Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix's New Web Interface Gets Thumbs Down From Users

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the where's-action-hero-donald-a-norman? dept.

Movies 267

Verdatum writes "Entertainment Weekly is one of many sites reporting the strong negative reaction from users of the new Netflix web interface. The new interface presents larger title images at the cost of visible ratings and the 'Sortable List' view. To see a suggested rating or view details, one must now first hover over each individual title. Netflix announced the new interface on Wednesday, in an official blog post. So far, the post has received thousands of negative comments, but only a few dozen comments by users believing the change is an improvement."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No surprise there (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36413928)

The old interface was fine, the new one is slow and is not sortable.

Re:No surprise there (5, Informative)

24-bit Voxel (672674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414004)

Agreed. Now I have to wait for the sideways scroll and it's all movies I've already seen. There are less icons on the screen so therefore fewer results and they scroll slower so it's doubly bad.

Re:No surprise there (5, Insightful)

immaterial (1520413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414246)

The scroll really is atrocious. You used to click the "next" arrow and it would quickly scroll in and entire new row. Now you have to hover the mouse over one end or the other (no visual feedback on that, even) and it will begin to slowly scroll them by, at a rate of less than one movie per second. To scroll through thirty movies used to take maybe five seconds, and now it takes upwards of thirty. For those who say, "Users always hate change!", I am a person who welcomes a new and improved interface, but this is out-and-out, unequivocally less useful and more time consuming to use than the old interface. How anyone thought it was a good idea is beyond me.

Re:No surprise there (0)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414360)

The new interface seems fine to me. I'm getting more vertical information than what I was getting before. Why scroll when you can search?

Re:No surprise there (1, Flamebait)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414516)

It is called browsing, dipshit.

Re:No surprise there (4, Informative)

immaterial (1520413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414536)

Search is great, when you know what you're looking for. If I want to look through the latest TV or movies they've added, it has to be no faster than 1 per second; the "see all" button doesn't exist, and there's no way to get a sortable list. If I want to browse through and find movies with good ratings - well, in addition to the slow-as-molasses scrolling, I can't see the ratings for the movies either unless I hover the mouse over each one one at a time!

Re:No surprise there (5, Interesting)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414608)

Why scroll when you can search?

To discover new, interesting stuff, or stumble across stuff you'd forgotten about. Yeah, if you always know exactly what you want to watch or add to your queue in advance, then the new interface is no problem, but I like exploring, and they've seriously messed that up. Probably 80% of my Netflix use comes from stuff I randomly stumbled across; the stuff I really really care about, I probably already saw in the theater or own.

Re:No surprise there (0)

Wandering Fire (2214566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414732)

I agree.

Re:No surprise there (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414588)

Yet they decided top mess with the web page instead of releasing a freaking application for android devices. If they have enough free time for web redesign, why not write the android app and leave the stuff that it's working fine alone?

Re:No surprise there (1)

roche (135922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414718)

I am not sure what you are talking about because they have a official app for Android.

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.netflix.mediaclient&hl=en

Re:No surprise there (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414800)

Thank goodness there's the Pirate Bay then... ;-)

Breaking story (1, Insightful)

Trillan (597339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413932)

Users hate change.

Re:Breaking story (2)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413954)

Yeah, nothing new with that. The same thing always happens with Facebook and even more so with slashdot. There's huge outcry on slashdot always when the interface changes. Then it goes over and like now, everything is good.

Re:Breaking story (3, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414030)

The new interface of /. is still less usable than the previous iteration(s). It was one reason why a significant blogging community fractured and departed a few years back, along with reliability issues and the easily abused moderation system.

This entire thread seems to be just an excuse for developers to pay no attention to usability issues. As usual.

Re:Breaking story (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414222)

I agree however I kept forcing slashdot to revert to the old interface(it was hidden but still in there)

right up until the last update. it was gone. I then got an email from slashdot why i kept switching back. I broke down the new interface and it's problems/ successes in a fairly detailed email on usability.

