Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Tries Something New; Audience Responds!
We've had only a few major redesigns since 1997; we think it's time for another. But we really do take to heart the comments you've made about the look and functionality of the beta site that houses Slashdot's future look. So let's all slow down. Right now, we're directing 25 percent of non-logged-in users to the beta; it's a significant number, but it's the best way for us to test drive this new design, to have you show us what pieces need to be fixed, and how. If you want to move back to Classic Slashdot, that path is available: from the Slashdot Beta page, you just need to select the "Slashdot Classic" link from the footer (or this link). We're committed to keep you informed of the plans as changes are implemented; we can't
promise that every user will like every change, but we don't want anything to come as a surprise. Most
importantly, we want you to know that Classic Slashdot isn't going away until we're confident that
the new site is ready. And — okay, we've got it — it's not ready. We have work to do on four big areas:
feature parity (especially for commenting); the overall UI, especially in terms of information density and
headline scanning; plain old bugs; and, lastly, the need for a better framework for communicating about
the How and the Why of this process. Some of you have suggested we're not listening; on the contrary,
some of us are 'listening' pretty much full-time. We're keeping you informed of this process, because
we're a community and we want to take everyone with us. But, yes, we're trying something new. Why?
We want to take our current content and all the stuff that matters to this community and deliver it on
a site that still speaks to the interests and habits of our current audience, but that is, at the same time,
more accessible and shareable by a wider audience. We want to give our current audience the space
where they are comfortable. And we want a platform where we can experiment with different views
of both comments and stories. It's not an either/or. It's going to be both. If we haven't communicated
that well enough, consider this post a first step to fixing that. And in the meantime, we're not sorry
to have received a flood of feedback, most of it specific, constructive and substantive. Please keep it coming. We will be adding more specific info here in the days to come.
Please detail what you think you are changing other than UI. We're technical people and we don't like change for the sake of change, or, even worse, aesthetics only.
If they gave a flip about what we thought about the site, it would probably look the same as it did 10 years ago. If it ain't broke, etc.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Time to move on guys and gals.
I haven't heard that much managementspeak in years, and rookie managementspeak at that. I especially like the "more accessible and shareable by a wider audience" comment. Let me paraphrase that for you, [We are going to bind our logins with FB, twitter, intrusive ads, and everything else we can get our hands on to make sure no one is anonymous. We have implemented part of this already with googleapis and bootstrapcdn. We will sell that information to the highest bidder. Everything you write will be used against you in the future. This includes any resume you have every posted with us. That way employers get a full picture of the people they are hiring, or at least the picture we want to give them. We are committed to treating everyone like simple minded sheep and keeping them informed of the upcoming reaming. We can't promise every sheep will like it. But rest assured our velcro gloves are there to reassure you of this process.]
Bye bye.
I already told you what was wrong with it and how to fix it.
You didn't listen.
Here it is again: http://i.imgur.com/rNPke5p.jpg
You're really not getting it.
The people who contribute to slashdot right now have very clear expectations. No slick bs on the front page, show whole summaries, UTF-8, high contrast, fluid layout, use my whole widescreen monitor, javascript optional, show all user info on comments, make the comment UI unimpeachable.
These are the expectations of people that make Slashdot worth visiting _at all_. You've been told this many, many times since announcing the beta.
These design goals may not meet the expectations of new or casual users of other sites or iphones. Well guess what? If you compromise the design of slashdot to cater to these people which add no value to the site then you alienate your core contributor. Users use slashdot for the community in spite of the perceived-backwardness of the boring older-style web UI and judging by active posters with high IDs who also complained they grow accustomed to it.
All of the people that Slashdot Media loves to talk about here: http://slashdotmedia.com/about... Those 4000+ commenters a day that are the supposed value add to Slashdot?
