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!

Yahoo! Sports Redesign Sparks Controversy, Disdain From Users

timothy posted 1 year,22 days | from the so-people-like-plain-and-readable-formats? dept.

The Media 172

coastal984 writes "Yahoo! launched their latest redesign over the past couple of weeks, revamping their utilitarian Yahoo! Sports section with a new-age, modernized look, which features a much darker, graphical background, and light, larger text. Only problem is, the sports buffs that frequented Yahoo! Sports loved the basic, easy to read and comprehend presentation that the old site used (Which was a predominately plain white background, and smaller, dark text. Thousands of users took to Yahoo's uservoice page to express their discontent, begging for the old design back."

cancel ×


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

One word (5, Insightful)

kodiaktau (2351664) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686529)


Re:One word (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686545)

And creepy. They have links on the front to nearby hockey teams. I know they track me, but at least pretend you do not know where I am and let me fill it in myself. Oh, and Go Senators!

Re:One word (1)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687111)

It didn't work for me. It gave me a bunch of New York City teams... However I am closer to Boston then NYC. Although I am in New York state.

Five Words (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686595)

Who the fuck uses Yahoo!?

Re:Five Words (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686709)

For sports news, many many people. It's honestly the one part of yahoo that is good.

Note: They don't just mash up news, they actually have a sport writing staff.

Re:Five Words (4, Informative)

BD (2930827) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687365)

Note: They don't just mash up news, they actually have a sport writing staff.

...that is better than many other major organizations, at that. Their Jeff Passan has been out in front of a good many breaking stories in the last several years, and their other guys are pretty solid, too. Best of all, they mostly don't go out of their way to start a "controversy or fluff story du jour" like other orgs do. (I'm looking at you, ESPN.)

Re:Five Words (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686771)

I'm guessing that's the cause of the redesign. Seems to me like changing the design of a popular product is a sure-fire way to kill it. Or in the case of facebook and MS, test how much you can piss off your users without them actually leaving.

Re:Five Words (-1, Troll)

rudy_wayne (414635) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686805)

Who the fuck uses Yahoo!?


I haven't been to Yahoo in a very long time, so I decided to check out the new sports page. What a piece of shit. When you concentrate on appearance rather than content, you have failed.

But, what do you expect from a company run by a stupid cunt.

Re:Five Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687231)

Wow, hyperbolic much. I really think you could tone it down a bit Chuck.

Re:Five Words (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686983)

Yahoo! is the place I get linked to by people when they couldn't come up with another place to link me to a syndicated AP article.

I use Yahoo sports pages a lot (4, Informative)

Andy Prough (2730467) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686845)

This is one of the worst design decisions I've seen in a long time. The whole key to a sports page is you've got to quickly digest a wide range of information. The old page design worked perfectly at giving you over 100 scores for up to 4 different sports at the same time, all the headlines, and the highlights of the blogs. This kind of busy, goofy blinding crap is what have killed AOL's and MSN's portals (in my opinion). Either one of them could have grabbed tens of millions of users from Google News, but they just aren't capable of delivering content without trying to overwhelm the user's eyeballs.

Re:One word (1)

Twinbee (767046) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686941)

Why? Is it the the slowness of it all (reminds me of, or the stark use of a white backdrop against a black backdrop maybe? (which yeah doesn't look great).

At least it doesn't have that stupid new fad of very light grey text on a white backdrop.

Re:One word (3, Insightful)

kramer2718 (598033) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686949)

Honestly, it isn't as bad as the Flickr redesign. That one was both uglier and far less functional.

Re:One word (2)

Andrewkov (140579) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686995)

I came here to say the same thing. Yahoo is on a roll.

Re:One word (2)

orgelspieler (865795) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687763)

I came here to say the same thing as well. I hardly use flickr at all anymore. Used to be a great community and a fun place to get feedback on your photos. I was even a paying pro member for years. It started with minor annoyances like "partners" offering services, even on pro account photos (which had strictly forbidden advertising). Now it's just way to Bing-y all the way around. Can't find a damn thing, and flowing all the photos in different sizes and shapes is just terrible. We need white (or black) space.