I finished up with something along the lines of the new developers seem never to have actually used slashdot before why would they understand how it works.

Right now I am using a hybrid interface, a lot of ajaxy parts, but moderating, comment sort, all look familiar. It works fairly well.

The only part I miss of the new designs was the instant moderating. no scrolling to the bottom of the screen to press the moderate button.

Re:Breaking story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414682)

> The new interface of /. is still less usable than the previous iteration(s).

And the previous iterations were less usable than the better usenet readers. Yet usenet is (essentially) dead for high quality discussion, and here we are on a web forum with a drastically inferior interface.

Re:Breaking story (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414032)

I would not know I am using the classic view on slashdot. I left fark when I had ultrafark and they added ads to even the paid portions of the site and made big changes. If netflix had a competitor I would be checking out their interface now.

Re:Breaking story (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414112)

dude. you paid for FARK???

Re:Breaking story (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414124)

Yeah, way back in the day. I meant totalfark, not ultra. It was many moons ago, and it had a pretty decent pay walled discussion section. Since they got more from the ads than the subscriptions they signed a deal with some advertiser that required the whole site have ads. That was the final straw for me. If slashdot ever kills off classic view I will probably have to leave.

Re:Breaking story (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414108)

Um, no. Everything is NOT good. This interface is totally fucked on some not-so-old browers and OSes.

Re:Breaking story (5, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414068)

This is legitimately a bad change. In addition to hiding the movie's ratings, they also hide the title, which isn't always clear from the picture. And the pictures are so big that on smaller monitors you can only see three at a time. And there's no button to scroll within a genre - you have to hover your mouse near the edge, revealing one new movie every second or so. It takes *much* longer to find something to watch, and the only benefit is that the pictures are a bit bigger.

Re:Breaking story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414428)

Yeah, it is lesson in bad design techniques. Bad from top to bottom.

Re:Breaking story (-1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414538)

Neah you don't get 'bad' or 'good' changes, only *different* changes. Any perceived improvement or deterioration is purely a figment of your imagination. Change for the sake of change is good, and you'll get used to it. At least in a few decades time.

Re:Breaking story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414258)

If users hate change then you are probably doing something wrong. It should be done iteratively with hints to help the users relearn the interface.

Re:Breaking story (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414304)

It also may mean that the change actually made the site worse.

Re:Breaking story (0)

Konster (252488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414290)

Source: Earth, Hitler, 1947.

Re:Breaking story (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414310)

Users hate having useful features removed from the front page. Before this change, the first thing on the front page when I logged in was "recently watched," which allowed me to instantly jump to the next episode of whatever series I was watching before. Completely gone now, I need to search to figure out where I was at. Freaking stupid.

Re:Breaking story (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414462)

Users also hate removed features...

Titles of movies removed (hopefully it is big enough on the picture). Seen it already, removed. Rated already, buried. Extra clicks to see reviews. Extra clicks to see star level. Slow scrolling compared to before. The ability to sort is buried somewhere or just gone.

This is a step backwards in usability. It *looks* cooler. It has the possibility to be better. But needs the above features back in. Classic case of form over function.

Oh and dont accidentally click on a movie. Starts it instantly. If you want to watch it or not (I have already done this at least 4 times).

More like someone bought an iPhone and thought it was the best interface ever. Missing the fact they had a very good organically grown one. The old one took only a couple of mins fiddling around to see how it worked. This new one, not so much...

Re:Breaking story (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414466)

Users hate change.

Clearly, users should just shut up and be grateful that developers know what's best for them, right?

Re:Breaking story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414714)

Developers have no say in such things. It is Marketing that dictates how customers will be abused.

Wasn't that bad (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36413958)

I used it today. It wasn't that bad, but I didn't really see the need to change from the previous interface.

Re:Wasn't that bad (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414098)

I used it today. It wasn't that bad, but I didn't really see the need to change from the previous interface.

