sub-section of an irrelevant website has done with their web design?

    Get this shitty news off my internet.

    1. Re:Fuck me ragged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it highlights a general trend of websites ruining their layout in favor of bloated illconcieved crap?

    2. Re:Fuck me ragged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a garbage website wants to hasten its own demise, I'm delighted. Just don't expect me to breathlessly follow every detail of exactly how it is fucking up.

    3. Re:Fuck me ragged by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Ive noticed ever since tablets have come out more and more pages going to a dark backround, I wonder if the dev is taking tab bat life into consideration when redesigning these pages. Anytime ive come across a phone/tablet friendly redesign (nascar.com is the worst) it tends to make it horrible on a PC. Page optimization for a pc vs a touch screen is not the same, as we saw with windows 8 and metro, I dont know why web devs think it can be work for their site.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Fuck me ragged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      light text on dark background is easier to see and read on a transmissive device, like a computer monitor or tablet computer. dark text on light background is easier to read on a reflective device, like a Kindle or paper.

      I just checked it out, and, well, it's easy to read, at least that page. The actual articles are still black text on white background, so changing from one to the other is glaring.

    5. Re: Fuck me ragged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It almost looks like MM is paid to torpedo Yahoo

  6. Rotten Guacamole by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    First impression made by the color scheme was "rotten guacamole". What's worse is that the section landing page had a decidedly Web1.0 feel to it -- I was actually looking around the page for Geocities banner ads, blink tags and little monkeys to punch.

    Shit layout, shit color scheme, completely unreadable, overly busy. Yahoo needs to lay off their entire design staff. They have obviously been cubicle squatting since the 90s and likely never been outside Yahoo HQ or to any other website other than Yahoo since then.

    And W - T - F is up with their logo? It's like they are trying to cross brand a Fraternity with a Womens Lifestyle mag.

    1. Re:Rotten Guacamole by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The design reminds me of too-hip gamer sites.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Rotten Guacamole by Piata · · Score: 0

      Please don't ever use the term "Web 1.0" when discussing design. It's a meaningless buzzword that makes you look foolish. Kind of like saying the design lacks synergy.

      Beyond that, I agree with you.

    3. Re:Rotten Guacamole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please don't ever use the term "Web 1.0" when discussing design. It's a meaningless buzzword that makes you look foolish. Kind of like saying the design lacks synergy.

      Your post doesn't penetrate our opinion markets and provides no insight into what larger objective you have in mind with respect to teamwork.

    4. Re:Rotten Guacamole by lgw · · Score: 1

      You forgot "at the end of the day" and "creatives".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Rotten Guacamole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it does lack synergy.

      What they need is a new paradigm to match their core competencies.

  7. Fred Sanford quote: "I'm blind!" by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Jesus fucking christ! Who the hell thought that layout and design could in any way be considered good web design? Were they on acid or smoked a few joints that morning?

    I didn't use that particular section but if I saw that concept on any other page on any other site I would never go back.

    This is a perfect example of Rule #2: Never let a web designer design your web pages.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Fred Sanford quote: "I'm blind!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss the old rule #1 that teacher's of web design once had:

      If it don't load in less then 10 seconds on a 14.4k modem then it is an instant failing grade.

    2. Re:Fred Sanford quote: "I'm blind!" by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, if I go there in Opera, I still get the old site. So score one for obscurity and sniffing by browser string instead of features.

  8. cheerfully ignoring Yahoo! since 1995 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been cheerfully ignoring Yahoo! since 1995.

  9. Defeats the purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The white text on black background is rendered moot by the green baseball field image.

  10. And this is nerd news... how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just asking, 'cos I can't see how this qualifies as interesting.

    1. Re:And this is nerd news... how? by danbuter · · Score: 1

      Because it's actually related to programming, unlike a large percentage of recent Slashdot posts?

  11. CSS by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    If only the W3 had created some mechanism whereby different people could have a different layout. Oh well.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:CSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. I thought content was supposed to be separate from presentation. It seems like you could allow the users to choose which format they prefer.

    2. Re:CSS by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Can you show me an example of a real production website that has an actual real world use where a 3rd party has created custom stylesheet(s) that completely redesigns a site's layout while still retaining complete functionality.

    3. Re:CSS by Ken_g6 · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. Just browse http://userstyles.org/.

      If you insist on a specific example, try http://userstyles.org/styles/22529/anandtech-forums-fusetalk-look for http://forums.anandtech.com/

      Although maybe your definition of "completely redesigns" is more extreme than mine?

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  12. Distracting... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    The background image behind the text makes the text more difficult to read. Doesn't anyone at Yahoo have any usability design experience? It looks like Yahoo is going back to the days of the flaming logos. Gaudy design for the sake of gaudiness.

  13. M.E.H. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    It's not THAT bad...

    But I guess I don't care anyway, this isn't the type of story I come to /. for.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:M.E.H. by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well at least now you know how to bring back Yahoo! Sports once you close the tab. Now THAT's some good reporting!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:M.E.H. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really isn't that bad, especially when (in my experience) most sports sites are riddled with autoplaying videos, which is a far bigger crime. The worst parts are laying text on tinted translucent backgrounds on top of background images, which is something that Apple recently showed off in ia demo of iOS 7, and the Yahoo logo has changed to a different type of hideous.

    3. Re:M.E.H. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at least now you know how to bring back Yahoo! Sports once you close the tab. Now THAT's some good reporting!