It seems like Yahoo! really doesn't try to get any feedback from their users before doing shit like this. Google's no better at getting feedback, but at least they're not so god awful about the execution.

Re:One word (2, Interesting)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686957)

Judging by the other replies, I seem to be one of the few people who actually finds the redesign to be easier to read. I always hated the old design, though I'm not a regular visitor of Yahoo Sports in any way. Come to think of it, that may be why - are we sure this isn't just a case of Change is Bad?

Re:One word (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686971)

I was ready to dismiss this submission as "who gives a fuck about a bunch of whiny twats upset that a page has changed". But damn if it isn't absolutely hideous, cluttered, and difficult to read.

Re:One word (1)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687133)

Ohhhh Change....

So this change is going to mess your productivity of what... Checking Sports scores. Yep that sounds productive to me.

Re:One word (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687409)


Why be a victim? Use Greasemonkey and all that ugliness will just melt away.

Oh, don't know how to write javascript code? Yes, that's a problem.

Are you kidding me? (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686541)

I figured the submission was overblown and whiny hate due to change.
But holy cow that site is HORRID. I hope some management gets fired.

Looking at it I can only think of this: []

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

kodiaktau (2351664) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686575)

I have been intentionally ignoring Yahoo! since they noted a logo change, because I didn't want to see the constant flap. Really this seems to go against reasonable design and tries to look too much like print magazine. Having a clean interface is much more important than having tons of background images and hard to read fonts. I just had a conversation with my daughter about the importance of typography in print material and right there on Yahoo! I see the rules thrown out the window.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

kimgkimg (957949) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686589)

The background is way too busy and distracting. Also white text on black backgrounds are not easier to read.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686599)

it looks like this horrid android theme i've seen
i used to follow some android themer on google plus and he was all proud of this mostly black theme that he spent days "creating"

Re:Are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686785)

Looks like Wayback is getting Slashdotted.

From what I could see of the old site, and the new site, the functionality changed to a side-menu rather than a top-menu. Didn't use the old, won't use the new, but my main complaint is the giant video advertisement bar at the top of the page. All other gripes pale in comparison to having 33%-50% of the on-load page area covered by an ad.

Re:Are you kidding me? (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687007)

My thoughts, exactly. It looks incredibly amateur and tends to violate every bit of readability common sense. Blech.

Both users complained? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686555)

>> Disdain From Users

Yes, both of them objected. (I don't really blame Yahoo for taking another shot at a service no one's used for the last ten years.)

Re:Both users complained? (2)

evilRhino (638506) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686611)

Although I have largely abandoned Yahoo for mail and most news, Yahoo sports (mostly driven by fantasy sports) is one of the only things still driving me to use Yahoo (I also use finance, though the commentary is horrid). Seems like they would be better served by allowing signed in users to theme the site as they like.

Re:Both users complained? (3)

mcmonkey (96054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686663)

>> Disdain From Users

Yes, both of them objected. (I don't really blame Yahoo for taking another shot at a service no one's used for the last ten years.)

Yahoo sports, particularly the fantasy sports, are pretty well trafficked. There's no competition from Google.

Re:Both users complained? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687241)

Yahoo sports, particularly the fantasy sports, are pretty well trafficked. There's no competition from Google.

I head a guy describe the system that he uses at, IIRC CBS Sports - and it involved paying a hundred plus dollars to CBS to organize a 'league' with his friends.

On the Internet, even. I don't know if Yahoo is charging, but apparently there is real money involved, and what sounds like a Freshman CS project running the 'matches' on the backend.

