November 17, 2008
There is nothing wrong with your internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are modifying the transmission! You may well be asking yourself WTF?? Why did homies have to jack with a perfectly good website? Well it's complicated-but let's just say we were ready for a change. We really do hope you find the new look as pleasing as we do... We know full well that some of you will find the change a little disconcerting, if not completely freakin' disorienting. For that we apologize, and encourage you to post your desires and concerns in the comments below, or [email us][1]. We'll be keeping a close eye on feedback and trying to help everyone acclimate. You should know that part of this new look stems from an extensive code update-a tightening of the ol' undercarriage, if you will. To keep lawrence.com current with the way you've become accustomed to using the internets, this update was unavoidable. As are some of the bugs you may well encounter in the next few days. We've been working hard to minimize your exposure to these unsightly pests, but should you encounter one, we'd very much appreciate you [sending us the URL to the page in question][1], or posting a heads up below. In the coming days and weeks, we'll introduce you to some of the new features on the site. In the meantime, feel free to explore... we hope you like what you see! -homies [1]: http://www.lawrence.com/contact/
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
justin66044 (anonymous) says...
You've turned this website into a fucking joke.Thanks,Justin Martinez
November 18, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
Care to elaborate Justin?
November 18, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says...
Aw, just followed an event link my friends' band posted and it no longer exists. Sad."http://www.lawrence.com/events/2008/nov/ 22/32387/" At least I know when it is.
November 18, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OtherJoel (anonymous) says...
I wouldn't go so far as Justin, but something seems off. Maybe it's just being used to the old format. The old site crammed in a lot of content in a small space and was a bit cluttered as a consequence, but it was still quite intuitive. The logic behind the front page is hard to discern. Everything looks the same, even if it refers to something different. And it still looks like you're trying to keep all the content, but now you have to scroll more to see all of it because everything's spread out. I know you're going for a certain look (contemporary and somewhat minimalist, I take it), but it seems so homogenous that you can't really pinpoint where one part ends and the other begins.Like the new lawrence.com header font, though.
November 18, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
Emily, What is the name of your friend's band? I'll look into it... the URLs shouldn't have changed at all~phil
November 18, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Burton (anonymous) says...
What happened to the store link!? Oh noes! We've still got Lawrence.com shirts available at http://www.bluecollardistro.com/lawre...
November 18, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt (Matt Armstrong) says...
Going back through some of my old blog posts, I've noticed the text formatting tags aren't working. Also, is the blue / green gradient background permanent? Or something that will change along with the weeks cover?
November 18, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says...
It's not so bad after the white space shock wears off. A little iffy on not having blurbs of everything right up front... dashboard versus front page.Can't believe I am saying it, but it really isn't too bad. Really glad you kept the top nav bar with scrolly dropdowns. Can't be having to click on stuff to see our options.I do have to admit I reduced my browser text size to compensate.
November 18, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt (Matt Armstrong) says...
Also, why are the movie titles listed twice, right next to each other?
November 18, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says...
So much vertical white space... takes me back to those 2-page, double-spaced Western Civ papers that were actually just two paragraphs.This place is actually whiter than me now.
November 18, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
millspaz (Chris Millspaugh) says...
hmmmm, i like that it is being updated. like the header treatment for art and headlines, like that it isnt as cluttered as the old one. more white space is always good.but i think it is too spread out now. too much scrolling, too blog entry like (at first glance all entries look the same, even with the icons), to similar to LJW.com and other world company sites, cant the web peeps break out of the mold and get more creative? its lawrence.com, it should be funkier and less attached to the mother ship. less mediaphormedia and more patrick giroux. its lost some "street cred"but i like where this "fucking joke" is heading. cleaner, simpler..just a bit too much perhaps.c
November 18, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
Thanks for all the helpful feedback...Burton— We'll put the store link in the navigation right away. A more visible link to it will come later this week.Matt— We're having some issues with old blog posts at the moment, displaying images, HTML, etc. Hope to have that fixed very soon.Movie listings are indeed messed up... duplicated and not linking through to the detail pages. On it!At the moment the background is semi-permanent. We plan to make that an option you can set in your profile soon.Emily—That's hilarious... Think we should make "single spaced" and "8pt font" options in your profile settings, too?
November 18, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
altheasus (Althea Schnacke) says...
