BBC have launched a new design for the sports pages on the web, anyone else that the relaunch is more of a cut the cost exercise, its in serious danger of moving in the direction of the Football league designs
They have been redesigning the site for a while, BBC are rolling out a redesign accross the whole of the website. It's no secret the BBC are cost cutting nearly every aspect of their services. The biggest shame is that so many people are set to loose their jobs, I know dozens of decent folk who will be out of their job within 18 months.
It's disgusting - thought I'd got onto a Norwich site by accident! MUCH harder to get from the front page to the lower leagues now - you need to navigate a bloody drop-down which is murder on a mobile!
Just added some 'feedback' for them to chew over...
The BBC's pathalogical hated of non-Premiership football was already obvious to anyone who tries to watch the Football League Show. Was it also necessary to remove all reference to non-Premiership leagues from it's Football webpage?!
But seriously - the drop-down to access non-Premiership pages :
a) It easily confusable with the other, more visible non-Premiership drop-down, which just shows the fixtures. (to get the league table there's ANOTHER drop-down!) b) Once realising 'that's not it', it took several minutes to find - buried admidst in the visual cacophony, like an embarrassment you hope no-one will notice c) For mobile users, what used to take 1 click, now takes 4
General comments :
Was the colour scheme chosen in honour of the "For Dummies" books the designers were reading to make it? I'm glad I don't have a hangover.. Far too busy and visually confusing
Whatever happened to "If it's not broken, don't fix it"?
They really do need to update their pages more quickly. Someone could check this page and think our game was still on today. Last updated yesterday at at 13.52
What I liked about the old site was there was a semblance of democracy,in that it was (almost) as easy to link your team if you were a Charlton supporter (or Crawley/Gillingham/insert any team you like) as if you were a Man U supporter.
That no longer seems to be the case. The design of the new site is built around a hard-nosed analysis of what gets most 'hits' -i.e. the big premiership clubs. Understandable, perhaps ,in commercial terms. But a shame, nevertheless.
Don't like one feature in particular. Before, you could instantly click between divisions to get latest scores - now you seem to have to click 'update'. That's hopeless
They have been redesigning the site for a while, BBC are rolling out a redesign accross the whole of the website. It's no secret the BBC are cost cutting nearly every aspect of their services. The biggest shame is that so many people are set to loose their jobs, I know dozens of decent folk who will be out of their job within 18 months.
Do you work for the bbc? I used to in, internal comms as the art director. What amazed me was how many people they used as 'outsourced' third party suppliers. The bbc Salford project was one such. I applied for a job at a design company, and saw there show reel, with my mug on it, as well as a photo that i had taken...... As the 'face of journalism' of the bbc, none of us actually work there any more? as you sadly report there will be even less with the move to Salford? Of course it sounds like sour grapes from myself, if I attack the bbc and web design? Frankly re: the design 'The hanging format at the bottom of the page, looks a bit poor, but then it is probably a 'tenplate' with the text and pics flowed in?, put in by a 'graduate'. They must also pay a fortune to third party photo agencies, as bbc sport photographs were virtually non existent when I was there?......
I will and try help off _it...... Although like the move to Salford I cannot see a financial reason for it as BBC worldwide was empty in White city, BBC TVC will be half empty , if not already, and BBC magazines are moving out, I understand to Hammersmith, having been flogged off. You are stuck with TVC as a listed building so the BBC retirement home seems like a good bet to me?
To answer your question directly, you can assemble the material into tenplates , once formatted you do not need designers, or photographers, or sub editors, or anyone like an editor, essentially it is headline writing, and with respect most of the editors struggled to do that anyway? I assume they have an arrangement with Getty images/PA for your photographs of News,Sport, etc. and you can 'slice and dice' information for a variety of content. BBC demand copyright or IPR for all there photographs of shows and talent ( although this is becoming more difficult as most of the prog's are made by ex bbc independent producers anyway, like hat trick,) Of course photographers and designers like myself lose out as my photographs get re-used till dooms day. A point in mind is the Jonathan Ross/Brand still they use. I do not get a penny, do not own the copyright. The bbc are not alone in this, all publishing houses, are, and have done this. The BBC trust have also said that the bbc needs to reduce it's online content, as it has an unfair advantage having 150 graphic designers producing web pages. Hence the 'outsourcing' like bbc personnel. I once saved 50 per cent costings on a well known magazine, by 'reviewing' arrangements and contracts. Good design is about solving problems, and delivering information, in a clear concise manner,most publishers I have worked for would not know a good design if they fell over it? Why should they? most are from the marketing/advertising industry. harsh but true?
Thanks Ken. So what you're saying is that although it will take time and money to produce the new design, once it's up and running it should be easier to run and need less time/money spent on it (i.e. staff) going forwards. Is that right?
Personally I'm not really pro or anti BBC. However, I did read once that for any given event they could send people to cover it from BBC News, BBC London News, BBC World Service and the BBC website - which sounds completely barmy to me!
Thanks Ken. So what you're saying is that although it will take time and money to produce the new design, once it's up and running it should be easier to run and need less time/money spent on it (i.e. staff) going forwards. Is that right?
Personally I'm not really pro or anti BBC. However, I did read once that for any given event they could send people to cover it from BBC News, BBC London News, BBC World Service and the BBC website - which sounds completely barmy to me!
well that is the stratergy? we shall see? Ironically I did tv at art college at Croydon I think we had the first tv studio at any college in 1970. A/V I am told is the way forward?..... That is why my former editors have been classified as 'broadcast journalists' so they can work on this material. Of course modern technology has made it very easy to produce a decent video report, (autofocus etc.) You have the idea with multi bbc departments all sending there own teams, this was a nonsense, especially when they would fly in big name presenters? Okay they might not be as slick, but most bbc staff do an excelllent job, and like the NHS do it as a public service broadcaster. The 'talent' that is another debate? Most news services will I am sure have a 'source' and edit and voice over in future. Of course there is immense savings, and hopefully better local reporting. The bbc has it's faults, but if you take the news international with Murdoch I think most of us appreciate what the bbc does. Could it do it 'better', of course? The dreaded football league show is a source with a voice over and a bit of ' magazine/colour' with a couple of 'pundit's in the studio. I am not convinced personally?
Looks like the way they are going to save money is by not updating it. This afternoon's games finished well over half an hour ago and they still haven't updated the league table.
Message to BBC officials: Your task is to inform and entertain. If the information that you provide isn't complete, correct and CURRENT, it becomes neither informative nor entertaining. This needs sorting out, because a league table that's not up to date is useless and so are the webpages that publish it.
I can't find the vidiprinter but that's probably me but they do seem to have got rid of any reference to non league bar the conference i.e. they used to cover the conference south & north results & tables.
It's junk. Not just football coverage either. There used to be some basic business news, like stock indices, on the home page. Now you have to search through about three levels down in the news section.
This and BBC were my main sites- BBC will not be visited so often from now on as it just is too fiddly - The watchword for modern living is change, which can be a very good thing, but what gets lost sometimes is that change shouldn't be made for changes sake. There was nothing wrong with the BBC site- it was clear and easy to navigate- not so anymore!!!!!
I can't find the vidiprinter but that's probably me but they do seem to have got rid of any reference to non league bar the conference i.e. they used to cover the conference south & north results & tables.
no it's not - the league predictor has been dropped completely
And of course the league table updates have suffered. last season you actually had position changes during the matches and whilst it was pretty meaningless it added to the entertainment during the match ... last game of the season and for 20 minutes we were promoted, I remember on the match thread discussing our position during a game.
I believe a lot in the BBC and no doubt this is a change due to the need to show budget savings and I suspect that there is an element of "What do you expect if we have to cut costs" but I also believe that the BBC should be measured on how they appeal to minorities and in footballing sense the lower leagues sort of go in that direction. Every body covers the Premiership, less coverage would not necessarily affect the Premier League or fans. However, the BBc remit is not about popularism or tv ratings and could do a good job on the lower leagues (The Championship being one of the top supported leagues in Europe is another reason for lower league coverage).
I believe a lot in the BBC and no doubt this is a change due to the need to show budget savings and I suspect that there is an element of "What do you expect if we have to cut costs" but I also believe that the BBC should be measured on how they appeal to minorities and in footballing sense the lower leagues sort of go in that direction. Every body covers the Premiership, less coverage would not necessarily affect the Premier League or fans. However, the BBc remit is not about popularism or tv ratings and could do a good job on the lower leagues (The Championship being one of the top supported leagues in Europe is another reason for lower league coverage).
I agree with this but it's a difficult balance for them to strike. Whilst they son't necessarily have to go chasing populist programming, they do have to try a put something oit for everyone and some people only like populist stuff. The popular programmes like Top Gear, Sherlock, Dr Who etc also earn money by selling overseas.
Also, if any one part of their programming doesn't draw enough viewers/listeners, they will come under pressure to cut it - especially when you have a Conservative government in power who's natural political leanings do not lend themselves well to a heavily supported public service broadcaster. That's why 6 Music and BBC Four where under threat and not Radio 1.
I haven't spent a massive amount of time on the new website yet, but I'm sure it will be fine once people get used to it.
I live outside the UK now so I'm not paying a licence fee anymore. I'd happily pay double for it though if I did live in England still. I think you get an awful lot for your money when compared to something like Sky and, even now, most of the best 'original' content broadcast in the UK gets put out by the Beeb.
also there is no non-league section anymore... yet another instance of the media only caring about the professional game.
There is .. go to the football page and click on (e.g.) Conference Premier in the league table dropdown box. Click on any team in the table and that links to a section on that club .. On the 'dedictaed club' page is a link to general conference news and views. That's probably a round about way of getting there. I find that the news pages, both sports and less important stuff like wars, financials and death, doom and destruction are little changed. Only the access has been made more confusing and complicated, all done in the name of improvement.
Comments
It's no secret the BBC are cost cutting nearly every aspect of their services. The biggest shame is that so many people are set to loose their jobs, I know dozens of decent folk who will be out of their job within 18 months.
MUCH harder to get from the front page to the lower leagues now - you need to navigate a bloody drop-down which is murder on a mobile!
Complaints...er, comments can be made here : http://ecustomeropinions.com/survey/survey.php?sid=878133413The BBC's pathalogical hated of non-Premiership football was already obvious to anyone who tries to watch the Football League Show. Was it also necessary to remove all reference to non-Premiership leagues from it's Football webpage?!
But seriously - the drop-down to access non-Premiership pages :
a) It easily confusable with the other, more visible non-Premiership drop-down, which just shows the fixtures. (to get the league table there's ANOTHER drop-down!)
b) Once realising 'that's not it', it took several minutes to find - buried admidst in the visual cacophony, like an embarrassment you hope no-one will notice
c) For mobile users, what used to take 1 click, now takes 4
General comments :
Was the colour scheme chosen in honour of the "For Dummies" books the designers were reading to make it? I'm glad I don't have a hangover..
Far too busy and visually confusing
Whatever happened to "If it's not broken, don't fix it"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16778901
What I liked about the old site was there was a semblance of democracy,in that it was (almost) as easy to link your team if you were a Charlton supporter (or Crawley/Gillingham/insert any team you like) as if you were a Man U supporter.
That no longer seems to be the case. The design of the new site is built around a hard-nosed analysis of what gets most 'hits' -i.e. the big premiership clubs. Understandable, perhaps ,in commercial terms. But a shame, nevertheless.
How does that save money? Don't get it.
I used to in, internal comms as the art director.
What amazed me was how many people they used as 'outsourced' third party suppliers.
The bbc Salford project was one such.
I applied for a job at a design company, and saw there show reel, with my mug on it, as well as a photo that i had taken...... As the 'face of journalism' of the bbc, none of us actually work there any more? as you sadly report there will be even less with the move to Salford?
Of course it sounds like sour grapes from myself, if I attack the bbc and web design?
Frankly re: the design 'The hanging format at the bottom of the page, looks a bit poor, but then it is probably a 'tenplate' with the text and pics flowed in?, put in by a 'graduate'.
They must also pay a fortune to third party photo agencies, as bbc sport photographs were virtually non existent when I was there?......
Surely it costs money - and time - to do, particularly if they using outside contractors, so where's the saving?
Confused.
Although like the move to Salford I cannot see a financial reason for it as BBC worldwide was empty in White city, BBC TVC will be half empty , if not already, and BBC magazines are moving out, I understand to Hammersmith, having been flogged off. You are stuck with TVC as a listed building so the BBC retirement home seems like a good bet to me?
To answer your question directly, you can assemble the material into tenplates , once formatted you do not need designers, or photographers, or sub editors, or anyone like an editor, essentially it is headline writing, and with respect most of the editors struggled to do that anyway?
I assume they have an arrangement with Getty images/PA for your photographs of News,Sport, etc.
and you can 'slice and dice' information for a variety of content. BBC demand copyright or IPR for all there photographs of shows and talent ( although this is becoming more difficult as most of the prog's are made by ex bbc independent producers anyway, like hat trick,) Of course photographers and designers like myself lose out as my photographs get re-used till dooms day. A point in mind is the Jonathan Ross/Brand still they use. I do not get a penny, do not own the copyright.
The bbc are not alone in this, all publishing houses, are, and have done this.
The BBC trust have also said that the bbc needs to reduce it's online content, as it has an unfair advantage having 150 graphic designers producing web pages. Hence the 'outsourcing' like bbc personnel.
I once saved 50 per cent costings on a well known magazine, by 'reviewing' arrangements and contracts. Good design is about solving problems, and delivering information, in a clear concise manner,most publishers I have worked for would not know a good design if they fell over it?
Why should they? most are from the marketing/advertising industry. harsh but true?
Personally I'm not really pro or anti BBC. However, I did read once that for any given event they could send people to cover it from BBC News, BBC London News, BBC World Service and the BBC website - which sounds completely barmy to me!
Whenever I see this sort of thing, I assume it's somebody doing something to justify their job.
Ironically I did tv at art college at Croydon I think we had the first tv studio at any college in 1970.
A/V I am told is the way forward?..... That is why my former editors have been classified as 'broadcast journalists' so they can work on this material. Of course modern technology has made it very easy to produce a decent video report, (autofocus etc.) You have the idea with multi bbc departments all sending there own teams, this was a nonsense, especially when they would fly in big name presenters?
Okay they might not be as slick, but most bbc staff do an excelllent job, and like the NHS do it as a public service broadcaster. The 'talent' that is another debate?
Most news services will I am sure have a 'source' and edit and voice over in future.
Of course there is immense savings, and hopefully better local reporting.
The bbc has it's faults, but if you take the news international with Murdoch I think most of us appreciate what the bbc does. Could it do it 'better', of course?
The dreaded football league show is a source with a voice over and a bit of ' magazine/colour' with a couple of 'pundit's in the studio. I am not convinced personally?
Message to BBC officials: Your task is to inform and entertain. If the information that you provide isn't complete, correct and CURRENT, it becomes neither informative nor entertaining. This needs sorting out, because a league table that's not up to date is useless and so are the webpages that publish it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/league-one/table
I believe a lot in the BBC and no doubt this is a change due to the need to show budget savings and I suspect that there is an element of "What do you expect if we have to cut costs" but I also believe that the BBC should be measured on how they appeal to minorities and in footballing sense the lower leagues sort of go in that direction. Every body covers the Premiership, less coverage would not necessarily affect the Premier League or fans. However, the BBc remit is not about popularism or tv ratings and could do a good job on the lower leagues (The Championship being one of the top supported leagues in Europe is another reason for lower league coverage).
And work for less too, of course.
What a good idea.
Also, if any one part of their programming doesn't draw enough viewers/listeners, they will come under pressure to cut it - especially when you have a Conservative government in power who's natural political leanings do not lend themselves well to a heavily supported public service broadcaster. That's why 6 Music and BBC Four where under threat and not Radio 1.
I haven't spent a massive amount of time on the new website yet, but I'm sure it will be fine once people get used to it.
I live outside the UK now so I'm not paying a licence fee anymore. I'd happily pay double for it though if I did live in England still. I think you get an awful lot for your money when compared to something like Sky and, even now, most of the best 'original' content broadcast in the UK gets put out by the Beeb.
http://nonleague.pitchero.com