      THAT'S what I read Slashdot for...

  14. White text on black background? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Unless it's for a hackers/nerds website, stick with dark text on a light background.

    1. Re:White text on black background? by a_big_favor · · Score: 1

      I love high contrast and my sports news.

  15. Myspace Page by immcintosh · · Score: 1

    They've really taken the circa-2004 Myspace page design aesthetic to heart on this one.

  16. Yahoo underestimates their user base by toygeek · · Score: 1

    I used to do computer repair work in an area where AT&T was partnered with Yahoo for email services and content delivery. The biggest complaint was that Yahoo wouldn't stop redesigning everything. I recall one older guy who needed zoomed text and low resolutions just to see his email. Took some work to get it so that everything fit *and* he could see it. The very next day, the guy calls and complains that we broke it. Yep, Yahoo changed their email design for the third time that year (It was June or so). This is the first time I recall an outcry of this volume, but I've heard it all before, one disgruntled user at a time.

    The ironic part of this is that these same disgruntled people won't switch to another service because they don't like change. Go figure.

  17. Don't blame the design staff by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    For all we know, something like this happened, the CEO or someone from management got involved and they got the results we all just saw.

     

    1. Re:Don't blame the design staff by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I would be surprised if Marissa Mayer had any input into this decision. She comes from a company that was all about being sparse and packing-in just the right information. This seems antithesis to her style.

    2. Re:Don't blame the design staff by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      Dunno. Google News underwent a similar asinine redesign before Mayer left, geared towards making the site readable on a smartphone or small tablet screen while removing roughly half of the information.

      The difference is that a signed-in Google user can turn the News redesign off and revert to the previous text-heavy format. It's actually a good incentive to sign in. It doesn't appear that Yahoo has the same insight.

    3. Re:Don't blame the design staff by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I just took a look and news.google.com looks the same as it did the last time I lookedat it a couple years ago. At least, I think it does. I don't think I ever used it enough to be able to make a knowledgeable comparison. It looks readable and somewhat uncluttered, though for what it is . . . ?

    4. Re:Don't blame the design staff by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      It auto-senses a mobile client (at least an iOS one) and assumes you are running on a 160x120 PDA from 1998.

      If you visit news.google.com on an iPad without signing in, you'll see what I mean.

    5. Re:Don't blame the design staff by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the abortive attempt to make Google's main search page look like Bing. Went live in spite of universal condemnation from beta testers, got pulled down in about an hour under massive waves of complaints. Any Googler know if this one bears the personal paw marks of Marissa? Happened not too long before her "promotion" to the broom closet down the hall.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:Don't blame the design staff by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      True, I had indeed forgotten that. It would have made a good April Fool's theme, except it was too disturbing to be funny.

  18. this is not news to Flickr users by themushroom · · Score: 2

    who have been subjected to some reallllly bad UI by Yahoo in the last few months.

    1. Re:this is not news to Flickr users by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Or readers of Yahoo! News. They redesigned it a few months ago to be more stupid. I had to switch to Google News, which isn't ideal but it is less stupid.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    2. Re:this is not news to Flickr users by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      Although oddly enough I've actually seen more traffic going to my Flickr account that was being driven by searches on Flickr. So it looks like they might have tweaked the searching under the hood as well which is nice, but the new UI on the other hand, cluttered.

    3. Re:this is not news to Flickr users by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Although oddly enough I've actually seen more traffic going to my Flickr account that was being driven by searches on Flickr. So it looks like they might have tweaked the searching under the hood as well which is nice, but the new UI on the other hand, cluttered.

      Ya, I'm getting a lot more Chinese search engine result views of my pictures of tractors(!) lately, which is fine, I guess. I don't really even know what to make of that. But the UI still hurts my wiener.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:this is not news to Flickr users by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      Actually, they redesigned it again in the last week or so, and it's even worse. I truly didn't think that was possible.

  19. Everybody wants to be Bing by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everybody wants to be Bing. Why, I have no idea. Of course Bing didn't invent background images, but it seems like Google got scared by Bing (once again, why?) and started laying more eye candy on things. Then of course there's the infinite scrolling fad, which I call "tantalus scrolling" after the figure from mythology who was condemned to drink from a cup where the water level always lowered just below his lips. So. Yet another crappy Yahoo design doesn't surprise me. A lot of us defected from Flickr over this.

    Anyway, long story short is that the web design community has collectively hit the crack pipe, and users have to live in the ghetto they create.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Everybody wants to be Bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone who works with UI design and usability, there has been a definite change over the last years, where "usability" and "user experience" now means "all the latest fads" - infinite scroll, gradients, large type, "clever" solutions which make all the 30-something technology hipsters who designed the thing or read about it on someones tumblr go "Wow, sweet dude!", but leaves the bulk of ordinary users with an unusable design.

      I say the cause is Apple - their products have excellent graphical design, used gradients and other cool graphical effects, but they were also extremely well designed from a functional point of view. It's easy to see the gloss but harder to recognize the 2nd.

      It's also easy to copy the gloss, but it takes actual effort to achieve well-designed functional features. Thus, people mistakenly put umpteen layers of gloss in their products but do not address any of the underlying issues. Or, as seems to be the case here, they put so much gloss on it that the gloss itself becomes an issue.

      I recently interviewed for a "usability" job where the guy was clearly alarmed that I did not spend all my time on Facebook and Twitter. He asked me to mention some "usability trends" that I liked. The question dumbfounded me, as "usability", for the last 30 years, has always about "get to know your users, design for them, test with actual users, correct the problems found, repeat". There is no "trend" in that.

