Last Monday we rolled out a new design on ReadWriteWeb and we received a lot of feedback on it, both positive and negative. Thank you to everybody who commented on the new design, particularly those of you who left detailed critiques. I'll address some of the feedback below, as well as update you on our comments system in general - which had technical issues during the week.
Overall I am still very happy with the design and it achieves the goals that I listed in the announcement post. But as with any Web development project, there is room for more iteration and some tweaking. So I want to assure you that all your feedback will be taken into consideration. Now to the specifics...
Unfortunately we experienced some technical issues with the upgrade, which resulted in comments being either down or dysfunctional at times during the week. Comments are back up now and are working fine, although we are still working on OpenID and Vox integration. We are also looking to improve the speed of comment publishing. My apologies to anyone who left a comment over the past week and experienced difficulties. Normal service has hopefully now resumed.
In regards to the design, our new logo in particular came in for some heavy criticism. I always knew it would get different reactions, but I was surprised and a little shell-shocked at the negative feedback on the logo. I want to reiterate that the boldness and emphasis on 'RWW' are an important part of the re-branding. Also note that ReadWriteWeb is a long name, which is difficult to pronounce and spell. So highlighting the capitals helps people remember it. All those factors need to be considered when you look at this new logo. However, given the feedback, it's apparent that we need to do some tweaking to the logo - so that it both pleases our readers and meets our branding goals. We've already done some subtle tweaking to improve it. And we will continue to iterate on the logo.
There are also a few bugs still in the system, which have proven to be particularly thorny. These are a combination of browser issues (IE6 in particular) and Movable Type issues. These bugs have been a source of frustration for us all week. I had thought they'd be cleared up in the first couple of days after launch, but that hasn't turned out to be the case - despite the hard work and long hours put in by our designers.
In hindsight, we probably rushed the new design out too soon - and as publisher I have to take responsibility for that. I was so focused on getting the new design up before xmas. So to all the publishers and designers out there, my advise to you is: don't rush the launch.
In summary, despite the criticism and the thorny bugs, I think it's important not to miss the forest for the trees. I thought David's comment on the previous post (#75) summed up nicely what the new design achieves for ReadWriteWeb:
"If you like clean, functional, professional and bold design, you'll love this redesign. It's easy to read and has an openness that the last design didn't have. The red is now isolated to the header and the rest of the page is clean. I like it! Don't let the negatives speak for the majority of people visitng your site."
That is my overall feeling too and if you look at the before and after screenshots below, I hope you'll agree that the new design is much better.
Old RWW design
New RWW design
I want to again thank our design team at Ideacodes for delivering a fresh, distinctive and modern design to ReadWriteWeb. It makes our site look more like a professional media publication, which is what it is these days.
But don't worry, we will be taking into account all feedback in our iterations - the criticism as well as the plaudits. We recognize that there are things we can improve and tweak. So keep the feedback coming!
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Love the new design and logo.
Keep up the great work on the content.
Posted by: Mike | December 23, 2007 2:57 PMMore white space :) I like it! Congrats!
Posted by: Eniac | December 23, 2007 3:43 PMI hadn't noticed the new design till this post as I tend to read mostly on Google Reader, but I'm usually rather critical of new designs, but I like this one! It's definitely an improvement, nice work! The logo is the only thing that I'm not too hot on.. I think the biggest deal is that the RWW are being stressed three ways, color, weight, and size.. but perhaps the color change could be more subtle. Black with gray seems a little jarring. Good luck with the tweaks!
Posted by: Peter Cooper | December 23, 2007 4:00 PMPersonally I prefer your old logo, it looks more professional. Otherwise the new design is not too shabby, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Tim Bromhead | December 23, 2007 4:03 PM-- it's apparent that we need to do some tweaking to the logo --
Posted by: PXLated | December 23, 2007 4:16 PMIsn't "tweak" too light a word? Seems hardly anyone liked the new logo. Starting over would probably be better. Sorry but it sucks that bad Richard.
I like the new design.. It will take a while to get used to.. but i like it.
Posted by: Jake | December 23, 2007 6:34 PMLooks like commenting is back on track.