Yeah. Haven't decided if I like it better or not (I know enough to play with something for a while until I've figured out what's good and bad about it) but I wasn't unhappy with the old one. The new side-scrolling feature looks nice, but frankly isn't all that usable. I wonder if they actually got much end-user input before they rolled it out.

Re:Wasn't that bad (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414562)

HA! I just checked it out, and the side scroll only uses 25% cpu time. On a T7900. It is cool looking and "clever", but not usable.

Generic user rant about changes on websites (-1, Redundant)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413964)

Bring back version n-1! It was clearly superior to version n, even though I said the same thing about n-1 when we changed from n-2 to n-1 and n has lots of features back from n-2 that I was disappointed was not in n-1.

Re:Generic user rant about changes on websites (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414354)

Ever considered that many many websites and programs have a interface that is going downhill since the last few versions?. I was actually having a discussion about this a while ago with a couple of non-techie and techie friends and everyone agreed, most company's fail at producing interfaces. Only a couple get it right.

Generic forum poster response (2)

immaterial (1520413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414592)

I am better than everyone else, so whatever just got posted I must disagree with! I will throw out some random cliche assumed to be true, and will ignore any actual factual information about the specific case at hand!

Re:Generic user rant about changes on websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414598)

No,

They have mostly made subtle improvements since I rejoined a year or so ago. This is quite a negative change and looks like the PS3 interface.

Besides simply looking like an interns first attempt at a new nifty CSS site with modern dancing bologna it is horribly inefficient. Why do I have to hover and scroll for ages.

It's not really a surprise as they have been unifying all of their platforms to this terrible terrible interface.

Generic developer response to upset users (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414656)

I worked for weeks on this update! It is clearly superior to version n-1, and even though it lacks some of n-1's features, nobody was using them anyway. What, you say you were using those? Every day? Well, then, you're using my program wrong! Besides, the new features in version n more than make up for any inconvenience. You say that the new features don't work in your os/browser? Impossible, I tested this update for almost a whole day!

Give it 2 weeks (1)

Stashiv (2042490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413984)

This happens everytime FB makes a change too... ppl rage, complain and threaten to quit. 2 Weeks later they couldn't live without the changes

Re:Give it 2 weeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414140)

And facebook today legitimately sucks to when it was originally released. Minifeed is still evil.

I hate Netflix. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414008)

The bandwidth usage has exploded on our network, and the two biggest culprits are Netflix and MLB.TV. We are considering requiring users who are detected using these services to have to subscribe to the highest service tier, or have those services blocked.

Re:I hate Netflix. (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414090)

The bandwidth usage has exploded on our network, and the two biggest culprits are Netflix and MLB.TV. We are considering requiring users who are detected using these services to have to subscribe to the highest service tier, or have those services blocked.

So, when you hear the words "net neutrality" do you immediately cover your ears and go "nyah nyah nah nah nah I can't Hear YOU!" at the top of your lungs, or do you simply catch fire and disintegrate like the vampires in the Blade movies? It's a serious question: inquiring minds want to know.

Remind me never, ever to order services from your company. Under any conditions. Whatsoever. Two things you should understand: a. sometimes you have to spend money to make money and b. the overriding need to "improve shareholder value at all costs" will not make a good defense when we come for you.

Re:I hate Netflix. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414180)

It's not about improving shareholder value or trying to piss off customers. The simple fact is that companies that don't rein in abusive bandwidth usage will not be around very long.
Streaming hundreds of megabits of video across a public network, when a simple trip to the corner video store to rent a DVD results in a better picture and 5.1 surround sound just makes no sense.

Re:I hate Netflix. (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414398)

Streaming hundreds of megabits of video across a public network, when a simple trip to the corner video store to rent a DVD results in a better picture and 5.1 surround sound just makes no sense.

And it never will if short-sighted people like you have anything to say about it.

Re:I hate Netflix. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414440)

Considering HD netflix is beats both the DVD picture and has 5.1 sound I will disagree. Also the corner video store has under 10k disks.

Using what you pay for is not abusing anything.

