h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm shocked at how many years the thread search function has been broken, and how many times they choose to expend their development resources on something other than fixing it...

Well, I guess we shall have to wait and see on that one.

I'd be really sorry to see Goo go, although I haven't used it for longer than I DID use it.

Please warn us if they vanish! I'm going to print out my personal space and hang it on the wall. In lovely Goo.

Thanks for so many excellent points. All are being noted.

Peet: One of our main problems is we *haven't* been locked into the whims of any designers. We look so markedly different from the rest of the BBC (which would be fine, if we retained our usability) that it it would be easy for us to be dismissed by people whose opinion is extremely important to h2g2's future. We're excited about the redesign as it emphasises that we are very much a going concern. People are astonished when we point out to them that we had so many elements of what people regard as social networking ten whole years ago. They find it hard to see past the heavy colours.

We are *really* hoping there'll be a level of customisation, but we'll have to see how far this process takes us. It's very early stages.

Whoami: We're delighted to see you back! Thanks very much for listing those examples - they prove that a new design doesn't have to be conservative. The visual language guidelines are, as you suggest, a positional thing, to make it easier for people to navigate around the BBC rather than make everything look the same. Welcome back, we hope you'll stay around!

Mi...Er, s'me : We will give you plenty of warning.

Thanks for the welcome back! I hope I'll stay around too. About which, I shall be in touch in due course.

For reasons related to my current job, I look at quite a lot of different bits of the BBC website in a week. There are some fantastic site designs out there, and I'm not sure the examples were necessarily even the best ones, just the first that came to mind.

The bit that excites me the most is the statement 'It's very early stages' - it's really good that we're already being asked about stuff!

Whoami?

"We are *really* hoping there'll be a level of customisation,"

I remember when the message boards went over to DNA in 2005 and we were promised skins for those. In the end we couldn't even get two skins for the Archers board, identical apart from one having smileys enabled and the other not because they "couldn't afford to pay a designer to do it".

And this despite the fact they launched with smileys enabled and later disabled them, so both versions must have existed on the server at some point.

Sorry if I come across as unrelentingly negative, but after ten years I still remember most of the promises that never came to pass...

Have the Goo images been blobbed? So that if customization is avaiable I can at least memorialize it on my page?

Not that I'm endorsing a new skin. The BBC is going to have to pry Claasic Goo out if my cold dead hands.

I'm with Witty on this one. And frankly, all this talk of dynamic updates makes me nervous. The first update last year of facebook was annoying, but at least it wasn't bad. The latest update is, well, stupid (on multiple levels) and I fear that we are also going that way...after a while, it just looks cluttered.

And white backgrounds...what in the world is wrong with something OTHER than white? Great, now even h2g2 is going to look corporate. Wow, is that the sound of DNA rolling in his grave?!

i like the way its been layed out, well done! I think with a bit of colour, possibly the option for every indivdual to select a few diff schemes then this would quite possibly out weigh the current layout.

once again, well done HooToo!

Andy

>>we also want to be seen as a contemporary BBC site with an at least fairly uniform look and feel.

That sounds horrid.

>>Personally, I'd be delighted if there could be a 'new goo' and similar, that gave some of the look and feel of the old skins to a common layout.

That sounds a bit better, wish it were coming from The Editors. I've been on this site for about 10 years (previously under User Number 55075, which I'm now locked out of due to forgetfulness). I've never switched from Goo because each additional skin has looked less and less appealing to me. The "Classic Goo" skin is, to me, the epitome of what a website should look like, probably because those years between 1999 - present were the formative part of my web browsing experience (got my first T1 connection through my college in 1999, and this was one of the first sites I signed up on!). I've never seen a site elsewhere so pleasing to look at and easy to navigate.

I realize that there are reasons for the change and all that. But you asked for our feedback, and my feed back is I want a site that has a dark blue background with a froody looking sidebar/top banner that appears to be cosmic goop ladled onto my browser.

I used to use Alabaster, but switched to Brunel primarily because using the default skin had benefits to my volunteering activities.

I am excited and optimistic and overjoyed and all of the other positive things about the potential that a redesign has for h2g2. That is tempered with a certain caution. A site with the undeniable length and complexity of history that h2g2 has is going to be a huge challenge in redesign terms, and I don't view those people who think that the change may be troublesome/bad/terrible/painful as stupid, or even necessarily as wrong. It could be shocking. I just don't think it will be, especially if the community can be constructive about suggestions. And h2g2 is a pretty constructive kind of place.

The idea of h2g2 becoming 'a contemporary BBC site with an at least fairly uniform look and feel' may sound horrid, especially for those of us who remember an h2g2 without 'BBC' written at the top. But it isn't really anywhere near as horrid as it sounds, so far as I understand it.

What is certain to be specified by the BBC is a design compliant with the layout expectations they have of all BBC sites. I think it's important to differentiate between visual design and layout in this regard. That's what the wireframe is about - it's about the layout. There are far, far fewer restrictions on how page elements can look - and those are primarily about making sure that pages remain accessible - adequate contrast between text and background, and the like.