Logo is nice and better than before.
Posted by: Joseph Pally | December 23, 2007 8:02 PMFont not too good.
The problem is your logo, and that's a different project from a website redesign - in fact perhaps your problem was that you did both projects at the same time. n fact you may want to think about trying another firm that has more of a focus on branding just to create the logo.
Your first mistake is asking your users for feedback. Good design doesn't come from a committee - it comes from a strong creative vision. True with usability a team effort is a great idea, but in terms of the art direction (i.e. the look and feel) you need to have a point of view.
Your yin/yang symbol on looks too generic and communicates Eastern religion (is this your intent?). I don't recommend that you need a graphic symbol for your website, in fact most printed publications just go with styled typography (example: The New York Times or Rolling Stone). Unless your symbol can somehow illustrate your content then I'd skip it.
Next is the logotype, and the typography looks a bit generic and horsey (this is due to the larger X height of the caps). Since this is a graphic I'd suggest a more unique looking typeface with some personality. Since your site isn't called rww.com I'd avoid making the first letters stand out and instead go for more legibility.
I'd also suggest getting some inspiration by looking at the work of Paul Rand or Tibor Kalman.
Posted by: Michael Pinto | December 23, 2007 8:38 PMMichael, thanks for your suggestions -- I will certainly check out those inspirations.
Just to note that I *did* have a point of view on what I wanted from the logo, which I explained in both the original post and some more in this one. It's quite possible my pov led to a logo that doesn't work (e.g. the capitalized letters was something I wanted to make the name more pronounceable and rememberable). I'm still not sure whether it works or not, but certainly we're getting an earful from readers about it ;-)
Re the yin-yang, as I wrote in the first post: the yin-yang to me represents the read and write; two complimentary sides of the Web that are in harmony. This is something that has always defined this site from Day 1. So I feel that it illustrates the content and philosophy of RWW well; my only question at this point is does it make the logo too long? The ReadWriteWeb is already a long name, and the yin-yang just increases the width.
I appreciate your comment tho, some excellent suggestions.
Posted by: Richard MacManusIs the link on the media temple logo right: http://www.mediatemple.net/.%3E/9r-readwriteweb.com ?
Posted by: nick | December 23, 2007 10:20 PMI like the first logo, it blends with the overall color, anywayz it really doesn't matter because what I'm looking for are the good articles being posted here! Congrats!
Nhick
Posted by: ITrush | December 23, 2007 11:09 PMhttp://www.itrush.com
I love the new design. I think it's good to ask for feedback but I think you should stick to what you and your designers think is right. After all, readers are just casual and they don't understand your entire brand or what you're try to do beyond their own motivations. Iteration is good but you have to trust your own instincts and the paid professionals you're working with. I love the work of Ideacodes. Not everyone will but that's the nature of design!
Posted by: Stephen | December 24, 2007 12:26 AMOK so I buy into why you like RWW from a branding perspective - the marketing theory is sound - but is RWW really easier to remember (and say) than Read/WriteWeb? I don't think so - I think it makes your site sound more bland and easier to get lost amongst the noise of other publishers.
Read/WriteWeb for me does the job - thats not commentary on your logo - just the branding aspect.
On the creative side - Michael Pinto said it better - especially the yin/yang symbol.
Posted by: Riaz Kanani | December 24, 2007 4:51 AMThanks for the updates, Richard, and for continuing to be forthright and candid about the design and the criticism. All the pickiness of my critique (and others) aside, a couple little tweaks will go a long way. The foundation is pretty sound - all that's left to do is iterate a bit more until things are just right.
And, of course, thanks for the link!
Posted by: Kevin | December 24, 2007 6:27 AMThis is a presentable but still very ordinary-looking site. It probably wasn't a good idea to trumpet the redesign, because there are plenty of flaws: the strangely amateur logo; the clash between rounded and square corners; an overcontrasted colour combo in the masthead; the jumbled right column. It looks like Anyblog.com.
But we didn't come here to admire the design. I for one will keep coming back as long as the writing remains decent. So congratulations on that and keep up the good work.
Posted by: Rollo | December 25, 2007 2:06 PM