      I didn't get the job, but if it meant I won't spend my time actively worsening the lives of thousands of people, good riddance.

    2. Re:Everybody wants to be Bing by efitton · · Score: 1

      I would agree with this except for Apple being functional. My favorite example has to be that stupid green + that does something different every time you click it but pretty much never maximizes.

    3. Re:Everybody wants to be Bing by Arker · · Score: 1

      It actually does the same thing every time, it's pretty well defined. The problem is that you are viewing it through the lense of the windows paradigm, which doesnt apply on mac. This is not a windows "maximize" button that effectively makes the window full screen (minus window decorations) - it never was and is not supposed to be. It is a fit-window button that expands the window in order to show content. It will only expand the window to cover the full screen if the data it has to display for you actually needs that much space - otherwise it will become just wide and tall enough for that data to be displayed, but no more.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  20. such as Flickr by themushroom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No matter how the media says the product has lost favor, the millions using it -- who did NOT ask for a facelift to make it less computer-friendly and look more like a tablet -- beg to differ.

    1. Re:such as Flickr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please go back to how ut was before!

      I am literally begging.

      The old layout was PERFECT... The new layout is horrible.

      We are ALL begging!!!

  21. Some web designers think change must happen.... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    .... just because it can. And because they have to justify their existence. People who design physical products are aware that changing costs money and takes time; web designers have neither problem. The good part of that, of course, is that you can get information out there dynamically; the bad part is that people don't distinguish between changing the CONTAINER and changing the CONTENTS. The container shouldn't change, because people are used to using it.

  22. I use Yahoo sports pages a lot by Andy+Prough · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is one of the worst design decisions I've seen in a long time. The whole key to a sports page is you've got to quickly digest a wide range of information. The old page design worked perfectly at giving you over 100 scores for up to 4 different sports at the same time, all the headlines, and the highlights of the blogs. This kind of busy, goofy blinding crap is what have killed AOL's and MSN's portals (in my opinion). Either one of them could have grabbed tens of millions of users from Google News, but they just aren't capable of delivering content without trying to overwhelm the user's eyeballs.

    1. Re:I use Yahoo sports pages a lot by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I normally don't care too much about redesigns, and I haven't used the Yahoo frontpage (sports or otherwise) in about 3 years. So I really don't even remember what it used to look like. But.... holy crap this is terrible. For some reason, it took about a minute to load (crappy laptop indexing and backing up a large pst file is partially to blame). Then, when it finally loaded, I have partially transparent content with a background image of a baseball field making me feel like I'm looking at a giant captcha page. With the various lines of grass shadings of the field running off into wildly different directions (thank you gnat-high perspective), text becomes really, really hard to read. There is a giant ad at the top (adblocker is off) that is overpowering the entire site, I can't tell if the main image staring at me is for another ad or a story, as I can't tell what sport it is for, what the story is about, or even who the people in the picture are.

      I don't care about the new logo (it's a logo - whoop-de-do. at least it isn't the new Motorola logo), I don't really care about the menu layouts.... but I can't read the damn site. Why in the hell did they decide to go for a layout that actively prevents me from reading the news? Did no one actually try to use that layout?

      A friend of mine had a brilliant comment on Marissa Meyer: she can't fail. If she merely prevents Yahoo from being obliterated in the next five years, she'll be hailed a genius. If Yahoo crashes in the next five years, well, everyone saw that coming, and now she has a big CEO position on her resume that she can spit shine into something valuable. Either way, she wins, and Yahoo is completely irrelevant. With the changes that have been happening, I can't see Yahoo becoming anything but an AOL clone: technically still alive, but only because people have a hard time giving up their yahoo email addresses and Instant messenger networks.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:I use Yahoo sports pages a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate it!

    3. Re:I use Yahoo sports pages a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NeutronCowboy (Great Moniker!) posted: "For some reason, it took about a minute to load."

      Memo to all IT departments and esp upgrade divisions. Try your crap on on last years equipment, too. Maybe 5 year old equipment. And stop making us all buy new equipment every 18 months.

  23. Relevance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The relevance of this story can be accurately judged by the fact that nobody is willing to waste their mod-points on it.

    What's there to say? "Yes, it's shit" or "What is this story doing on Slashdot?"

  24. Users hate big, unexpected changes. by metamarmoset · · Score: 1

    News at ten.

  25. Very similar to their Flickr remodel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    At Flickr, there were over 50,000 complaints in the help forum, people all hate the new design there.

    It eats up bandwidth and RAM like crazy (over 10 times as much as the old version).

    Yahoo/Flickr ignored all the complaints!

    If you want an example of bad web design, try a Flickr search, it keeps loading more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more pictures all to ONE results page... it won't quit until your browser explodes!

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=beach

    Try to get to the bottom of that page. Ha ha!

    Note: the old search had reasonably sized thumbnails that you could sort, each page took about 2 seconds to load.

    Every page on Flickr is screwed up that way. And yet Yahoo/Flickr continue to ignore the complaints (and suggestions on how to make the site useable).

    1. Re:Very similar to their Flickr remodel. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      At Flickr . . . people all hate the new design there.

      It eats up bandwidth and RAM like crazy (over 10 times as much as the old version).

      Yahoo/Flickr ignored all the complaints!