Re:I hate Netflix. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414602)

Neither is using what you don't pay for, according to the Slashdotter mentality. Bunch of greedy thieves.

Re:I hate Netflix. (1)

CTU (1844100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414818)

First, I don't have a video store anywhere close to where I live anymore.
second, As already stated, Netflix HD video is better then DVD and has 5.1.
Third, Netflix streaming is cheaper and has more of a selection then most video stores would have.
Forth, It is more convenient to just watch then to have to pick up a disk.
Fifth, It gives people more of a chance to check out movies/TV shows they would not normally see, If they don't like it, then they did not spend time and money renting it.
and you still thinks it does not make sense...?

Re:I hate Netflix. (1)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414514)

I do believe successful troll was successful right there ;)

Re:I hate Netflix. (3, Insightful)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414424)

The bandwidth usage has exploded on our network, and the two biggest culprits are Netflix and MLB.TV. We are considering requiring users who are detected using these services to have to subscribe to the highest service tier, or have those services blocked.

So what service are these people paying you for? Are they paying for an advertised known limited bandwidth service and then going over their limit? If that is the case then why not cut them off when they reach their cap??

Or are you just offering them "Internet" service. Then when they actually "USE" it, your panties get in a bunch?

The stories (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414010)

are getting more inane by the day.

Netflix API (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414014)

What Netflix really ought to do is publish an API and let people make their own interfaces.

Re:Netflix API (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414056)

This a million times this.
And please give a FREE and open method of playing it. I want to make my own view and have it work on any device.

Re:Netflix API (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414558)

And please give a FREE and open method of playing it.

Good luck getting Columbia, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal, and Warner to agree to that.

Re:Netflix API (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414762)

> I want to make my own view and have it work on any device.

It pretty much does work on any device. It uses Silverlight, which covers 99% of all desktops, notebooks, and tablets. It runs on Roku boxes, which uses Linux. OK, only 50% of phones right now, but that's increasing very rapidly and it should hit 90%+ of phones in a year or two.

Yes, it leaves out Solaris and that guy still running his old Atari ST, and the neckbeard with the PDP-11 in his basement, but at some point the fault is yours for choosing a platform that is so marginal as to not matter to the market in any sense. There are reasons people want DRM support, and this is a perfect example. If you chose a platform without DRM support, don't act surprised when you can't view some content. There is no obligation to support the 1% of the weirdest desktop environments that people can come up with. It just isn't worth netflix's time to worry about OpenSolaris or whatever. It's too small to make any difference.

Re:Netflix API (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414122)

They've had it published for a while.
http://developer.netflix.com/

Re:Netflix API (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414132)

Check out... http://developer.netflix.com/

Re:Netflix API (5, Informative)

kwerle (39371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414262)

You are being facetious, right [netflix.com] ?

I'm part way through writing my own interface that will let multiple users view their queues and juggle between them (so that people in the same household can manage each other's queues and see/set both people's ratings at the same time).

Re:Netflix API (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414390)

Third Party Applications

        [...]
        May not play Netflix movies inline, but may launch our stand-alone player when a member hits the Play button. Not available for Mobile applications.

So you can make interfaces but they ultimately suck. Also I think most would agree that being able to play on Linux is a priority. I don't think it's paranoid to assume that Microsoft gave away a board seat partly to ensure that would not happen.

Re:Netflix API (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414496)

How does that make them suck? Feedflix was better than the previous interface; lack of inline video support makes no difference. Finding appropriate titles matters and that's all.

Re:Netflix API (2)

kwerle (39371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414616)

So you can make interfaces but they ultimately suck. Also I think most would agree that being able to play on Linux is a priority. I don't think it's paranoid to assume that Microsoft gave away a board seat partly to ensure that would not happen.

... I guess interfaces you make may suck, but I intend for mine to be exactly what I want. And it seems likely I'll do that. I'm a programmer.

As for shunning linux, netflix runs on any number of linux devices.
http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices?cid=Game+Consoles [netflix.com]

What do you think those tvs, blu rays, etc run?