Let's break that 'horrid' sentence down. First, a 'contemporary BBC site'. This has at its core that h2g2 will have the full-size BBC header and footer areas, and a navigational structure (the top menu in the wireframe) that will be positioned in the same place as it is on other BBC sites. There may be visual design implications too, but that would principally be quality of execution rather than any kind of centrally-imposed style.

Similarly, the behaviour of items like that box with the four links in it will be standard - like the ones on the BBC front page. The idea is that if you are comfortable reading BBC News and the BBC homepage, or the Radio 4 website and the BBC Comedy site (both of those last two having just been redesigned along these lines), you'll be able to find your way around each page of h2g2 as if you already know it. There'll be a familiarity in the sense that you won't feel 'lost' as to where all the page elements are.

'An at least fairly uniform look and feel' - I understand this to mean that h2g2's look and feel will be more uniform *within itself*, in addition to the inclusion of the common elements listed above. This is a key goal of any site - consistency is king.

The same concept binds page design for newspapers, or the design of a series of books. My bookshelves have piles of (for example, and to name two major competitors) Penguin Classics and Oxford World Classics, and they all carry the very same layout as each other, cover to cover. This has two effects. I am comfortable with the books and trust the quality of work that has gone into their production. As a result, I can focus my attentions on the content, which can still vary enormously in subject and style.

This is really about the same thing. The goal isn't really something that looks like all other BBC sites - even given the common elements that will exist. It's about something that works the same way, and feels like it belongs. It's not really about homogeneity. It's really (finally!) about acceptance and perceived value.

I see this as the BBC actively wanting h2g2 to be something they can be proud of. That isn't a feeling that's always come across over the years. I could, of course, be utterly wrong. But I hope I'm right.

h2g2 is a great concept, and actually still as novel as it was a decade ago in many ways, but it's not nearly as busy as it could be. There are, I am convinced, loads of people who'd love it, if only they knew it was here. If it looked the part, which frankly it doesn't at the moment, there's every chance it'd get the attention it deserves.

Anyway, back to the thrust of this post. There is no reason why the new design couldn't full of big splodges of goo, or great industrial rivets and the like. (No offence Alabaster fans, but I'm not sure quite what the theme is there...) If I were designing the template, I'd probably wind up with lots of gooey rivets. Thank goodness I'm not, though.


Whoami?

>>'An at least fairly uniform look and feel' - I understand this to mean that h2g2's look and feel will be more uniform *within itself*, in addition to the inclusion of the common elements listed above. This is a key goal of any site - consistency is king.

Isn't it already fairly uniform in look and feel within itself?

Good point, well made.

Besides consistency niggles (just logging in to see this post I came across an unstyled link and an instance of 'H2G2' in capitals), you're right.

However, as we all know, different people use different skins, so different people experience the site in different ways. I've mentioned keeping my skin set to the site default helping when doing Ace/Guru work in the past. This is because, as well as the differing visual styling of the different skins, they all have layout peculiarities.

What colour something is isn't too bad a worry when you're trying to point it out to a new user - especially as all of the buttons tend to be the same colour. Where it is in relation to the rest of the page is critical!

So, yes, I guess h2g2 is already consistent on a per-user basis. However, it's not consistent between users, and this something that can be achieved with that there wireframe, regardless of what the colour scheme is or what graphics are used to theme the boxes.

"...it's not consistent between users, and this something that can be achieved..."

I agree, I just don't agree that this is a good thing. Why should one user's level of customisation be curtailed for the convenience of someone else who might want to talk a newbie through the site?

I'm all for more skin options, but none of the arguments presented come close to persuading me that we need fewer.

I for one have always used goo
I simply cant use the other skins there too bright especially alabaster
I know the site probably needs updating but i dont see why this cannot simply be a redesign of the front page, maybe a new default skin for those "just browsing"
I like using h2g2 but i will find it difficult if everything is white and black

its probably me being petty due to my own circumstances
but surely if the site is going to be redesigned it would have to be a Whole site redesign, what about all those guide entrys?
all those personal spaces?
what about the customability
will we still have control over how our own spaces look

right now we can see things pretty much how we want to, I'm not sure the proposed changes will be a good thing

It's worth noting that nobody said anything about a white background. That wireframe is a layout only.

When we lose "Plain" (OK, I know it's officially "unsupported" anyway) we'll lose our only semi-official method of applying our own stylesheets.

When we lose "Classic" we'll lose the only officially-supported method of using a framed page to view threads.

Apart from "colour and layout", these are two of my biggest concerns.

Those frames will be missed!

No Plain? but but, it's brilliant. It's never been 'officially' supported anyway, so it costs you guys sod all in development/tech support time, and it allows geeks to dick about with the way the site looks and feels, on the proviso that they don't come running to you when something goes wrong. Plus, it's great for using at work. Be a real shame to see it go.

Andy Approves BBC(HooToo)


Niiiice