      If you want an example of bad web design, try a Flickr search, it keeps loading more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more pictures all to ONE results page... it won't quit until your browser explodes!

      When I first was assaulted by Flickr's new scheme, I thought something was wrong with my computer. "What's that awful sound, is the drive dying? Crap!" No, just all the cooling fans spooling up to previously unheard levels under the crushing weight of what should have been a handful of pictures!

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Very similar to their Flickr remodel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: the old search had reasonably sized thumbnails that you could sort, each page took about 2 seconds to load.

      ...and don't forget, in that two seconds you got to see 72 thumbnails. Just look at how long it takes to load 72 images in the new search. Then the next 72 take even longer, and the 72 after that even longer, because the javascript gets slower and slower as more images are loaded into the page.

      In some search results, I scrolled down as fast as possible for three minutes. After waiting another 45 seconds for it to begin responding to my attempts to scroll back up, I counted 425 images. That's 2.36 images per second, or in terms of the 72/page of the previous design, it's as if each page of search results takes 30 seconds to load. The computer is a quad-core 3.0 GHz CPU with 4 MB of RAM, running the Opera web browser. Ignoring the two people I know who are computer enthusiasts, it's the fastest computer out of everyone I know, which means the typical experience is worse than that for most people.

  26. Yahoo! Enhancement Suite Pliugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a great candidate for a $.99 app with free desktop plugin.

    Restyle it in the colors of your (fantasy) team, make the font huge, high-contrast, block ads.. Most of the pieces are lying around.

    If I cared about sports, I'd be motivated.

  27. Data Driven? Last Minute Decision by Marissa? by Faizdog · · Score: 2

    The very well written biography of Marissa Mayer that recently appeared in Business Insider was very illuminating about the current ongoings at Yahoo. Marissa appears to be a very data driven person, always looking for "proof" of display/design feature ideas and concepts, even for whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-biography-2013-8

    Additionally, she had made a last minute change to the color scheme of the recently revamped Yahoo Mail which necessitated significant man hours at the 11th hour to implement and was detrimental to team morale and cohesion that had been painstakingly developed since her arrival.

    I'm sure moving forward there will be more challenges like this that Yahoo will face. It will be interesting to assess whether they are due to the vestiges of incompetency at Yahoo as she believes, or due to her failings as a leader, because let's face it, according to the profile, this type of a UI design change would have had her hands all over it and would've needed final sign-off by her.

    UI Design changes are by their very inherent nature controversial, people like things the way they're used to them. Marissa's approach was already problematic at Google, it had problems scaling as the company grew in size, but at least there were people there to manage and mitigate her. There's no-one at Yahoo like that. She is a very authoritative leader.

    Disclaimer: I don't know her personally nor have I ever met her or met anyone who has met her. My impressions are all based on profiles of her like the one linked above (which I am not affiliated with but simply found interesting)

    --
    -"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
    1. Re:Data Driven? Last Minute Decision by Marissa? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2

      Additionally, she had made a last minute change to the color scheme of the recently revamped Yahoo Mail which necessitated significant man hours at the 11th hour to implement and was detrimental to team morale and cohesion that had been painstakingly developed since her arrival.

      If changes to a color scheme of... well... anything on the web require "significant man hours"
      to implement there's something very very wrong with the development process of the web thing
      being color schemed.

    2. Re:Data Driven? Last Minute Decision by Marissa? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Marissa appears to be a very data driven person, always looking for "proof" of display/design feature ideas and concepts, even for whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide.

      In other words: "Welcome to the local maximum, Marissa. You might as well settle in and get comfortable, because you'll be here forever."

    3. Re:Data Driven? Last Minute Decision by Marissa? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      No, she will be out before yahoo finally caves in on itself because she needs to not get any of that on her before moving on to her next victim.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  28. Not having ever used it before... by elistan · · Score: 1

    I'd never visited sports.yahoo.com before. From that perspective, I like the new format better. YMMV of course, but it makes me wonder how much of the outcry is about somebody's cheese being moved, and how much of it is about actual loss of usability and functionality.

    1. Re:Not having ever used it before... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      UI should always be customizable. No two people like it exactly the same way. Find a default that seems to work for most people, but let people change it to avoid the (justified) complaints.

    2. Re:Not having ever used it before... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I didn't care about the new design in the least, until I clicked on a featured article.

      Then the middle section turned white with black text, that had absolutely no formatting. It looked like a 17-page wall of text, with the black vertical sidebars framing it in. HORRIBLE.

      I immediately closed the tab, and went back to espn.com.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Not having ever used it before... by elistan · · Score: 1

      I didn't care about the new design in the least, until I clicked on a featured article.
      Then the middle section turned white with black text, that had absolutely no formatting. It looked like a 17-page wall of text, with the black vertical sidebars framing it in. HORRIBLE.
      I immediately closed the tab, and went back to espn.com.

      I hadn't loaded an actual article until I read your reply, thanks for the prompting - now that I have, however, I don't see any issue with it whatsoever. White background, black text, no crazy formatting, no 12-page slideshow for a 6 paragraph article, no animations, no graphical background...? Sounds like an ideal in readability! Kinda like a printed book, you know?

      (The sidebars are distracting however, I'll give you that.)