What happened to the blog titles?
November 18, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
Millspaz—Thanks for the constructive thoughts. We should be able to do something to make things look less homogeneous, to distinguish individual items. Will marinate on that fo sho...(In the meantime, maybe your monitor is too clean?)
November 18, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
altheasus—That's a big oversight... we'll fix that ASAP. Thanks for the heads up!
November 18, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pimeamark (anonymous) says...
http://www.lawrence.com/restaurants/s... should be the layout for the "open now" section of the restaurants (and the "Find restaurants" section imo but at least that). List them alphabetically by name or at least by location.
November 18, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rice_and_Peace (anonymous) says...
What happened to the "Photos submitted by readers" section under party pics? I really enjoyed submitting photos and seeing pictures other locals take. I really hope you didn't do away with this feature.
November 18, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yurivictor (anonymous) says...
Good job cats. I love that you kept the header treatment and improved upon it. The modular treatment is nice and I like the blog format. It adds a sense of relevance. A couple suggestions: I'd use a rule between the main and right columns. It helps make modules seem a little less free floating. Also, the picture breaks between the posts remind me of leaderboards. I skipped over them at first thinking they were ads. It might be nicer to condense them into smaller images, use like three or four of them together and add some text underneath, similar to washingtonpost.com. I'm not sure about breaking out blogs on the right. Content is content is content, right? So why is there a distinction between types of content? Online a story is a blog entry and vice versa. I can understand maybe adding information about bloggers and linking directly to the blog. But the homepage seems like a good page to aggregate all content from all sources into one feed. Just my thoughts.
November 18, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
yuri—Thanks for the feedback. We completely agree about including blogs in the tumbler with everything else, and we're working on doing so...
November 18, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
In the weblogs section, it looks like the /weblogs/ and /weblogs/staff/ ("Latest" and "Staph Blogs" tabs) are exactly the same page, even if they have different URLs. I suspect you don't need two tabs there...
November 18, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wbabbit (Will Babbit) says...
FYI Phil - none of the contact us links for the staff members, all go to page cannot be displayed.
November 18, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
El_B—thanks!wbabbit—indeed... on it. thanks!
November 18, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Colby (anonymous) says...
I like the header, but that is about it. The main page looks too "bloggy" and cluttered. It looks too much like my "news feed" on Facebook rather then a site I visit as a resource.The menu bar towards the end gets cut off by ads when it drops down. This shouldn't be an issue on my monitor (res 1680x1050 on a 24" screen), but it is.I like the look of the band pages (even though the search feature isn't working just yet).Overall this will take a lot to get used to. I check the site multiple times a day to keep up with whats going on in Lawrence even though I live in Seattle now. I am just used to glancing at the front page and seeing everything I want to check out at once. Now I feel like I have to hunt around.I miss the old logo already! I better buy a shirt for Blue Collar just so I can old on for a little bit longer! haha.Either way, I'm sure you will get things fine tuned and all will rock once again.
November 18, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
I like it over all. Blue is my favorite color.The only feedback I have is general and not specific to the re-format - or even elldotcom for that matter. But I've come to believe that anything that is worth displaying in a table is worth having sortable columns. For instance it would be nice to have the restaurants sorted alphabetically, but as an option, sorted by neighborhood, bands sorted by genre (work in progress, right?), etc...
November 18, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nathan (Nathan Borror) says...
Thanks everyone for your feedback. We're processing all of it and smoothing out the rough edges. I've really enjoyed working on this redesign for the past few months. Big props to our development team which is ridiculously talented.I'm really excited about the future of Lcom. We wouldn't be anything without YOU so keep the feedback coming and let us know your thoughts, ideas, frustrations, and wishes. We really appreciate it ;)Nathan BorrorDesigner/Developer
November 18, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ariellemartin (anonymous) says...
I don't like the new look, but I'll get used to it. I still love you.
November 18, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tomking (Tom King) says...
I'd like two orders of eggrolls, I large hot and sour soup, a General Tso's chicken--large--and one order of Mu Shu Vegetables. White rice, please, and forget the duck sauce. I'll be paying cash. See you in about an hour.
November 18, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tomking (Tom King) says...
Oi! Where's the log out button?