Kiss them goodbye.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Agreed on the boycott, and on the why remove information comments made by several. I am not sure Slashdot has or was given a choice. DICE is a LOUSY company to deal with and everything they touch turn to feces. I've been hanging here for a long time and this is by FAR the worst change to come along and it ISN'T getting better but worse. Going be sad to go, but the whole point of ever being here was the community and the discussions which are both nearly impossible to use or participate in under the beta. Remember when this place was a task of love for a few editors and folks, well NOW it is a profit making endeavor and $MONEY$ is ALMIGHTY to DICE.
Now on the stickler side, is it an EXODUS, or a DIASPORA ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I'll ask the design team.
Hi,
So, it is tempting to resurrect Technocrat.net now that Slashdot stinks worse than the last two times I shut down technocrat.net .
If you remember, we didn't get very many readers. We didn't get them because not enough people submitted usable articles.
As it happens, we don't just need a better Slashdot. We need a replacement for Groklaw. And I personally would be happier reading something with the absolute minimum of Javascript except perhaps in the submission editor. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
I know that I can do it technically, and I have the server, and Cloudflare should be able to help me handle the load. But if it is like last time, and my wife observes that I'm talking to the same dozen guys all of the time, it's not going to work.
What do you think?
Bruce Perens.
Well, those few needed tweaks never stop piling up. On top of that, UX research and (more importantly) user expectations continue to evolve.
What research? Which users? "Users" aren't a monolithic group, you know. Slashdot attracts a very different crowd from, say, espn.com.
And "UX" is a stupid buzzword. When I go to a website--any website--I'm not looking for an "experience." I'm looking for something that loads quickly, renders readably, and provides the functionality I expect.
To keep up with that, websites either need to constantly change in small increments, or to do it in big chunks.
Or not change at all. That's an option. It really is.
The classic design in 2014? Not too bad. The classic design in 2018? Probably not going to cut it.
It's been "cutting it" for fifteen years, more or less; it's certainly changed some during that time, but it's still recognizably the same site. Why shouldn't it be good for (at least) another four?
In another post, you wrote:
For example, fire up the Wayback Machine and look at some popular sites from a decade ago. Many of them look radically different. Can you honestly say they wouldn't look out of place alongside modern sites? If you were browsing through modern news sites and you stumbled across this, would it not give you pause? At some point, your website just looks old and unmaintained -- that's why virtually every major website updates their design.
That BBC page isn't bad. Not great, but at least as good as the current one. And really, a decade ago was when the web was at its best. The browser wars were over, and it was reasonably easy to code a standards-compliant page that rendered well in the major browsers of the day. Sites offered all the functionality you expected, and still managed to load quickly even when a lot of people were still on dial-up (often faster than they do now over DSL and cable).
And for the most part, they looked great! I was a regular Salon reader in those days; please don't try to tell me that the current crapflood looks better. Yahoo was still a useful web index in those days, as opposed to ... whatever it's supposed to be now. Google News was attractive, fast, well-organized and information-rich; it's still not bad, but it's definitely not as useful as it once was. And you know, there was this really nifty technology news site that I absolutely loved; there's still something at that URL, but it looks like the domain might have been hijacked or something.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Change for the sake of change
Exactly. A UI is not a ladies' fashion trend, it is a tool. How much as the "UI" for hammers and chisels changed in the last few thousand years?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
I don't code and I don't study user interface design, so I'm not qualified to offer reasons why the beta is bad. I'm just a user.
On the contrary, the user is the most qualified person to comment on the useability of the service, the more exposure the user has had to competing services (including prior versions) the more valuable their opinion is. Disclaimer: I code for a living and formally studied UI design at tertiary level some 20 odd years ago. In my professional opinion BETA SUCKS! (like many other "professionals" who lurk around here, I gave my helpful comments in the original survey)
There's also the historical perspective, today we still have one of the 12 colossus computers built during WW2, but only because Churchill's order to destroy them was not fully carried out. Slashdot is a significant part of internet history, if they are going to significantly alter that then at least donate the existing site and comment archive to someone who would care for it (eg: Smithsonian, national archives, etc)
I don't think yelling abuse is going to change the world and nobody enjoys being threatened but having said that dice would be wise to withdraw the beta and explain what the problem is with the existing site. If there really is a serious financial or technical problem for dice then perhaps the expertise in the Slashdot user base could help solve it.