  29. Every time. by elvum · · Score: 1

    This happens every time a popular website (or application) is updated with a redesigned UI. The fact that thousands of users are complaining tells you nothing about whether the average user finds the site easier to use. The fact that people are posting here on Slashdot to say that they personally dislike it also tells you nothing. Fundamentally, people hate having change imposed on them, particularly if they don't know or agree with the reasons for it. And frankly even if Yahoo's existing users overwhelmingly hated the new design, it could still be the right decision for the company - they need to attract new users from other services, not satisfy their existing dwindling base.

  30. It always happens by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 1

    Idle developers are the devil's playthings. If you've got programmers on staff, they're never going to say 'Hey, that's pretty good, we're done.' Their continued desire to draw a paycheck requires them to constantly fuck with stuff that works until it doesn't, so then they can get paid to fix it.

    1. Re:It always happens by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you have a really good developer they will tell you that "pretty good" is the enemy of "excellent."

      But, if they happen to be a really good developer they will not break shit that works properly, and look to improve what doesn't.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:It always happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idle developers are the devil's playthings.

      I disagree. The problem with these redesigns isn't that idle developers are deciding to change everything. Idle developers spend their time tweaking what they've already created, because since they created it, they already know a lot about the problems they're trying to solve, and they've already solved most of them, and they just work on the new ones they find. The problem occurs when someone new comes in and, in relative ignorance of all of the work which has been done in the previous years to make the site as usable as possible, they decide to toss out all of that existing work and replace it with something they've put together in a few months, because they think they're just so awesome that something they toss together in a few months will be an obvious improvement over something that's been tweaked for years.

      Naturally, the users follow up by pointing out all of the small but valuable things about the previous interface that were great, things which some "idle developer" added one day just because he saw a small problem that needed to be addressed and he had nothing else to do, but which were left out of the redesign because they weren't obvious to someone who wasn't intimately familiar with the history of the site and every detail of every thing that every developer has done with it. Then more people come in and criticize the users for "hating change" because they don't care to look at the comments from the users well enough to realize that they aren't complaining that things are different, but that most of the "change" involved tossing out really great features and replacing them with something that doesn't have a whole lot of thought behind it.

      That's the thing about these redesigns. They're never "we took the site you love and gave it a face-lift and added a bunch of new and useful features" but rather they're always "we took the site you love, tossed it in the trash, and created a whole new site that we expect you to love just as much as the old one even though we ignored every feature we didn't personally use on the site because we regarded it as useless and, frankly, if we were to duplicate every feature added to the site over the last ten years, it would take us ten years, and we only have three months in which to do this redesign."

      There's a reason why it's typically a bad idea to toss out an existing code base and rewrite everything. Unless you're willing to spend more time on your rewrite than the original authors spent on the original code, you're not likely to end up with anything that is significantly better for everyone who uses the code.

  31. What is with all the terrible UIs lately? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Has anyone else noticed that damn near EVERY UI project out there is getting a terrible redesign? MS, Google, yahoo all are in the process of fucking up common interfaces for the sake of....well, I really don't know, but they seem to have a goal.

    Hell, the last /. redesign kind of fucked things up too, now that I think about it. A lot of common pages were buried several links deeper than they used to be. I can't tell if that was done to increase ad impressions or if the designers are just morons.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:What is with all the terrible UIs lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LATELY?

      The history of user interfaces is riddled with failure. Awful failure.
      And not just in software.

      These kind of redesigns just don't surprise me any more.

    2. Re:What is with all the terrible UIs lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS, Google, yahoo all are in the process of fucking up common interfaces for the sake of....well, I really don't know, but they seem to have a goal.

      I figure it's their response to the NSA making them cough up info on all their customers. See, if they drive away all their customers, they won't have any data to turn over to the NSA! Brilliant!

    3. Re:What is with all the terrible UIs lately? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Whatever they did to Google Maps, both on Android and via the web is mind boggling. On the Android version they reduced functionality completely (need two apps for street view, really?), while making it ugly and barely usable. On the web version, they actually made it worse than Bing maps. Again, killing street view, unless you actually know which thumbnail is the place your looking for (which means I didn't need street view to begin with), worse, some of their "helpful" thumbnails are for things miles away from the destination your looking for. But I suppose it looks nicer, which counts for something... Personally I'd rather have functionality, but hey... I think I'm a minority.

      I never thought I'd see the day when Bing, or even Mapquest, was better than Google.

      Pretty much everything Google has done in the last year has been a step backwards. Removing functionality, making functions harder to access, killing usability, adding more widgets and flash, making vital information harder to find (the gmail redesign, ugh), trying to be smarter than the user...

      The new Flickr was pretty bad too. I was planning on giving them money, and going back to them after 4 years, but the second they issued their new layout, I gave my money to 500px instead. The fact that it was near impossible to back out of a picture, once selected, was the point where I decided that Yahoo is officially dead (and not merely in the strange unlife its been in for the last decade).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  32. They broke Yahoo Finance, too by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yahoo Finance, which was very popular in the financial community, has also been "redesigned". Yahoo Finance was popular because you put in a ticker symbol and you got a chart and all the key performance numbers on one screen. Yahoo was the first to have stock charts where you could easily change the time period displayed, and investors liked that.

    Now, there are four rows of Yahoo menu bars at the top of a stock symbol page. There's a big Flash ad at the top. There's a "trade now" button. ("Please provide feedback on the new Trade Now function.") There's another ad. There are links on the left. That's all you get "above the fold", before scrollling.

    Below the "fold", there are some links to "reports" Then there are those annoying "Ad topics that might interest you" links. (Not Outbrain, Yahoo does this in house.) There's a table of the top holdings in the fund. Continued scrolling finally gets to the numbers that matter: YTD return, 5-year return, beta, etc.