Re:Both users complained? (2)

rgbscan (321794) | 1 year,22 days | (#44688263)

Yahoo is the 'free-est' of the 3 main choices. The basic league is free. They have only really one optional pre-draft add-on (premium draft kits) and one optional post-draft add-on (Yahoo customer service will review your trades for a fee). ESPN also offers free and paid leagues, with a few more paid features. Then there is CBS who basically doesn't offer anything the other two don't, even though they charge close to $200, but the design is much more professional, they have real customer service, and the mobile app is better.

Really, I'm not a huge fan of the redesign but there sure are a lot of cry babies out there considering this is basically free all year long. I suppose that's why their userbase is so large. Yahoo is updating all of their properties, and the FF site hadn't changed since around 2003 with the addition of the drag and drop rosters IIRC. It's not great, but not terrible.... certainly a good start as long as they keep improving it.

They've added many new features over the last two years and really invested in making it the best FF site. Things like draft grades, "Compare my team", Weekly recaps of your players formatted into a personalized email, league pick 'em, easier import of keepers and previous managers (so I as a commish don't have to find and select them). I can see it's a work in progress, but they do keep moving forward.

Re:Both users complained? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687795)

I've been hosting my league at Yahoo for over 10 years now, including back when we used to pay for bonuses that included a trophy (or t-shirt) for the champion. While the new "look" of the fantasy sports section has some serious flaws, I must point out that they have done a lot of changes for the better over the last two years.

The information provided by Automated Insights is absolutely magical. Seriously, reading weekly recaps for your matchup is something everyone in my league looks forward to, and they've expanded that this year to include draft grades too. I like all of the changes to the "main" table on my league page, especially being able to view matchups right there. I like the changes they've made to simple things like league forums and commissioners notes.

I guess the TL;DR version of my opinion is: Yes, the reskin they draped over the website isn't great, but that will be updated, and the actual engines that run the fantasy section are still best in the business, and seemingly ever improving. I'll deal with it, especially since it's all free. That means more money for the prize pool!

Fuck me ragged (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686615)

Who gives a shit what a sub-section of an irrelevant website has done with their web design?

Get this shitty news off my internet.

Re:Fuck me ragged (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686723)

Because it highlights a general trend of websites ruining their layout in favor of bloated illconcieved crap?

Re:Fuck me ragged (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686787)

If a garbage website wants to hasten its own demise, I'm delighted. Just don't expect me to breathlessly follow every detail of exactly how it is fucking up.

Re: Fuck me ragged (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44688127)

It almost looks like MM is paid to torpedo Yahoo

such as Flickr (3, Insightful)

themushroom (197365) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686807)

No matter how the media says the product has lost favor, the millions using it -- who did NOT ask for a facelift to make it less computer-friendly and look more like a tablet -- beg to differ.

Re:Fuck me ragged (1)

ganjadude (952775) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687013)

Ive noticed ever since tablets have come out more and more pages going to a dark backround, I wonder if the dev is taking tab bat life into consideration when redesigning these pages. Anytime ive come across a phone/tablet friendly redesign ( is the worst) it tends to make it horrible on a PC. Page optimization for a pc vs a touch screen is not the same, as we saw with windows 8 and metro, I dont know why web devs think it can be work for their site.

Re:Fuck me ragged (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687119)

light text on dark background is easier to see and read on a transmissive device, like a computer monitor or tablet computer. dark text on light background is easier to read on a reflective device, like a Kindle or paper.

I just checked it out, and, well, it's easy to read, at least that page. The actual articles are still black text on white background, so changing from one to the other is glaring.

Rotten Guacamole (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686623)

First impression made by the color scheme was "rotten guacamole". What's worse is that the section landing page had a decidedly Web1.0 feel to it -- I was actually looking around the page for Geocities banner ads, blink tags and little monkeys to punch.

Shit layout, shit color scheme, completely unreadable, overly busy. Yahoo needs to lay off their entire design staff. They have obviously been cubicle squatting since the 90s and likely never been outside Yahoo HQ or to any other website other than Yahoo since then.

And W - T - F is up with their logo? It's like they are trying to cross brand a Fraternity with a Womens Lifestyle mag.