November 18, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) says...
i fear change and i don't know the difference between a tumble log and a pinched loaf, but i like where this site is going; the cut of its jib so to speak. i don't think blogs fit naturally in "latest," though. i'm not sure what the ellipsis in the menu bar means. but for the most part, everything is easily found at the top or the bottom. you know what would be awesome, though? a menu bar that's always visible, so you could navigate anywhere! FROM anywhere. that would be almost as cool as a time machine. i hate that there's an ad at the top of the page like that. combined with the small logo, the brand is utterly vanquished by spongie or shpongle or whatever the fuck that is. hawkwind tribute? magic: the gathering tournament? abortion of aesthetics? all of the above? i wish the wizard or shaman responsible for this would reach into his shard sack and make it go away. anyway, i love you guys and your cute buns and your trendy little glasses. i'll check back in a couple minutes to make sure you made all my changes. thanks.
November 18, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Darth_Vader (anonymous) says...
The calender on the right takes up too much space and might be overkill since you just have to click "all of today's events" to see the same thing.
November 18, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
I get to put in a mini picture of me?!?!?!? Well, in that case: I LOVE IT!! Seriously, though, the blue kind of threw me. Is that going to change with each new headline's artwork? Cause that'd be way cool if it did.
November 18, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
tomking—NICE mini picture of you. el sexay! "Log out" is in the navigation bar under the little Mii torso-lookin icon. (See there?) Was that delivery or pick-up btw?alm77—Glad you love it! The background is indeed going to change along with each new art piece, on the front page anyway. Interior page colors will be random for now, and soon will be a setting you can adjust via your log-in profile.
November 18, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says...
Hope this swanky, bloggy new interface means you will be twittering for realz soon and shutting down the anonymous slandering gadfly that has been known to tweet using your name.
November 18, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
granthays (anonymous) says...
I don't like this at all. It doesn't seem nearly as organized and the whole setup gives me a headache. The background gradient looks just like the same one in the fonts of that ridiculous "Sphongie hallucnogen govinaa" ad I'm seeing at the top of the pageCan you at least tell me who's blog I'm clicking in the front page and not just the title of the entry, please?
November 18, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ariellemartin (anonymous) says...
I don't like the font for the "lawrence.com." Please bring back the other one
November 18, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
Create-a-blog? Waaaaiiiiitttt a minute. I don't think so. I don't think it worked for ljw and I don't wanna sift through the ramblings of the moronic on here. Keeping your blogs to the "select few" gives your site street cred, for lack of a better term. This is coming from one who submitted and failed, so you should take it from me when I say "For the love of g-d, drop the 'create-a-blog'!!"
November 18, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gavon (Gavon Laessig) says...
Sorry to burst your bubble, Emily, but I'm an "anonymous LIBELOUS gadfly." Slander applies to transitory defamation, such as public speaking. Twittering, being a more fixed medium, falls under libel. Now that we've cleared that up--EMILY HADLEY'S MOM WEARS ARMY BOOTS!!!
November 18, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...
Oooh, I think alm has a point. Not to be all exclusionary and shit, but do we really want this joint befouled by such inanity as the Great Biscuit Debate?
November 18, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjohns4 (anonymous) says...
OK people, lets get beyond the OMG you changed the website syndrome. I am not a regular user of Lawrence.com I visit the site occasionally. Compared to the old site, I have to say, from a design and usability perspective the new site is better. The look is cleaner and easier to follow. Navigation is straight forward and direct. It takes less clicks to get from point A to point B. The look is fresh, clean, and international with similarities to other publication sites with a far greater circulation base and larger demographic. I would bet that the team that worked on this spent months developing a site based on user trends and habits, user cognition, solid design standards ( both web standards and design standards) and over arching aesthetics that are designed to improve the over all experience for everyone. Lets get past the shock of the new and try to embrace the change for the better. Look at the site with fresh eyes, and a fresh experience. Change is good people.
November 18, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
"The look is fresh, clean," - that's the problem. lawrence.com was kind of like going to the Replay - the 3rd best 'dive bar' in America. Not that I don't like the new look, I do. It's just different.
November 18, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) says...
people still blog?