As an example of that historical notability I cite the restoration of the Betchley park, Slashdot and its users were IMO instrumental of raising awareness (and cash) to highlight the shabby treatment of the site by authorities. The same people who posted the initial Slashdot story about the disgraceful neglect were also responsible for the campaign to formerly pardon Alan Turing. The gay community have welcomed the official pardon and are now demanding an official pardon for the thousands of other homosexuals who were chemically castrated. They may get it too, with the publicity surrounding Turing's pardon the UK has suddenly found new pride in their pioneering contribution to the computer industry and a clear recognition that attitudes towards homosexuals have changed (at least in the UK).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Pretty much this.
I've frequented a lot of "information" (I'll use the term loosely here) pages in the past. A few, I don't frequent anymore. Some required my real name to allow me to comment. Some even had the audacity to require me to open up a Facebook account. These changes certainly didn't sit well with me and made me leave the pages.
For those that might wonder (I'm talking to you, /. management), people don't come here for news. C'mon. Your news are dated at best and with a hint of luck repeated from last year. If I looked here for new information I'd be better off with the internet archives. What makes the page special is that people can discuss those topics here in a way that has become virtually nonexistent anywhere else on the internet: Uncensored. That's where the appeal of this page has been in these years past. The management might not be happy with some of the comments, but they stood. IIRC the only ones that ever got them to pull a comment was a certain sue-happy sect of loonies because /. felt it simply wasn't worth the hassle to fight with loonies over the copyright to their imaginary friend. And, bluntly, it ain't. Doing so would have given them much more spotlight than their inane cult deserves.
What we basically got out of /. was usenet with a topic, way less spam and way more topical, informational and insightful comments. That's what made /. interesting. I do hope you don't think it was the stories. You're mostly a story aggregator, and it's very unlikely someone with at least a passing interest in a topic hasn't read it elsewhere before it appeared here.
What /. offered in this respect was to be able to discuss that topic with people from all walks of life. You could get the (private) opinion of a lawyer on a matter that he would probably not have read because it's a field he doesn't really have a vested interest in. THAT is what's interesting about /.
It's certainly not the stories. It's the comments section. When you drive the interesting people away, what's left is a page with dated news and spam about overpriced, inefficient PC cleaning software.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You nailed it exactly. I've never been much of a commenter, but reading the comments from people who are generally well educated (unlike the majority of sites these days) is what has always appealed to me and kept me visiting since the 90's. Most of the articles posted here have been old news to me, but the presentation, and density of information, have been an oasis in the increasing noise.
The beta site seems to be catering hard to the kind of people that have driven me away from other sites and back to this one. It looks like a half-assed version of one of the more recent Engadget designs. I bailed on sites like that when they ditched utility and information density in favor of... I have no idea. These redesigns offer nothing of value for showing information in a coherent manner. There does not seem to be ANYTHING about the beta that is conducive to maintaining the utility of the existing site. People come to this site because of ho it is DIFFERENT from other sites. Making this site more like those other sites completely annihilates this site's value.
I get that they don't want to throw away a lot of hard work that must have been put into the beta, but I have to ask: Why? What are their goals that spawned the redesign? Do they just want to make something new, or is there an actual problem that they are trying to address? Are there frustrations with the infrastructure that they are trying to address (potentially valid, but they seem to be going about it the wrong way)? Do they simply want to expand readership? If that's the case, make a SEPARATE site. I do not think that ANY of the readers here will play well with people who find anything about the beta appealing. This site works for a specific demographic. If they want to make a new site, then make a DIFFERENT site, and leave Slashdot as it is.