I like change, if its good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414044)

Perhaps the new netflix interface would be good for touchscreen interfaces, but if you're using a mouse and keyboard you're just needlessly complicating the process. Really, why should I have to mouse over to get more info on the movie? There are thousands and thousands of movies listed in their catalog, many of which I've never heard of or seen. I am not going to know what a movie is about simply by looking at its cover. Furthermore, because they have such a huge catalog, obfuscating the sort function is really just taking away usability of the Netflix service itself. If the basic functionality of the interface system wasn't broken or unusable, why update it and reduce functionality? Why not just slap a new coat of paint on it, but keep all the features intact? If they're really hooked on the aesthetics of the new design, they could just use CSS to superimpose a graphic displaying "more info" over the movie title, as well as graphics for the ratings.

That said, its not SO bad.

They just want to sell the mouse over info (5, Interesting)

PotatoHead (12771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414048)

and have some control over exposure.

Not sortable means you have to see more titles before you select one. For the person looking for a title that's bad. For the people wanting their title to be seen, and to know if there was interest in it, the new UI makes perfect sense.

How much do you want to bet they just log the mouse overs, seeing what people wanted to get detail on?

Re:They just want to sell the mouse over info (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414260)

It's also useful when you want to obscure the title selection's entirety.
1: there's always someone naive enough to think a dog flick that shows up on pages twice(3x's, 4x's) may be that good
2) the user base isn't acutely aware of just how limited the library really is.

Re:They just want to sell the mouse over info (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414736)

So basically you're saying that Netflix's actual customers are movie producers? Weird, that gives a vague hint of déjà vu.

Leaving well enough alone... not! (3, Insightful)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414050)

A lot of web sites that have tuned their main (and other) pages over time to be usable and accessible, often seem to think that a major change is "improvement". Sometimes it is, but often it isn't simply because they don't spend enough energy on validating functionality and usability with their users. Having a "try new interface" or "use old interface" options would help so that people can try out the new look, yet go back to the old one if the new interface doesn't work for them. Then, requesting active feedback from users will help them to make sure that all is working as they wish before deprecating the old interfaces. Like customers, the users are always right. New eye candy may not be what you need to be successful.

It's hideous (1)

mcl630 (1839996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414060)

I just checked it out... it is really, really bad. They only changed the "Watch Instantly" section, though, the DVD sections and queue tab haven't changed.

Who cares? (1)

Rheostatik (1628895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414064)

I couldn't care less what the interface looks like. I'm more concerned about the craptacular selection available in Canada.

Re:Who cares? (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414084)

There are only so many hockey and maple syrup documentaries available.

Re:Who cares? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414340)

Don't forget all of the Dudely Do Right episodes.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414528)

So move... to America? If I wanted to watch Canadian films I'd move to Canada, etc etc.

This was a bad enough change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414078)

That for the first time in my life I called customer support to complain. I use netflix streaming fairly regularly with my kids, and we couldn't find anything quickly. There are some aspects of the change I can adapt to, or ignore, but by and large, in the days of CSS there's no reason you can't offer more UX flexibility to the user.

I bet they change back (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414088)

I think they will change it back within a couple weeks. I also hate this new interface and I don't think it's a case of simple anti-change blues. It really is slower and less convenient, and feels more cluttered to me despite making certain features less convenient to access.

However, Netflix has a good history of listening to customer complaints. I remember a couple years ago they removed the ability to maintain two or more queues for multiple-DVD plans. However, people who had been using that feature complained and they pretty quickly brought it back.

Another example of form over function (5, Insightful)

mfearby (1653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414102)

This disease of making something a designer's wet dream at the expense of actual usability is becoming more and more widespread. It needs to stop! The same can be said of Unity or GNOME 3. Sure, taken as a stand-alone GUI art installation, it might turn some heads and get a few people excited, but if you have to use the darn thing for more than an hour, its inadequacy outshines the shiny!