November 19, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
alm and mitzibel—We had reservations about implementing the create-a-blog here for the reasons you both point out. Ultimately we decided to give it a go bc lcom readers tend to be less, well, whatever that is going on in the ljworld.com boards. If anything like that rears its head here, we'll make adjustments. But maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.... ? arielle—As the "designer" of the old logo, I appreciate that. Know that we've taken good care of her—set her up in a real nice place with other famous retired logos ( http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_bl... )!
November 19, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
that_will_do_pig (Jenny Kratz) says...
I've had plenty of things to say over the past 24 hours about the change, but everyone has made quick work of sharing their opinions and it's been far more interesting to read what others have to say... That said, I appreciate the change, whether I like it or not. It's not logical to assume that the folks here wouldn't want to progress and mold and raise their baby into a fetching young adult.Personally, I hope that the front page format of listing stories as they are published doesn't drown my favorite thing about the old homepage, which was the instant gratification of knowing what important things were happening on a particular day. The best bets are still here, right at the top, but the intent behind it's design/placement feels a little different... I feel like there was a lot more "music" happening in the old format and that there's more "stories" happening here. Not a bad thing, just a curiously different thing.
November 19, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
I'm all for create a blog as long as the real blogs are not cluttered. Sometimes one just plain needs to make an ass out of one's self without polluting someone else's blog. Oppotunities for stupidity are what makes the internets great.
November 19, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Shelby (anonymous) says...
I think it's great.And I think most gripes are due to they've-switched-my-usual-coffee-with-folgers-crystals syndrome.MUCH less cluttered--I would think this would minimize people who, for instance, might come to Lawrence.com for the first time and think, "er, that's WAY too much to look at, goodbye."
November 19, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) says...
upon reading shelby's comment, i now hate the new website.
November 19, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Quadzirra (anonymous) says...
I actually went out of my way to create a lawrence.com account to say I think the new layout stinks. I really enjoyed the old layout of best bets, upcoming bands, drink specials, latest blogs, etc all right there on the main page. Was so simple.
November 19, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momsy (anonymous) says...
I think cluttered isn't the right way to describe the old page.Im all for change, but not if it doesent need it.Im not convinced all aspects of the old site were in need of change.The front page having a lot of content, I dont believe makes it cluttered.I actually felt it was one of the few pages I would frequent that was easily navigated. Especially considering the content the whole site has.I've never heard anyone trying to actually use the site, say it was cluttered. Im not talking about from a design perspective, but from a function perspective.I have sent many out of town bands trying to book a show in Lawrence to the page to contact local bands/venues/promoters. And I wouldnt even send them specifically to a bands page....just simply "Go to Lawrence.com for any info to help book a show." And would get a lot of feedback about how awesome the page was...Im not sold on the new format....but welcome any change.Keep up the good work though...I do appreciate this website!!
November 19, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
boxturtle (anonymous) says...
Miss blog icon graphics, was easier to differentiate the content when there was more pictures.I agree all the sections are a bit too samey now, Maybe bring back restaurant reviews in a more useful way (list restaurant by rating)I see you are going for web 2.0 for design, but hope you also add new web 2.0 featuresMaybe add some web 2.0 goodness to movie reviews, game reviews. (tagged with a rating, organize by rating) For general articles, events Count page hits for different things, have "most popular" section.Add threaded commenting while you're at it.Overall miss how quickly i could get/grok all the info of the old style. New style takes more work. I want less work.
November 19, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
davisnin (anonymous) says...
Didn't the old site win a bunch of awards? Graphically, this page makes me want to cry. It is far too clean, Lawrence.com used to have some grit to it. Everything seems to just blend into everything else so that none of it catches my attention. It makes me think that West Lawrence won the battle and I never even got to fire a shot. After I poke around some more maybe I'll like it. But for now, I'll be happy to direct my mom and grandma here.
November 19, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chris_dickinson (anonymous) says...
It looks like the site survived the update considerably well code-wise, but I can't help but think that the design suffered in a big way for it. The front page header images were a wonderful centerpiece of the old design; now they feel flimsy and weak. Further, the barrage of information on the old site was not without structure, and was fairly easy to read through at a glance. The new site involves too much scrolling, and seems too much like a news site. I appreciate the attempt at bringing the design into sync with the mobile lawrence dot com, but the old design definitely won out in terms of usability and originality -- it was fun to look at. It looks too much like lawrencemarketplace and ljworld now.
