121–130 of 145 posts
How sad. Yahoo is still fixated on "fresh" and "beautiful" design when it's the content that needs to be completely overhauled. Leave fresh, beautiful and intuitive design to Smashing Magazine. Yahoo needs to make brave changes and Marissa isn't making them.
Maybe a little patience is in order ? It took years before Apple could be turned around.
Infinite scroll breaks the metaphor of the sidebar! The indicator no longer tells me how much more content there is on the page. I've hated it ever since Facebook started doing it with photos.
I guess I'd be surprised to come in here and find overwhelming praise for Yahoo :-) My wife uses Yahoo as her primary site for email/news etc. I took a quick look and think this update is substantially better. Honestly it does look "fresh" and "more intuitive" to me than before via an emphasis on a better design. One thing I've noticed with the media and financial world is that, when they've been critical of Marissa,…
Which of these services are not witnessing substantial decline and will likely remain relevant (never mind dominant) in the next 5 years?
edit: Yahoo Finance is the only candidate I can think of and I don't see it as having a very dominant position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We cleaned up the design, made the pictures bigger and the text easier to read. And we added gadgets to the side so you can stay up to date on your stocks." (As though the average Yahoo reader owns individual stocks?)
Seriously ? I mean exactly how dull and boring do you want this to be. Given how many people worked on it, are impacted by it and what is represents surely a bit of excitement isn't asking too much.
I must be missing something. I haven't been to yahoo.com in a long time, but this looks very similar to what I remember, just slightly updated for last year's style. http://i.imgur.com/Z0EH12W.jpg
Yeah, they're still rolling it out I suppose. Try http://www.yahoo.com/?p=newyahoo (I think that forces you to the new version, or at least did for me)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can someone tell me what I will find beautiful or intuitive? It's buzzwords, not a meaningful reflection on the changes. People that aren't professional writers think that stringing positive-sounding words together in a way that is grammatically correct will result in a good sentence. The result is corporate speak. "The synergy of the positive verbiage results in a dynamic reading experience." No, it makes me wan…
> How can someone tell me what I will find beautiful or intuitive? Let's be honest here. Yahoo doesn't really care what you think. Clearly if you are someone who gets worked up because a company calls a new product, "beautiful" or "intuitive" then you really aren't their desired demographic. Especially since you know. You are a Google employee and all. The fact is that Yahoo is simply trying to make this launch sound…
I was under the impression that I was replying to an HN comment, not to Yahoo. I know they don't care what I think, nor do I expect them to care. I don't even think there's value in them caring what I think. The point of this particular HN thread was to analyze the language used in the article, and I added my thoughts to the thread for others to read. (I didn't even start the thread; someone else submitted the article and someone else pointed out the sentence in question.)
Why are you following me around on HN and making everything into a personal attack, anyway? Disagree with the idea, not with the person.
Might want to check a dictionary because I don't think you understand what that term means.
If we're going by Wikipedia, it seems I meant to say "marketing speak", which is defined in the "Corporate jargon" article. I think the idea is clear: talk about what you did in objective terms, not whatever beautiful and dynamic words happen to be nearby while you're preparing a statement. (Wait, that was kind of fun. Maybe I'm wrong.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can someone tell me what I will find beautiful or intuitive? Let's be honest here. Yahoo doesn't really care what you think. Clearly if you are someone who gets worked up because a company calls a new product, "beautiful" or "intuitive" then you really aren't their desired demographic. Especially since you know. You are a Google employee and all. The fact is that Yahoo is simply trying to make this launch sound…
Let's be honest here. Yahoo doesn't really care what you think. I was under the impression that I was replying to an HN comment, not to Yahoo. I know they don't care what I think, nor do I expect them to care. I don't even think there's value in them caring what I think. The point of this particular HN thread was to analyze the language used in the article, and I added my thoughts to the thread for others to read. (I…
She said it's "important that the page be dynamic, that it feel very fresh, and that it be very intuitive, and that it really tries to embody beautiful design".
In context, I don't think the first word, "dynamic", means AJAX, I think it means conveying energy or excitement. Putting the "Yaa-hoo!!!" back in Yahoo, if you will. The hero images change out. The weather, stocks and scores are up to date. On the iPad, you have an edge to edge (full bleed) hero image and thumbs you can scroll to. On the iPad, it does "feel" dynamic without being annoying.
The next word, "fresh", is the opposite of what Yahoo's been for a decade. The Yahoo look until not long ago still hearkened back to its curated directory days. When visited from an iPad, her new design does feel up to date, without feeling like it came from Bootstrap Template Monster Ville. You can recognize at a glance that this is not MSN, AOL, et. al. (However, when visited on a desktop, I think it feels more like a shuffled iGoogle, so not so fresh.)
There is a risk in "intuitive" in that it's crucial for the Yahoo audience which is a little older and more change averse. In this case, the word needs to mean approachable and immediately grokked by their majority. Grandpa needs to be able to find his scores and grandma her horoscope. I suspect this word used here signals why this page isn't singing and dancing with undiscoverable swipe style affordances.
The "beautiful design" is the hardest to accept, if visiting from the desktop. On the iPad, I was struck how nice it looked. On the desktop, I think she might be bringing too much Google to her aesthetic. "Clean" is not equal to "beautiful", and I'm not even sure it's clean given the use of grey hairlines and shaded boxes to delineate content areas. A more "beautiful" design might, for example, convey the content area boundaries aesthetically, and have the grey hairlines and shading show up only when the gear (settings) and X (close) icons are needed. With a decade of Google behind her, she probably does consider this presentation more "beautiful" than any of the section home pages you reach from this page.
Word by word, I think she used the best words she had on hand for what she was directing her redesign team to come up with. I like that she talked about how it "felt" rather than just metrics.
If you spitball a bunch of terms you want your home page to convey, this isn't a bad list. Perhaps these particular words sound overused because, well, a home page like Yahoo's needs these words as priorities.
I didn't read her comment as insincere or corporate speak or even marketing speak. I think it's honestly what she was going for.
It looked good on the iPhone and on the desktop.
I must be missing something. I haven't been to yahoo.com in a long time, but this looks very similar to what I remember, just slightly updated for last year's style. http://i.imgur.com/Z0EH12W.jpg
Yahoo.com Feb 2013 looks pretty sharp compared to how it looked a few months ago. It's muuuch cleaner and doesn't look like a barely maintained derelict. I could pick a few beefs with it, but, whatever. It looked good on the iPhone and on the desktop.