61–70 of 96 posts
Tons of tech buzzwords, yet the blog intercepts middle-clicks. I want to open your links in a new tab so I can read them when I'm done with your blog!
They broke the middle-click? Good god, shut it down!
The new "BBC News (Beta)" website is bloody ugly. They've gone for a "flat UI" thing, but it looks so clumsy that it reminds me of the internet from before people used gradients.
Tech is fashion whether we admit it or not.
OP - can you shed any light on how this is actually impacting your performance? Or maybe things that you had to do to get around the problem (ex - details of 'module level' cache with Redis etc).
The 13 tests shown in the screenshot take an average of 577ms each, a total of over 7.5 seconds. 13 simple tests with wild variance in execution time. Checking a module banner color? 42ms. Checking a module background color? 552ms. So a 12x increase for checking a different color within a module?
Those tests are going to rot because of the expense of executing them and they'll be discarded. Over a 500ms average per test just isn't sustainable, particularly at the scale required for checking every conceivable kind of background color.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone know how much of this development is paid for by the UK tax payer vs BBC worldwide profits from DVDs etc? I'm not sure website development should be paid by UK tax payers TBH... Maybe at least some of the reason for hate. My main hate is the idiotic cookie policy which makes everything look ugly, but I guess the EU is to blame there.
you mean by license fee payers. Given the bbc is the 7th most popular site in the UK, and a clear leader over other news sites, I don't see why it shouldn't be paid for by the license. It fulfils its requirements outstandingly well. (There are questions about whether given the move away from a tv based model the bbc should be paid for by tax payers, and that's fair)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you mean by license fee payers. Given the bbc is the 7th most popular site in the UK, and a clear leader over other news sites, I don't see why it shouldn't be paid for by the license. It fulfils its requirements outstandingly well. (There are questions about whether given the move away from a tv based model the bbc should be paid for by tax payers, and that's fair)
Yeah but every few years they seem to reprogram the entire website in "whatever is most fashionable at the moment". I'm not sure that's a good use of the publics money.
Developers use whatever is most reasonable to use at the time with an eye on it hopefully lasting 5-10 years into the future - much of the BBC website still runs on legacy, unmaintainable Perl, and they've learned their lesson from that.
[0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/4/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are always mudslingers following change - its so easy to hate. I for one think it is fantastic the BBC are sharing this information and am liking the direction they are taking. It might not be perfect - I too have experienced some issues with the site over the past few months - but I'd much rather a BBC that looks to refresh itself and attempt to improve the experience for their users. Glitches happen - as long…
Of course it's easy to hate, when something that used to work is now broken and useless. It's not about glitches, it's a thoroughly broken design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's easy to hate, when something that used to work is now broken and useless. It's not about glitches, it's a thoroughly broken design.
Seems fine to me, if only there was a different site for you to visit
As a pretty typical London commuter, I expected this thing to be usable offline, just like the old app. But no, it's broken now, useless for me. Not reading any news any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe there is a bot that monitors websites for changes, and whenever they change enough it posts randomly generated strings along the lines of: > The new design is terrible! Bring back the old one! Whether it recognises the irony that it also moaned about the 'old one' when that came out, I'm not sure.
Have you used the previous BBC android app? It worked . The new one is totally useless.
As somebody that has done a fair amount of usability testing, that much of why people think redesigns are unusable are simply because they were used to the old version and haven't yet spent much time with the new version. But if you show the new design and the old design to somebody that has used neither, they frequently prefer the new design. And over time, everybody kind of likes (or at least gets used to) the new design.
That doesn't mean that all redesigns are necessarily good, or even that redesigns are necessary, but the kneejerk "it's unusable!!!!!" is so cliched.
Rock on!