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

The people who did the redesign have a website. Here's their portfolio page about the redesign plus a pretty picture of the new H2G2 FP. Notice the date on that post.

http://www.aerian.com/portfolio/bbc.co.uk/h2g2_web_design_relaunch_user_testing

What I find worrying about that link Kea is this part where they say:-

"From our analysis of this data, we were able to create a toned down version of the Hitchhikers brand, that answers both these design problems."

I don't recall when the site changes were first mooted that we wanted a 'toned down' version of hootoo. Quite the reverse, we wanted its functionality, its quirkiness and its individuality. Is, as a result of the above comment, the reason we've been landed with the new site the way it is?
When did they take on board our views/comments/suggestions? There's been beta testing, user testing at the beeb, (by current researchers) yet it appears a lot of the issues on the new site were already noted prior to launch yet not rectified for launch.

I think the Eds and the tech guys at the beeb have some questions to answer frankly.

I read that as being a toning down of the visuals. But you're right, it makes sense in terms of the loss of function

I started a thread in Ask about the user testing at the beeb (no-one's replied yet). I'm really curious as to what was tested. Other than that, they had the MoT in 2009, and then the beta testing Nov 2010. I resent their implication that they consulted with us. They didn't. They had the redesign visuals sorted in April 2010 and we weren't told about it until November when it was a done deal (please someone correct me if I'm wrong on that, but didn't we get the layout without the graphics earlier in the year, but that picture with the dolphin wasn't shown to us until November?).

The beeb were told before April and before the general election that they had to re-look at all online content and it had to slim down on some whilst promoting others more. As a result, following the election, they started revamping across the whole of the online site starting with news and current affairs. This was swiftly followed by a cull of message boards and the new 'Barlesque' look starting to appear. Hootoo was considered a 'one off, special case' hence the MOT, beta and user testing. We're the last of the bigger parts of BBC online to undergo such changes. I really do hope what we've been given/got isn't the final outcome and that the usual tweaking here and there will happen over the next few weeks.
It'll be interesting to see the Eds response on Monday when they've read all the feedback/comments so far.

Indeed.

So it's not small effort that's been put into the site?

To be fair to the beeb, they undertook what was a herculean task in a relatively small amount of time and in the main, got things right. There was the usual cries of 'its awful, bring back the old' from across the whole sphere of the msg boards and other forums. Overall though, things got better and as with any major change it takes time to bed down and things to settle. The BBC have a dominant position but also had to be seen to be fair to other broadcasters and there online content. In other words, the beeb couldn't have or create a 'monopoly' online. As the web in general moves on in terms of look and design so the beeb have to, its finding that happy medium of doing things all the same and being sufficiently different to encourage more 'traffic'. Thats where hootoo stands out, its differeent, quirky, fulfils a role and meets the BBC's criteria for keeping it going.

(no I don't work for them. )

>To be fair to the beeb<

I don't understand. They started a thread called, 'The new H2G2 is alive and kicking' on a friday afternoon. And the first 3 words were 'Good news everyone'. Well that's a downright lie. It most certainly *not* good news for everyone, from what I've been reading here.

But it's certainly kicking, so it's probably best that most of us protect our teeth from now on.

If you'd like to climb down off that high horse a moment and read the post in its entirety, (and the ones previously) you'll see I was referring to the BBC wide changes not just hootoo.
I'm not going down the 'negative reaction' road, simply because I'm prepared to wait and see how the more calm and reasonable feedback issues are dealt with when the Eds and tech guys are back from Monday onwards.
Constructive and meaningful criticism/feedback is likely to be met with constructive and useful changes in IMHO.

>I'm not going down the 'negative reaction' road,<

I am. Many people here have been here for years. There's older people, people with disabilities etc, people for whom this site is a 'lifeline'

I was quite shocked when I read how upset some people were. And I thought more about it. The BBC clearly only care about some people.

I've only just spotted this in Ask, from Damnyoureyes, one of the techies. It's an explanation and reassurance that they are trying to sort this out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=8015465 I'll cross post in the other threads in case anyone else hasn't picked that up in Ask.

Since Effers mentions disabled people...

One of the things I just don't get is that, while the rationale for the change was to bring hootoo into line with other BBC sites, the accessibility standards on the new skin fall way short of every other BBC site (and indeed nearly every other site that *has* accessibility guidelines).

I don't know who they paid to come up with it, but I'd be asking for a refund.

Yes, and someone pointed to Ouch yesterday, so why don't we have the same standards as that?

I've been waiting since the beta test for things to settle down before I tackle the font issue. The font sizing is bizarre and looks like its been designed by someone who has never had to increase font size in their browser.