    Yahoo has completely missed the point of why investors go to a page like that.

    1. Re:They broke Yahoo Finance, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finance is actually one of their less offensive screw-ups. The biggest problem for me is they dumbed down the old charts. IIRC, you could zoom in better before. That might be a problem with licensing the data though. Even my broker won't let me go back in time and look at historical short-term patterns. They only let me use fine resolution for the recent past. Why would that matter? Because it's useful for answering questions like "how does this stock trade on earnings days?". I suspect that kind of fine, detailed historical data is available for a price that's too high for retail investors, and is busy chugging away in "algos" even as we type.

      Anyway, there's a good chance I'm accessing Finance through a legacy URL that will dissapear and leave me with a bigger train wreck. Then I'll just have to log onto a broker for charts and stuff. The broker was never as good as Yahoo, but Yahoo is moving down to the broker level, and the brokers are getting better. At least there are choices for this kind of thing.

    2. Re:They broke Yahoo Finance, too by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      Yahoo has completely missed the point of why investors go to a page like that.

      And we miss the point of why that page exists, and that is to make money for Yahoo. Long gone are the days of VCs throwing money at any company that gets headlines and viewers. Advertising is all there is, short of subscriptions. Yahoo has NO REASON to provide a simple page that the readers like for free. Viewers are not their customers, advertisers are. And the customers of the advertisers are people who are not savvy enough to block those ads.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  33. Yahoo Games by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Years ago they revamped yahoo games, shifted to Flash based board games, destroyed all my games history in Backgammon, Dominoes, Gin, and Poker, and I never really went back.

  34. I hate light text on black background by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    You know that effect when you accidentally look into a light source and you see a hazy form that obscures your vision for a bit? I get that when I look at white text on black backgrounds. After reading it, I see lines of blur in my eyes. That can't be good.

    1. Re:I hate light text on black background by coop247 · · Score: 1

      I agree this is bad, but then to put a multicolor background image behind it all just destroys your brains ability to quickly recognize the shape of words.

      Half of a word is white on dark green, the other half is white on brown. That is terrible.

      --
      //TODO: Insert catchy phrase
    2. Re:I hate light text on black background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree this is bad, but then to put a multicolor background image behind it all just destroys your brains ability to quickly recognize the shape of words.

        Half of a word is white on dark green, the other half is white on brown. That is terrible.

      It's terrible! As one of the 3 people who still use Yahoo for portal-duties, I've been reading Yahoo sports for years. The old layout was great - simple, easy to read, and got the job done. This new one is atrocious. I wouldn't even care about the light-on-black color scheme if it wasn't for that horrific background behind the text. Seriously, who thought that would be a good idea? I also hate the new layout. It's super cluttered, (like most of the new Yahoo!? redesigned sites).

  35. Disdain for Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I avoid Yahoo like the plague! I have many friends that have ATT and they have their email service as Yahoo email. These friends do not know much about how to choose a different email provider. They always complain of all the GUI changes that Yahoo does. Now the email GUI is just one of the GUI changes that Yahoo does. Can't they think of the pain they are causing their users (particularly those that are new to computers)?

  36. Frightening... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    What is frightening about the sports page redesign is that yahoo most likely will eventually carry that awful theme across all the yahoo sites.

  37. I'm not sure why by danbuter · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why, but most recent UI redesigns have just been crap (Ubuntu, Gnome3, Yahoo, Deviant Art, etc). What is it with the UI guys that they just have to go with a bunch of unnecessary bling, that hides the actual content and daily use features?

    1. Re:I'm not sure why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me take a shot: It's kind of like the drummers of bad indie bands: There are all these annoyingly terrible complex drum beats instead of being a role player in making the song better and simply keeping the rhythm of the song. Likewise, the UI guys seem to be focusing on "Hey look what we can do! Look at us!" instead of just supporting the content by making clean, appealing, and FUNCTIONAL designs.

  38. I am all for darker backgrounds by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    So long as the contrasts are handled properly (no funky backgrounds that obscure lighter text in some places). Lighter backgrounds stress out my eyes.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:I am all for darker backgrounds by cpghost · · Score: 1
      I couldn't agree more.

      And even better, users should have the option to customize the CSS of those sites to their needs... and I don't mean with additional browser add-ons. Site should be offering this to their users by default.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  39. Looks fine to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A (too) small chart on the right, pertinent numbers in the center, many, many links on the left and more menus on top. All that served with relative simplicity, same as it always has been.

    Though I am running ABP and NoScript. 21 individual items blocked of the domains I allow and three domains blocked with who knows how many more unwanted items and further domains through that content. The advice is obvious: block everything by default, allow only what is needed.

    1. Re:Looks fine to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I don't see what the outcry is all about. If anything the new layout is much faster to load.

      I think I'm blocking some scripts that have everyone up in arms. Like you said, "block everything by default, allow only what is needed."

  40. color blindness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White text on a green background? Haven't they heard of color blindness? They lost a good percentage of their audience on that alone.

  41. In other news.. by synapse7 · · Score: 1

    Yahoo follows in the footsteps of Microsoft and denies the popular request of users.