The ultimate arbiter of whether a design or a change is a good thing should be whether or not you've increased the number of clicks/hovers/steps that a user has to go through to achieve the same task. If so, then bin it and start again. Sorry, but fancy interfaces won't win anybody over if you're pissed off simply having to use it. Just like a trophy bride, she might look nice, but eventually the nagging turns you right off.

Re:Another example of form over function (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414684)

Pff, gimme a break. Clicks/hovers? You're talking about a plumber. Designers are artists, their next job depends on what they did last. So what if the great unwashed panned it? Their opinions don't matter. When's the last time someone, anyone, admired an efficient plumbing installation? Designers are not in the same class, they are creatives not workers.

It's ghastly (2)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414200)

Netflix claimed they tested it, but who was in the test group? I never heard they were working on a new interface. There was no "check out the new interface demo". Nothing. It is freaking hideous. Clumsy, bulky, slow. I think they're lying about the testing. If they would have really tested that monstrosity it would have failed miserably.

I thought about down-grading my subscription for a month in protest.

Tablet Fever? (1)

wdavies (163941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414220)

Its unusuable. Thank god my secondary account still has the old school interface.

Netflix had been doing great, especially with the grouping multiple seasons of DVDs finally, and then they pull a stupid stunt like this. What were they thinking.

I wish to god whoever decided that making websites should only display well on iPads comes to a swift and painful death.

W

performance isn't the same either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414256)

I noticed some severe performance issues with the new layout as well. Many of the movies stop for a quarter second or so every few minutes. anyone else notice this?

The inability to sort by ratings is moronic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414266)

No text

Thay'll change it soon. (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414268)

The scrolling is too slow and there is no button to quickly flip the panels as before. The play button on the picture seems handy but overall, conevient browsing of movie titles are more important, so this redesign is an F. I might have to vote with my money by scaling down my subscription (It has been difficult to find good titles already).

Re:Thay'll change it soon. (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414322)

Hate to reply to my self but I just found out they only changed the "Watch Instantly" section. This leads me to think they might be intentionally discouraging people to watch too many movies. Maybe their servers are having trouble keeping up with the demand.

This is true (1)

itsphilip (934602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414278)

The first time I loaded the page, I honestly thought that the page didn't load right; that something was wrong with my browser/connection. THAT'S how bad it is.

Not good in Canada (3, Informative)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414282)

The problem with Netflix in Canada is that you can get only the online stuff (not the mailers), but both kinds are displayed, so when you see an interesting movie, you click then it says: sorry it is not available online. It's like Amazon a while ago when it was not possible to filter out the stuff that is out of stock. Very annoying.

Not as bad as the game console version (3, Interesting)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414284)

Just tried it out; the scrolling is awkward and annoying, but aside from that I don't see much to complain about. At least, not compared to the disimprovements they just added to the game console player (at least on the PS3), which is just horrible!

On the console, they used to have a hierarchy--you could go to a genre (e.g. Horror), then drill down to see various subcategories (New Releases, Zombie movies, B-Horror, Slashers and Serial Killers, etc.). That's all been replaced with a flat grid, where each row represents a single genre. This is particularly annoying with the psuedo-genres, "Independent" and "Foreign", each of which was subdivided into actual genres (Independent Comedy, Foreign Science Fiction), which were sometimes subdivided further (Independent Romantic Comedies, Japanese Science Fiction). Now all the indie and foreign films are in one big shapeless, useless pile. And it's a much smaller pile, which brings me to complaint two:

With the old, tree-structured interface, each sub-category (or sub-sub-category) could have up to a couple of hundred films to browse. There was a fair amount of overlap between sub-categories, but even so, this meant you could have well over a thousand films available in each category. Now, each main category seems to be limited to 75 movies max!

One slightly more minor disimprovement: they changed the layout so that slightly less room is available for descriptions. Most of their descriptions are still short enough to fit anyway, and some were too long even with the older layout, but there's definitely more that don't fit now.

Compared to all that, what they did to the web page is nuttin'!