Re:Rotten Guacamole (1)

Nutria (679911) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686715)

The design reminds me of too-hip gamer sites.

Re:Rotten Guacamole (0)

Piata (927858) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687049)

Please don't ever use the term "Web 1.0" when discussing design. It's a meaningless buzzword that makes you look foolish. Kind of like saying the design lacks synergy.

Beyond that, I agree with you.

Fred Sanford quote: "I'm blind!" (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686645)

Jesus fucking christ! Who the hell thought that layout and design could in any way be considered good web design? Were they on acid or smoked a few joints that morning?

I didn't use that particular section but if I saw that concept on any other page on any other site I would never go back.

This is a perfect example of Rule #2: Never let a web designer design your web pages.

Re:Fred Sanford quote: "I'm blind!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686827)

I miss the old rule #1 that teacher's of web design once had:

If it don't load in less then 10 seconds on a 14.4k modem then it is an instant failing grade.

cheerfully ignoring Yahoo! since 1995 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686653)

I've been cheerfully ignoring Yahoo! since 1995.

Defeats the purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686657)

The white text on black background is rendered moot by the green baseball field image.

And this is nerd news... how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686681)

Just asking, 'cos I can't see how this qualifies as interesting.

Re:And this is nerd news... how? (1)

danbuter (2019760) | 1 year,22 days | (#44688129)

Because it's actually related to programming, unlike a large percentage of recent Slashdot posts?

CSS (2)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686687)

If only the W3 had created some mechanism whereby different people could have a different layout. Oh well.

Re:CSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686907)

Amen. I thought content was supposed to be separate from presentation. It seems like you could allow the users to choose which format they prefer.

Distracting... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686691)

The background image behind the text makes the text more difficult to read. Doesn't anyone at Yahoo have any usability design experience? It looks like Yahoo is going back to the days of the flaming logos. Gaudy design for the sake of gaudiness.

M.E.H. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686703)

It's not THAT bad...

But I guess I don't care anyway, this isn't the type of story I come to /. for.

Re:M.E.H. (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686797)

Well at least now you know how to bring back Yahoo! Sports once you close the tab. Now THAT's some good reporting!

Re:M.E.H. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686917)

It really isn't that bad, especially when (in my experience) most sports sites are riddled with autoplaying videos, which is a far bigger crime. The worst parts are laying text on tinted translucent backgrounds on top of background images, which is something that Apple recently showed off in ia demo of iOS 7, and the Yahoo logo has changed to a different type of hideous.

White text on black background? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686713)

Unless it's for a hackers/nerds website, stick with dark text on a light background.

Re:White text on black background? (1)

a_big_favor (2550262) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687299)

I love high contrast and my sports news.

Myspace Page (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686727)

They've really taken the circa-2004 Myspace page design aesthetic to heart on this one.

Yahoo underestimates their user base (1)

toygeek (473120) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686749)

I used to do computer repair work in an area where AT&T was partnered with Yahoo for email services and content delivery. The biggest complaint was that Yahoo wouldn't stop redesigning everything. I recall one older guy who needed zoomed text and low resolutions just to see his email. Took some work to get it so that everything fit *and* he could see it. The very next day, the guy calls and complains that we broke it. Yep, Yahoo changed their email design for the third time that year (It was June or so). This is the first time I recall an outcry of this volume, but I've heard it all before, one disgruntled user at a time.

The ironic part of this is that these same disgruntled people won't switch to another service because they don't like change. Go figure.

Don't blame the design staff (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686755)

For all we know, something like this [] happened, the CEO or someone from management got involved and they got the results we all just saw.


Re:Don't blame the design staff (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687027)

I would be surprised if Marissa Mayer had any input into this decision. She comes from a company that was all about being sparse and packing-in just the right information. This seems antithesis to her style.

this is not news to Flickr users (2)

themushroom (197365) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686761)

who have been subjected to some reallllly bad UI by Yahoo in the last few months.