    1. Re:In other news.. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Don't leave out Google. Reaction to the google news redesign was overwhelmingly negative, and all of that was ignored, the good old format never returned. (Sorry for the secondary link, in classic Google style the original forum links were not kept stable)

      Google news still sucks compared to the much loved original, and recent fiddles just make it worse. The latest afront is burying links to multiple stories on the same subject behind an annoying scrolling "real time results" list that only serves to make you wait and stare until the most recent stories finally scroll up. Now, every single time I go to Google News now I think "why am I doing this to myself". Only thing is, the alternatives are worse (Yahoo news anyone? CNN? USA Today?) In no way does that make the displayed arrogance ok. Well I suppose it's all good because Google's monopoly eventually must be busted, and annoying users as much as possible makes that easier.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  42. oh my god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is awful. i had to post a comment. oh my god.

  43. Aeeeeeigghhhh! My eyes oh god my eyes my eyes... by Arrogant-Bastard · · Score: 0

    It never ceases to amaze me that web designers will take a page that contains utilitarian information (like sports scores) that needs to presented in legible, dense, organized fashion and insist on bloating it with useless junk until it's unusable crap that takes forever to load, eats resources, doesn't work in a lot of browsers, and inflicts their idea of "style", no matter how hideous, on users.

    This is one of those cases. Yahoo Sports has apparently failed to notice that the ideal design model for a sports page can be found in any decent newspaper: scores up front, box scores inside, stories to follow. Simple. Easy. Fast-loading. Quick to code. Works in any browser including the text-only ones. Easy to generate from scripts. Easy to parse. Fast to update. Dirt-simple and thus hard to break.

    In other words, the antithesis of this crap, which looks like something an art-school sophomore just in from an all-night binge would cook up....and is, unfortunately increasingly typical of sites that aren't content to just use designs that work, but feel the need to change things...because change.

  44. too hard to read by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    IMHO, white text on black is nearly always an amateurish design, bereft of creativity and solid design technique. I avoid reading such sites because I find them tiresome on the eyes. Just give me plain ol' black type on a white/light coloured background. That provides the most contrast is thus easiest to read, for me at least.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  45. Re: feedback from their users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At Flickr, they *did* do beta testing before May 2013 with randomly selected people who were dumped into the "new style" without any say in the matter. Flickr called this a "bucket test" for some reason. About 99% of the testers complained and said the new design was awful. All of the complaints were ignored! Flickr went right ahead with the new horrid design.

    The discussion groups for the "bucket tests" have been hidden. I'm sorry I don't have proof of all that. But it did happen, and the employees were very rude through the whole thing.

  46. Typical Corporate Redesign by edibobb · · Score: 2

    In a typical corporate redesign, the new site or application is made to look pleasing and artistic to the executive decision makers, who rarely use the site. It makes no difference if additional mouse clicks are required to accomplish the same thing. It makes no difference if keyboard shortcuts are no longer available. It makes no difference if the transfer of information is less efficient and less complete. The important thing is for the new site to look good to upper-level executive decision makers in a 10 minute demonstration.

  47. I'm gonna' cry by Cyrano+de+Maniac · · Score: 1

    This makes me terribly sad.

    There is no doubt in my mind that my father will be unable to cope with this change and be completely frustrated trying to run his fantasy football team this year. This of course means "support" calls to me, who has no interest in sports, fantasy or otherwise.

    "Wait, wait," you exclaim, "the fantasy football section hasn't changed. Well, much, at least." Maybe, but my father has trouble with concepts like drag-and-drop, and is one of the stereotypical older users with whom you can expect to have this type of conversation: "Q: Which web browser are you using?" "A: Google. Or maybe Yahoo? You know, the usual one.", "Q: Sorry, which program do you use to go to Google, or Yahoo?" "A: The Internet". Coping with user interface changes is definitely not among his aptitudes, and this redesign is going to make for a long year of confusion and grumbling.

    *sigh*

    --
    Cyrano de Maniac
  48. Slow scrolling... by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    The redesign isn't the worst I've seen, but damn it scrolls slow. There seems to be about a one second delay between me hitting my scroll wheel and the page actually responding. I didn't have this issue on the old player pages.

    The scrolling wouldn't even be that huge of an issue, but they have forced all the relevant information (stats) down below all of the pointless crap (I don't really care where Buster Posey was born). So now the first thing I have to do on their player pages is... scroll down to the bottom, which now takes forever.

    What type of education does it take to develop and design websites; highschool? GED?

    1. Re:Slow scrolling... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      The redesign isn't the worst I've seen, but damn it scrolls slow. There seems to be about a one second delay between me hitting my scroll wheel and the page actually responding. I didn't have this issue on the old player pages.

      The scrolling wouldn't even be that huge of an issue, but they have forced all the relevant information (stats) down below all of the pointless crap (I don't really care where Buster Posey was born). So now the first thing I have to do on their player pages is... scroll down to the bottom, which now takes forever.

      What type of education does it take to develop and design websites; highschool? GED?

      It's not just that they've added pointless crap above the useful info, but even if you scroll down to see the useful info it now requires about 2000 vertical pixels to do something as simple as see what's going on in a baseball game, which means constantly clunky scrolling. Even that might be justified if the lower information density made it less cluttered and easier to read, but with the pointless crap additions and the busy backgrounds, it's very difficult to quickly parse the data right in the middle of your screen.

      From an objective "how much time and effort does it take for me to get the information out of this page?" perspective, this is the worst redesign of any product I've ever seen, and I'm including non-computer products. In all of recorded history, I'm not aware of a bigger design mistake.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  49. Mutliple Fails and User Hate by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    Yahoo has tried at least three times over the past six weeks to roll out their new design. Each time, user comments are not just overwhelmingly negative, but all negative. Users beg yahoo to put back the previous version, which they have done each time after about a day. Until now, this rollout seems to have been some what experimental in that it did not show up on all servers.