November 20, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
I also missed the old clutter.....until about 5 minutes ago, when I looked at this site using my iPhone. It is clean and easy to view on the phone without using any of thepinchy already functions -- and more useful than l.com's mobile site. Fwiw.
November 20, 2008 at 2:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
iphone. Now you're one of those people.The Northeast is infecting your soul.
November 20, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PatrickJoseph (Patrick Giroux) says...
@Joel: "Fwiw?" Is that an acronym or is that a noise you're making with your mouth? :}
November 20, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
Joel. I agree. Fwiw. ;)
November 20, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
DotDot: You're right. I also talk faster, walk faster and sneer at midwesterners. It's an obligation.
November 20, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joel (Joel Mathis) says...
FWIW: For what it's worth. I was typing with my thumbs, dammit.
November 20, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
Despite the extra scrolling, the more I see it, the more I like it - esp. how large the photos and artwork are. I would like the idea of being able to navigate reviews like boxturtle mentioned. A 'gritty' website?
November 20, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
I would like to see a censorship button so I can remove any comment that might possibly be perceived to embarrass any one of my small town friends.
November 20, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DOTDOT (anonymous) says...
Because I can not forget from where it is that I come from.
November 20, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) says...
it will take all of you a while to unlearn the crushing asstacularity of the old site. just admit it. you miss knowing immediately where everything is, but soon you will know where everything is on the new site. plus you'll have a whole slew of NEW shitty writers telling you how awesome it is that they have feet or some shit. viva lawrence.com! viva la white space!
November 20, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thebeckinator (anonymous) says...
i'm slowly getting used to the new format but it does seem some fonts are too big. i am doing way too much scrolling.
November 21, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) says...
embrace the scroll. be the scroll.
November 22, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Colby (anonymous) says...
So, that giant calendar...There's only 29 days in November?Also, can you make it possible to flip ahead in the months? I'll be back in the state next month and wanted to see what shows were going on. It's kinda hard to do that with how it currently is.
November 22, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pondmonkey (anonymous) says...
it's taken me a week to get the hang of it, but I'm liking this. a lot. Nice work.
November 22, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
davisnin (anonymous) says...
Hmmm, just noticed the party pics might as well be on Flickr. Where are the fun slide shows?
November 24, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
editer (Phil Cauthon) says...
Colby—Whoa, great point... will look into that. We are indeed working on a way to flip ahead months a la what we had on the old site. Hopefully we'll have that soon. In the meantime, you could hack the URLs to jump ahead... ie http://www.lawrence.com/events/2008/dec/ andhttp://www.lawrence.com/events/2009/jan/ etcdavisnin—Glad you liked the slide shows. That's also on our list of things to fix. You can still see them by adding /flash/ to the end of any gallery's URL. (If you do so, you'll see why they're not pimped out yet... kinda janky lookin at the moment.)Hope to have that working again pronto!Glad to hear it, pondmonkey! Thanks to everyone for all the feedback! The comments here and the flood of emails really help. Our to-do list is quite long on the moment, but as we chip away at it, we hope your lawrence.com EXPERIENCE is enhanced.
November 24, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
millspaz (Chris Millspaugh) says...
when submitting an event the top paragraph reads, "Please note that bolded fields ..."there are no bold fields.it also doesnt show the silly format that you guys like your dates in so it took a few tries to remember that. doesnt mention that the time should be in military time either.
November 26, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigblue (anonymous) says...
i used to find bands on the events calendar i wanted to know more about. i could then simply click on the band's name to go to a page about that band that included upcoming shows, a link to the band's website, and sample mp3's. now that i can't do that, i'll probably just go elsewhere for that info. so i doubt i visit your site daily as i used to.long story short, this feels like a change just for change's sake that wasn't thought completely through.overall though...OtherJoel hit the nail on the head early in this thread:"The logic behind the front page is hard to discern. Everything looks the same, even if it refers to something different. And it still looks like you're trying to keep all the content, but now you have to scroll more to see all of it because everything's spread out. I know you're going for a certain look (contemporary and somewhat minimalist, I take it), but it seems so homogenous that you can't really pinpoint where one part ends and the other begins."
December 1, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
astrokittycomics (Joel Pfannenstiel) says...