Re:Not as bad as the game console version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414804)

sounds to me like you got downgraded to the old flash lite interface. The new html5 interface used on devices such as WDTV Live+ and WDTV Live Hub have the original interface you describe pretty much.

Do whatever but get rid of Silverlight (2)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414330)

Please, the video playback performance on it seems even worse than Flash if that's even possible.

(3 year old desktop system)

Oh, that's their new UI? (1)

Memroid (898199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414356)

I thought their CSS was just broken on their main page..

I like it (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414358)

I didn't even realize it was a redesign. I have a hard time finding anything at all I want to watch anyway, so I like having more crammed on the screen.

A very bad trend in online interfaces. (5, Insightful)

webdog314 (960286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414364)

It seems that web interfaces are simply doing away with the "click". It's as if designers were told "fewer clicks is better", and so they naturally thought that NO clicks must be best. I freaking HATE rollover interfaces. If I want to see the details, then I can avail myself to lightly depress my mouse button a millimeter or two. Otherwise, keep it the hell out of my face.

This new Netflix interface sucks.

Don't fix what isn't broken. (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414396)

This reminds me of the Digg 4 redesign. Why change something that isn't broken in the first place and turn it into complete crap in the process? I sincerely hope Netflix actually accepts the negative criticism and tries to fix it instead of thinking it knows better than its users.

Re:Don't fix what isn't broken. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414626)

The sad thing is they've publicly stated "most people love the change".

Who loves it? The public opinion so far has been negative. How the fuck can they say that most people love it when the outcry has been negative. Who are they in constant contact congratulating them on a job well done?

It is slower and harder to use... (1)

TavisJohn (961472) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414420)

I used to go through the "Watched Instantly" start page in a minute looking for new movies and such...
Now it takes SEVERAL minutes. to navigate it, AND I can get dizzy!
(I would like the Wii interface to be tweaked to get rid of the sliding covers.)

The interface sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414432)

I have to hover, then open a giant description to even add to my queue. Before I could just click three or four movies and then go to my xbox and watch for ank entire afternoon. Now it takes twice as long to do the same actions.

The Interaction designer needs to Ridiculed publicly for this. Oh wait, he/she is.

What's with the vendetta against menus and lists? (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414486)

Seems to be effecting everything lately.

Sounds like they're looking at Youtube's playbook. (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414554)

As any frequent and long-time user of YouTube knows, it is notorious for dumping stupid interface changes on the user community. Due to the massive negative outpouring that some of these generate, it's hard for me to believe that they perform any usability trials before release. There are still some remnants of this junk - most notably the gray bar at the bottom of the screen. This is probably the one least-used, most annoying "feature" that refuses to die. I hope Netflix isn't using the same methodology, because it doesn't work, and it doesn't require an MBA to figure this out.

No Genre Information (1)

Zibodiz (2160038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414620)

I don't mind the new layout, but what I really hate is the lack of genre information in the mouseover. A movie with a picture of an alien on the cover could be Scifi, Horror, Action, or even a Children's Program. Usually the description is not conclusive proof of which genre it falls into. When I'm looking over the 'new movies', I hate having to click the expanded description page to see if it's something I'd be interested in (Scifi & Action), and having then to hit back and then wait for the list to scroll back to where I was if it was a Horror or Children's film. I don't care about the rest of it... but having that hassle is really annoying. ~just my two cents.

DISPARIGING COMMENTS ARE ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414664)

Disparging commentszi is aginst der Furer.

NETFLEX ISH DER LIVE OF BEHOLDEN VOUNDERMERMENT.

NETFLEX must liv.

NETFLEX must liv.

BEHOLDEN ish der Furer.

SIG HEIL

SIG HEIL

SIG HEIL

--

Thank you (1)

Tigersmind (1549183) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414700)

I wasn't sure where to go bitch at. Appreciate the links.

Napster too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36414796)

The new Napster interface from Best Buy is a piece of shit too. Apparently it's the popular thing to do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?