Re:this is not news to Flickr users (1)

hondo77 (324058) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687545)

Or readers of Yahoo! News [] . They redesigned it a few months ago to be more stupid. I had to switch to Google News, which isn't ideal but it is less stupid.

Re:this is not news to Flickr users (1)

darkstar949 (697933) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687757)

Although oddly enough I've actually seen more traffic going to my Flickr account that was being driven by searches on Flickr. So it looks like they might have tweaked the searching under the hood as well which is nice, but the new UI on the other hand, cluttered.

Everybody wants to be Bing (4, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686781)

Everybody wants to be Bing. Why, I have no idea. Of course Bing didn't invent background images, but it seems like Google got scared by Bing (once again, why?) and started laying more eye candy on things. Then of course there's the infinite scrolling fad, which I call "tantalus scrolling" after the figure from mythology who was condemned to drink from a cup where the water level always lowered just below his lips. So. Yet another crappy Yahoo design doesn't surprise me. A lot of us defected from Flickr over this.

Anyway, long story short is that the web design community has collectively hit the crack pipe, and users have to live in the ghetto they create.

Re:Everybody wants to be Bing (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687415)

As someone who works with UI design and usability, there has been a definite change over the last years, where "usability" and "user experience" now means "all the latest fads" - infinite scroll, gradients, large type, "clever" solutions which make all the 30-something technology hipsters who designed the thing or read about it on someones tumblr go "Wow, sweet dude!", but leaves the bulk of ordinary users with an unusable design.

I say the cause is Apple - their products have excellent graphical design, used gradients and other cool graphical effects, but they were also extremely well designed from a functional point of view. It's easy to see the gloss but harder to recognize the 2nd.

It's also easy to copy the gloss, but it takes actual effort to achieve well-designed functional features. Thus, people mistakenly put umpteen layers of gloss in their products but do not address any of the underlying issues. Or, as seems to be the case here, they put so much gloss on it that the gloss itself becomes an issue.

I recently interviewed for a "usability" job where the guy was clearly alarmed that I did not spend all my time on Facebook and Twitter. He asked me to mention some "usability trends" that I liked. The question dumbfounded me, as "usability", for the last 30 years, has always about "get to know your users, design for them, test with actual users, correct the problems found, repeat". There is no "trend" in that.

I didn't get the job, but if it meant I won't spend my time actively worsening the lives of thousands of people, good riddance.

Re:Everybody wants to be Bing (1)

efitton (144228) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687633)

I would agree with this except for Apple being functional. My favorite example has to be that stupid green + that does something different every time you click it but pretty much never maximizes.

Re:Everybody wants to be Bing (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,22 days | (#44688247)

It actually does the same thing every time, it's pretty well defined. The problem is that you are viewing it through the lense of the windows paradigm, which doesnt apply on mac. This is not a windows "maximize" button that effectively makes the window full screen (minus window decorations) - it never was and is not supposed to be. It is a fit-window button that expands the window in order to show content. It will only expand the window to cover the full screen if the data it has to display for you actually needs that much space - otherwise it will become just wide and tall enough for that data to be displayed, but no more.

Some web designers think change must happen.... (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686823)

.... just because it can. And because they have to justify their existence. People who design physical products are aware that changing costs money and takes time; web designers have neither problem. The good part of that, of course, is that you can get information out there dynamically; the bad part is that people don't distinguish between changing the CONTAINER and changing the CONTENTS. The container shouldn't change, because people are used to using it.

Relevance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686849)

The relevance of this story can be accurately judged by the fact that nobody is willing to waste their mod-points on it.

What's there to say? "Yes, it's shit" or "What is this story doing on Slashdot?"

Users hate big, unexpected changes. (1)

metamarmoset (2728667) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686875)

News at ten.

Very similar to their Flickr remodel. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686889)

At Flickr, there were over 50,000 complaints in the help forum, people all hate the new design there.