Okay, I've been looking at this new site a lot since you've changed. I tried, really tried, to like it. I do realize that it's probably a lot more PDA/Phone friendly. I get that. The problem is, aside from any technical snafus that would occur regardless of what you shifted to, that you took every bit of soul out of the design visually and made it rather difficult to know what or what not to click at this point. There is no design hierarchy and, if there was no rhyme nor reason before, then at least what you had going on seemed as if there WAS a reason (even if it was illusory). I'm sorry, but you've shaved down every icon, box, header, font, and image so it fits on mobile devices and have made it so none of your items are ones that make a viewer want to click on it. Yes, it does look like a boring version of digg, but that's not what you guys had going on before. Your site was much more like a newspaper and it really did that well. I was so impressed with your old design that I'm aping it for the new Astrokitty site we're working on.I got no real images that say "click me" and the icons you DO have along the side of stories are about the most horribly generic things i've ever seen. It's like seeing the admin side of a site rather than the GUI. Bleh!So, yeah...I've stopped using the site as much. Maybe it's because I can't handle change, but I like to think that I use sites not because it's the only place I can get the information, but because I LIKE using the sites. They are pleasant to look at, interact with, and don't either confound or bore the hell out of me. So, thumbs down on the new redesign. If you have some awesome new stuff planned for the site, I'll keep my eye out for it...but if you're sacrificing form for function, then you need to rethink it. There should be a balance and you shouldn't have to choose one over another.
December 4, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cutny (anonymous) says...
Well. I liked the old design better, but...change is tough. That being said. I think it's a lot harder to access the blogs, which I always thought were the sites best feature. When I click on "blogs" I get the title of the column, not the name of the blog, which seems confusing. I think they should be easier to find, as those are what I look for, Godjilla, Fear of A New Planet, Rob Gillaspie (since retired). OK. I'm still on here an hour a week. Would like to find the stuff I want more easily.
December 6, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
md_pinks (anonymous) says...
Why doesn't lawrence.com just have a mobile site like your MySpace's and Facebook (you know, m.facebook.com?) It would have been a whole lot better than sacrificing the old design for one that supports both. But then that does save on design time and money so I guess that is a one up for you.Overall though, I'm still here everyday regardless of the look. Once I get used to it I'll probably forget the old version existed and start suggesting for ways to make this one more functional.
December 7, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crazyleaflady (anonymous) says...
No like. I'm very much with Joel / Astrokitty on this one, 100%. I think the site has lost its design charm completely. I for one will frequent it less because I find it completely uninteresting from a design / aesthetic point of view. And I am sad about that. We used to use the site for our band page as our default band website, because it looked cool. No longer. md_pinks has the right idea. Please, please put some soul back into this site, and soon.
December 9, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigblue (anonymous) says...
ok...i've given the new design a chance....and i give up.the public has spoken....and the majority dislikes it.so long lawrence.com.
December 10, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Carmenilla (anonymous) says...
No spunk, no funk. I am sad....Every graphic designer I know (there are many, including my husband) despises the new design and format. You managed to make it pedestrian AND confusing. Ouch!P.S. After weeks of enduring that hideous Shpongle ad I see that they have cancelled their performance. Now I'm even more upset.
December 10, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigblue (anonymous) says...
oh, and nice FRANZ FERDINAND rip off on the "what happened to my internets" graphic:http://www.munichrecords.be/Press_Photos/Franz%20Ferdinand%20-%20franz%20ferdinand%20-%20cover.JPGso long....
December 10, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigblue (anonymous) says...
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P...
December 10, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nathan (Nathan Borror) says...
@bigblue Isn't Franz Ferdinand a rip off as well???
December 10, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PatrickJoseph (Patrick Giroux) says...
It's an image from a Russian Constructivist poster by Alexander Rodchenko. Franz Ferdinand have good taste though.
December 11, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigblue (anonymous) says...
good point nathan,you both ripped off rodchenko. the difference is their website isn't driving away readers.good luck with all of this...
December 11, 2008 at 11:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nathan (Nathan Borror) says...
@bigblue -- Your here, that's all that matters :)
December 12, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Compy (anonymous) says...
unfortunately this update seems more outdated than the old design......which at least everyone was used to. I call it web 2.1995
December 12, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
md_pinks (anonymous) says...