    This is really the height of web designer ambivalence to user wants/needs/desires. You have a very popular (probably your most after finance) subsite and you change its appearance and your users scream bloody murder. So what do you do? You keep sending them the same changes every other week hoping this time the result will be different. Instead of trying to justify what was clearly a poor decision, step back and admit you were wrong and give the users what they want.

  50. Wow by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    I remember a while ago when I was doing something very much away from my computer and wanted to check some sports scores. I thought how odd it was that my go to thought was Yahoo Sports. And how were it not for that Yahoo would really not be in my life at all save for the odd time a Yahoo Answer would come up via a Google search.

    So as football season has rolled around I actually had been going there often to check on things both NFL and CFB related. I noticed the new logo and thought ugh, who thought that was a good idea. Little did I know that was just the tip of the iceberg.

    See this thread and thing hrm, did something change more than the logo and I didn't notice it? Then go there and wow yeah, I would have noticed that. No, just no.

    Good job Yahoo in your effort to drive away the vestiges of your users. I have no clue what I'm going to use now but there no way I'm using that.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  51. New-age? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    In what sense is that "new-age"?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  52. nmb3000 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  53. Sports? by zdzichu · · Score: 1

    Seriously, sports section? How is this "stuff that matters"...

    --
    :wq
  54. Marissa by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Marissa by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Nuff said.

      FTFY. I'll be in my bunk.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Marissa by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Marissa by gmhowell · · Score: 1
      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  55. New layout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an actual user of the Fantasy Sports section(Fantasy Football), I like it. The old layout was dated and to be honest, looks absolutely terrible.
    I'm talking about the managing of teams and adding players, not the fantasy front page with the bloat....

  56. Yahoo still exists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bailed on those idiots when they redesigned the first time. They should have stayed with what made them successful. I didn't realize they were still "online".

  57. Infinite scroll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is called infinte scroll and it is considered cool in web designer circles. Users? Who cares, really?

  58. Yahoo bar = deleted yahoo account by javajeff · · Score: 1

    I deleted my Yahoo account because of the static search bar and buttons that stays on every page and takes away from your viewable area of important things. Everyone on My Yahoo is complaining about the same bar as it really affects small screen devices and laptops. I completely gave up on Yahoo.

  59. My God that's Fugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting with the Yahoo font name now, which looks like the love child resulting from a Captcha fucking the Peignot (Mary Tyler Moore) font.

    (captcha here: births)

    Yahoo, your dedicated and loyal userbase loved you *because* you were static in presentation. I ***MISS*** my Yahoo Mail Classic.

    If there was anything that made me think defecting would be worth it.... you're getting close.

  60. Yahoo's New Business Model by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure "sucking" is Yahoo's new business model. They seem to be generating more traffic by sucking than anything else they try. I think humanity as a whole needs someone to look down upon with disdain, and Yahoo seems to be willing to step up to the plate here! Sure, you can scoff now but 5 years from now everyone will be talking about how much they hate them, yet everyone will be visiting their web site in record numbers (Kind of like Facebook and Zynga games, now.) I don't think there's any other explanation for their behavior. Even "gross incompetence" doesn't fit -- even a blind squirrel gets a nut from time to time, and they've got no nuts over there!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  61. yahoo sports disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a disaster. I always went to yahoo sports for the quickest straightforward scores and links to schedules/records etc., now it's is plodding jumble. Whoever re-designed this had no idea why so many people used yahoo sports. What a shame.

  62. Why! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrible design. I will be looking for another site

  63. ESPN Made it so you must log in using Facebook by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    Since I refuse to use facebook for anything, I guess I can no longer make a simple comment.
    Big bummer. I have been commenting of ESPN for some 10 years and formed a lot of relationships with various posters.
    It is a shame to have this taken away for I'm not sure what reason.

    Seems like tons of sites are now forcing people to use facebook to make any commentary.

  64. Yahoo removed their comments bell for regular post by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    I can't see if someone posted on something I wrote on Yahoo! on my main page anymore.
    Now I have to wait for 1/2 a day for something to pop up in my email telling me I have replies or thumbs ups to something I posted. There is a way to get to the old scheme through Yahoo Alerts!, but that is buried and you have to re-sign in constantly which take considerable time. So Yahoo has rendered the commentary relatively useless for the vast majority of folks.

    Before you would be able to see people commenting on your post in a live interactive way.
    Now it is no longer practical. Makes me wonder if they just want to phase out commenting in general.

  65. Yahoo Sports redesign - strongest possible DISLIKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I categorically hate the new redesign. It is IMPOSSIBLE to like and to read. STUPID DECISION!

  66. redesign : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dont like the redesign, may need to look for alternative website for basketball and golf

  67. Redesign of Yahoo Sport Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The redesign is terrible. How do you contact these people to express your displeasure?

  68. Re: feedback from their users by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember that. When the thing first rolled out, there was backlash on the forums. Of course with the even newer betterer design, I can't even figure out WTF happened to the discussion forums. Oh wait, there it is. Jesus what a catastrophe!

  69. Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Horrible..... Please Change it back

  70. Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worst design ever. If it doesn't change, I will stay on ESPN, now my home page. Vote up if you want it back!