It eats up bandwidth and RAM like crazy (over 10 times as much as the old version).

Yahoo/Flickr ignored all the complaints!

If you want an example of bad web design, try a Flickr search, it keeps loading more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more pictures all to ONE results page... it won't quit until your browser explodes! []

Try to get to the bottom of that page. Ha ha!

Note: the old search had reasonably sized thumbnails that you could sort, each page took about 2 seconds to load.

Every page on Flickr is screwed up that way. And yet Yahoo/Flickr continue to ignore the complaints (and suggestions on how to make the site useable).

Yahoo! Enhancement Suite Pliugin (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44686897)

Looks like a great candidate for a $.99 app with free desktop plugin.

Restyle it in the colors of your (fantasy) team, make the font huge, high-contrast, block ads.. Most of the pieces are lying around.

If I cared about sports, I'd be motivated.

Data Driven? Last Minute Decision by Marissa? (2)

Faizdog (243703) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686905)

The very well written biography of Marissa Mayer that recently appeared in Business Insider was very illuminating about the current ongoings at Yahoo. Marissa appears to be a very data driven person, always looking for "proof" of display/design feature ideas and concepts, even for whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide. []

Additionally, she had made a last minute change to the color scheme of the recently revamped Yahoo Mail which necessitated significant man hours at the 11th hour to implement and was detrimental to team morale and cohesion that had been painstakingly developed since her arrival.

I'm sure moving forward there will be more challenges like this that Yahoo will face. It will be interesting to assess whether they are due to the vestiges of incompetency at Yahoo as she believes, or due to her failings as a leader, because let's face it, according to the profile, this type of a UI design change would have had her hands all over it and would've needed final sign-off by her.

UI Design changes are by their very inherent nature controversial, people like things the way they're used to them. Marissa's approach was already problematic at Google, it had problems scaling as the company grew in size, but at least there were people there to manage and mitigate her. There's no-one at Yahoo like that. She is a very authoritative leader.

Disclaimer: I don't know her personally nor have I ever met her or met anyone who has met her. My impressions are all based on profiles of her like the one linked above (which I am not affiliated with but simply found interesting)

Re:Data Driven? Last Minute Decision by Marissa? (2)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687399)

Additionally, she had made a last minute change to the color scheme of the recently revamped Yahoo Mail which necessitated significant man hours at the 11th hour to implement and was detrimental to team morale and cohesion that had been painstakingly developed since her arrival.

If changes to a color scheme of... well... anything on the web require "significant man hours"
to implement there's something very very wrong with the development process of the web thing
being color schemed.

Not having ever used it before... (1)

elistan (578864) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686915)

I'd never visited before. From that perspective, I like the new format better. YMMV of course, but it makes me wonder how much of the outcry is about somebody's cheese being moved, and how much of it is about actual loss of usability and functionality.

Re:Not having ever used it before... (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687081)

UI should always be customizable. No two people like it exactly the same way. Find a default that seems to work for most people, but let people change it to avoid the (justified) complaints.

Re:Not having ever used it before... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687283)

I didn't care about the new design in the least, until I clicked on a featured article.

Then the middle section turned white with black text, that had absolutely no formatting. It looked like a 17-page wall of text, with the black vertical sidebars framing it in. HORRIBLE.

I immediately closed the tab, and went back to

Re:Not having ever used it before... (1)

elistan (578864) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687593)

I didn't care about the new design in the least, until I clicked on a featured article.
Then the middle section turned white with black text, that had absolutely no formatting. It looked like a 17-page wall of text, with the black vertical sidebars framing it in. HORRIBLE.
I immediately closed the tab, and went back to

I hadn't loaded an actual article until I read your reply, thanks for the prompting - now that I have, however, I don't see any issue with it whatsoever. White background, black text, no crazy formatting, no 12-page slideshow for a 6 paragraph article, no animations, no graphical background...? Sounds like an ideal in readability! Kinda like a printed book, you know?

(The sidebars are distracting however, I'll give you that.)

Every time. (1)

elvum (9344) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686933)

This happens every time a popular website (or application) is updated with a redesigned UI. The fact that thousands of users are complaining tells you nothing about whether the average user finds the site easier to use. The fact that people are posting here on Slashdot to say that they personally dislike it also tells you nothing. Fundamentally, people hate having change imposed on them, particularly if they don't know or agree with the reasons for it. And frankly even if Yahoo's existing users overwhelmingly hated the new design, it could still be the right decision for the company - they need to attract new users from other services, not satisfy their existing dwindling base.

It always happens (1)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686937)

Idle developers are the devil's playthings. If you've got programmers on staff, they're never going to say 'Hey, that's pretty good, we're done.' Their continued desire to draw a paycheck requires them to constantly fuck with stuff that works until it doesn't, so then they can get paid to fix it.

Re:It always happens (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687321)

On the other hand, if you have a really good developer they will tell you that "pretty good" is the enemy of "excellent."

But, if they happen to be a really good developer they will not break shit that works properly, and look to improve what doesn't.

What is with all the terrible UIs lately? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | 1 year,22 days | (#44686999)

Has anyone else noticed that damn near EVERY UI project out there is getting a terrible redesign? MS, Google, yahoo all are in the process of fucking up common interfaces for the sake of....well, I really don't know, but they seem to have a goal.

Hell, the last /. redesign kind of fucked things up too, now that I think about it. A lot of common pages were buried several links deeper than they used to be. I can't tell if that was done to increase ad impressions or if the designers are just morons.

Re:What is with all the terrible UIs lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687335)


The history of user interfaces is riddled with failure. Awful failure.
And not just in software.

These kind of redesigns just don't surprise me any more.

Re:What is with all the terrible UIs lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687587)

MS, Google, yahoo all are in the process of fucking up common interfaces for the sake of....well, I really don't know, but they seem to have a goal.

I figure it's their response to the NSA making them cough up info on all their customers. See, if they drive away all their customers, they won't have any data to turn over to the NSA! Brilliant!

They broke Yahoo Finance, too (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687011)

Yahoo Finance, which was very popular in the financial community, has also been "redesigned". Yahoo Finance was popular because you put in a ticker symbol and you got a chart and all the key performance numbers on one screen. Yahoo was the first to have stock charts where you could easily change the time period displayed, and investors liked that.

Now, there are four rows of Yahoo menu bars at the top of a stock symbol page. There's a big Flash ad at the top. There's a "trade now" button. ("Please provide feedback on the new Trade Now function.") There's another ad. There are links on the left. That's all you get "above the fold", before scrollling.

Below the "fold", there are some links to "reports" Then there are those annoying "Ad topics that might interest you" links. (Not Outbrain, Yahoo does this in house.) There's a table of the top holdings in the fund. Continued scrolling finally gets to the numbers that matter: YTD return, 5-year return, beta, etc.

Yahoo has completely missed the point of why investors go to a page like that.

Looks fine to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687759)

A (too) small chart on the right, pertinent numbers in the center, many, many links on the left and more menus on top. All that served with relative simplicity, same as it always has been.

Though I am running ABP and NoScript. 21 individual items blocked of the domains I allow and three domains blocked with who knows how many more unwanted items and further domains through that content. The advice is obvious: block everything by default, allow only what is needed.

Yahoo Games (1)

puddingebola (2036796) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687025)

Years ago they revamped yahoo games, shifted to Flash based board games, destroyed all my games history in Backgammon, Dominoes, Gin, and Poker, and I never really went back.

I hate light text on black background (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687035)

You know that effect when you accidentally look into a light source and you see a hazy form that obscures your vision for a bit? I get that when I look at white text on black backgrounds. After reading it, I see lines of blur in my eyes. That can't be good.

Re:I hate light text on black background (1)

coop247 (974899) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687317)

I agree this is bad, but then to put a multicolor background image behind it all just destroys your brains ability to quickly recognize the shape of words.

Half of a word is white on dark green, the other half is white on brown. That is terrible.

Re:I hate light text on black background (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687877)

I agree this is bad, but then to put a multicolor background image behind it all just destroys your brains ability to quickly recognize the shape of words.

  Half of a word is white on dark green, the other half is white on brown. That is terrible.

It's terrible! As one of the 3 people who still use Yahoo for portal-duties, I've been reading Yahoo sports for years. The old layout was great - simple, easy to read, and got the job done. This new one is atrocious. I wouldn't even care about the light-on-black color scheme if it wasn't for that horrific background behind the text. Seriously, who thought that would be a good idea? I also hate the new layout. It's super cluttered, (like most of the new Yahoo!? redesigned sites).

Disdain for Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687163)

Personally, I avoid Yahoo like the plague! I have many friends that have ATT and they have their email service as Yahoo email. These friends do not know much about how to choose a different email provider. They always complain of all the GUI changes that Yahoo does. Now the email GUI is just one of the GUI changes that Yahoo does. Can't they think of the pain they are causing their users (particularly those that are new to computers)?

Frightening... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687437)

What is frightening about the sports page redesign is that yahoo most likely will eventually carry that awful theme across all the yahoo sites.

I'm not sure why (1)

danbuter (2019760) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687637)

I'm not sure why, but most recent UI redesigns have just been crap (Ubuntu, Gnome3, Yahoo, Deviant Art, etc). What is it with the UI guys that they just have to go with a bunch of unnecessary bling, that hides the actual content and daily use features?

Re:I'm not sure why (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44688053)

Let me take a shot: It's kind of like the drummers of bad indie bands: There are all these annoyingly terrible complex drum beats instead of being a role player in making the song better and simply keeping the rhythm of the song. Likewise, the UI guys seem to be focusing on "Hey look what we can do! Look at us!" instead of just supporting the content by making clean, appealing, and FUNCTIONAL designs.

dWoot.. fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687713)

don't feel that there are to the original parts of you are []? project faces a set obvious that there

I am all for darker backgrounds (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687753)

So long as the contrasts are handled properly (no funky backgrounds that obscure lighter text in some places). Lighter backgrounds stress out my eyes.

color blindness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687797)

White text on a green background? Haven't they heard of color blindness? They lost a good percentage of their audience on that alone.

In other news.. (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | 1 year,22 days | (#44687945)

Yahoo follows in the footsteps of Microsoft and denies the popular request of users.

oh my god (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44687991)

this is awful. i had to post a comment. oh my god.

Aeeeeeigghhhh! My eyes oh god my eyes my eyes... (0)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | 1 year,22 days | (#44688227)

It never ceases to amaze me that web designers will take a page that contains utilitarian information (like sports scores) that needs to presented in legible, dense, organized fashion and insist on bloating it with useless junk until it's unusable crap that takes forever to load, eats resources, doesn't work in a lot of browsers, and inflicts their idea of "style", no matter how hideous, on users.

This is one of those cases. Yahoo Sports has apparently failed to notice that the ideal design model for a sports page can be found in any decent newspaper: scores up front, box scores inside, stories to follow. Simple. Easy. Fast-loading. Quick to code. Works in any browser including the text-only ones. Easy to generate from scripts. Easy to parse. Fast to update. Dirt-simple and thus hard to break.

In other words, the antithesis of this crap, which looks like something an art-school sophomore just in from an all-night binge would cook up....and is, unfortunately increasingly typical of sites that aren't content to just use designs that work, but feel the need to change things...because change.

too hard to read (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | 1 year,22 days | (#44688289)

IMHO, white text on black is nearly always an amateurish design, bereft of creativity and solid design technique. I avoid reading such sites because I find them tiresome on the eyes. Just give me plain ol' black type on a white/light coloured background. That provides the most contrast is thus easiest to read, for me at least.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>