Blue-I'm going to join you and the others opposing the new format. After trying to get used to the new set up it drove me crazy! Scrolling down to even make this comment felt like doing code in C++, which for those that don't know, is extremely annoying when attempting to do the simplest task. This also brought up a nightmare about a project I had to do in high school for that class...lame.And I noticed there is a m.lawrence.com already....so why the hell would you make the normal website more phone friendly. Doesn't that defeat the whole idea of having (and paying) for a mobile website?I understand a need for change, but there is nothing on this site now that pops out and says "man, they totally did something creative AND functional with this site." Frustrating, but again I'll be here using it still everyday. Had to get that rant out though.
December 14, 2008 at 5:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crvernon (anonymous) says...
I come here for the events... or rather I used to come here for the events. Now there are no "Distant Early Warnings" !!!! Why? and the calendar is 2 [page down]s away. I can't believe that this design passed usability testing.I can't believe that I am switching to Pitch.com for my local event news!
December 14, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
davidryan (David Ryan) says...
@crvernon -- perhaps you missed the "Upcoming" tab on the front page, right next to Best Bets. Had "Upcoming" been styled "Early distant warning," would you have then seen that that tab gives you a list of those upcoming events?Rest assured that all the issues folks bring up are indeed being discussed and work proceeds on enhancing the user experience. In fact, there's some quite helpful and useful stuff coming down the pike.@md_pinks - where did you see it that one of the goals for the new web version of lawrence.com was better layout on an iPhone? Any web site will work well on an iPhone (if it works well on the web), since iPhones use a real web browser. That's not what we're shooting for with the desktop version of lawrence.com.(Rest assured, though, that development on the iPhone version proceeds as well, allowing for a more individuated experience. )Thanks again to everyone for the feedback, and sorry for the frustrations. Much work is going on behind the scenes that will be rolled out in the near future.
December 15, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
md_pinks (anonymous) says...
It was brought up in the 80+ comments here...but it also just appears that way since the site is designed in such an extreme vertical manner. The intense scrolling is horrible!Can you or the design team explain why it was thoght to be more functional to do the site this way? It`s obvious that is the major concern with the change.
December 16, 2008 at 2:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
davidryan (David Ryan) says...
@md_pinks - The iPhone thing is from a comment? Ah. Makes sense. That wasn't one of our goals. The mobile version is at m.lawrence.com and will be receiving its own up-do.I'm not sure what you mean by "such an extreme vertical manner." It's not something we copied, but are you familiar with sites like http://www.gawker.com or its sibling http://consumerist.com/, or http://corner.nationalreview.com/, for instance? I'm wondering if you don't like scrolling in general.
December 16, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
md_pinks (anonymous) says...
The websites mentioned are ones I have not used before but do have a mass amount of length to them. The old version seemed more condensed, with all your nav tools not pages away from the last blog comment you read or replied to. Text seems to be spaced out more, like you're reading a double spaced essay you wrote for class.Also, those sites all look the same with maybe a few color swaps. Well, actually the thrid one was different, but extremely crampt with info for one web page.lawrence.com used to have a very distinct style going...and this design went into a complete 180 without an update of functionality. It takes longer to get thru a blog to find where you last read if...say it has 80+ comments.Hench the vertical nature I spoke of.Perhaps a change in the spacing, or even text size, would fix that somewhat....I`m not sure.
December 17, 2008 at 3:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nathan (Nathan Borror) says...
I think the real issue at hand here is why and when did @davidryan start reading the National Review!
December 17, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crazyleaflady (anonymous) says...
Just checking in again. Nope. Still blows. Funk this mutha up, puleaze!!!! Seriously. What has happened to you people? The Pig decides to get functional chairs and the next thing you know this site looks like a pre-fab design from MS Office. I'm sure there's some connection here; just trying to work it out.
January 7, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
obo (anonymous) says...
Oh, man. I used to send people to lawrence.com to see how a local entertainment portal front page should be designed. What did you guys do?! I might as well send them to any other web 2.0 cliché.http://www.slideshare.net/elliotjaystocks/fowd-november-2007Should've taken that whole slideshow to heart. The old Lcom might've been cluttered and busy, but it _worked_. This buries good stuff under a ton of scrolling and clicks - which means a ton of wasted time.
January 23, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JoshLangfield (anonymous) says...
I love this design. I design sites quite similarly. I've only been a web designer for a few years though but I love this clean look.
April 3, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )