[Design] Design and change

[Erik Moeller]

Hi folks,

As WMF looks to clarify its role for UX changes, I think it's important to
look at other examples, and initial reactions to major design changes. It's
also important to understand which efforts have succeeded and failed.

Here are examples that I can think of:

1) NYT redesign
<http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/times-designers-are-monitoring-reaction-to-the-redesign-with-adjustments-possible/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body>
(1000+
comments, mostly negative).
2) Flickr redesign
<https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/> (if you think
disputes in Wikimedia can be unpleasant ..). Even their recent changes
<https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157642911765443/> to the photo
view got similar reactions.
3) Slashdot redesign
<http://meta.slashdot.org/story/13/10/01/1849218/come-try-out-slashdots-new-design-in-beta>
(which
led to - ongoing - protests and boycott suggestions)
4) Gawker redesign
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#2011_redesign_and_traffic_loss>
(which
by all accounts was a failure - PVs declined) - anyone got a comment thread
for this one?
5) Wikia 2010 redesign, which led to many wikis forking (including the
World of Warcraft Wiki) and the formation of an Anti-Wikia Alliance
<http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Anti-Wikia_Alliance>

Others you can think of? Other than Gawker, what's the evidence for
success/failure of the above changes? What are examples of really
successful major UX changes that were welcomed by communities, if any?

Thanks,
Erik

[Sarah]

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi folks,
As WMF looks to clarify its role for UX changes, I think it's important to
look at other examples, and initial reactions to major design changes. It's
also important to understand which efforts have succeeded and failed.
1) NYT redesign
<http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/times-designers-are-monitoring-reaction-to-the-redesign-with-adjustments-possible/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body> (1000+
comments, mostly negative).
2) Flickr redesign
<https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/> (if you
think disputes in Wikimedia can be unpleasant ..). Even their recent
changes <https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157642911765443/> to
the photo view got similar reactions.
3) Slashdot redesign
<http://meta.slashdot.org/story/13/10/01/1849218/come-try-out-slashdots-new-design-in-beta> (which
led to - ongoing - protests and boycott suggestions)
4) Gawker redesign
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#2011_redesign_and_traffic_loss> (which
by all accounts was a failure - PVs declined) - anyone got a comment thread
for this one?
5) Wikia 2010 redesign, which led to many wikis forking (including the
World of Warcraft Wiki) and the formation of an Anti-Wikia Alliance
<http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Anti-Wikia_Alliance>
Others you can think of? Other than Gawker, what's the evidence for
success/failure of the above changes? What are examples of really
successful major UX changes that were welcomed by communities, if any?
Thanks,
Erik
​Hi Erik, I really love the WikiWand design. The big image at the top, the

larger images throughout, the pale-grey boxes for block quotes, white
space, larger fonts, different fonts. It's very clean and inviting.

Is there anything the Foundation can do to help us build the tools to
achieve something close to WikiWand? I've been trying to introduce some of
that look at Night (book) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_%28book%29>,
particularly the grey boxes for block quotes – it's block-quote heavy and
could really use some design help – but the images push the boxes out of
the way.

I posted about it here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#WikiWand.2C_images_and_blockquotes>
on the village pump, and was thinking of pinging you there. I also left a
note for Brandon about it here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=prev&oldid=622819104>
at the gender gap task force.

Sarah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20140825/c0838243/attachment.html>

[Erik Moeller]

Post by Erik Moeller
​Hi Erik, I really love the WikiWand design. The big image at the top, the
larger images throughout, the pale-grey boxes for block quotes, white
space, larger fonts, different fonts. It's very clean and inviting.

*nod* It's very nicely done. Though it's technically not a redesign but a
separate site, so none of the change management issues come into play --
users who don't like it simply don't go there, and their experience remains
unchanged, therefore no calls for heads on sticks etc.

We've made much more dramatic changes to the UX on mobile, where there's
less user aversion to change. Check out the Night article on mobile
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_%28book%29>. Note how images are
already styled differently, and blockquotes are as well (different style of
quotes, different typography). The measure is narrower, the font is larger,
etc.

We've been gradually porting over these changes to desktop, starting with
the typography (which is now default everywhere). Changes to images are
next, and we'll hopefully get to the quote styling soon. Edge cases and the
10% where things don't quite look right become much more important when
going to desktop - hence moving carefully.

That said, you could take the mobile quotation style and port it over
locally.

[Erik Moeller]

Post by Erik Moeller
That said, you could take the mobile quotation style and port it over
locally.

(Though, as you can see, it definitely still has positioning issues that
would need to be fixed - hey, imagine the community fixes those issues, and
we port the fixes back to mobile. That'd be awesome :)

[Sarah]

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi Erik, I really love the WikiWand design. The big image at the top, the
larger images throughout, the pale-grey boxes for block quotes, white

space,

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
larger fonts, different fonts. It's very clean and inviting.

*nod* It's very nicely done. Though it's technically not a redesign but a
separate site, so none of the change management issues come into play --
users who don't like it simply don't go there, and their experience remains
unchanged, therefore no calls for heads on sticks etc.
We've made much more dramatic changes to the UX on mobile, where there's
less user aversion to change. Check out the Night article on mobile. Note
how images are already styled differently, and blockquotes are as well
(different style of quotes, different typography). The measure is

narrower,

Post by Erik Moeller
the font is larger, etc.
We've been gradually porting over these changes to desktop, starting with
the typography (which is now default everywhere). Changes to images are
next, and we'll hopefully get to the quote styling soon. Edge cases and the
10% where things don't quite look right become much more important when
going to desktop - hence moving carefully.
That said, you could take the mobile quotation style and port it over
locally.
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

​Hi Erik,

​
The mobile design <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_%28book%29> looks
fabulous, and I love that the block quotes have a different font.

I
​see​
that the
​quote​
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_%28book%29&diff=prev&oldid=622808906>
box I added toda
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_%28book%29&diff=prev&oldid=622808906>y
to Night around one of the block quotes – the one starting "He's just
trying to make us pity him" – changed the font in the mobile article.

And again the images are interfering. You can see that the large quotation
marks aren't showing up properly around the images.

There is something about the way images are presented on WP that causes a
lot of problems, but I don't have the vocabulary to explain what I mean.
But is there some way images can be "boxed off," so that no matter where
they are placed they don't have these effects on the surrounding text?

For example, we could have a dedicated sidebar running down the right side
of the article that is only for images, infoboxes, etc, and it could also
be left empty, so that images c
​ould​
be placed near the text they relate to.
​Then no matter what we do to text, it wouldn't affect the images, and vice
versa. ​
​A sidebar on the right​
would have the added benefit of shortening the lines of text.

Sarah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20140825/e3aeec58/attachment.html>

[May Tee-Galloway]

Twitter vs. TED.com redesign
<http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2014/02/the-secret-of-successful-redesigns-what-ted-got-right-and-what-twitter-got-wrong/>

TL;DR:

"99% of good design is redesign Design is about solving problems, but it’s
rare that your first solution is your best. Quality is achieved through
iterations: designs are redesigned and redesigned; concepts receive
incremental improvements; solutions evolve."

"Ted.com redesigned by focussing on their core problem—the need to display
videos on the devices their audience favors—and then assessing where their
existing solution fell short. Twitter.com redesigned by focussing on their
existing site, and applying a new skin."

"The single largest error you can make when redesigning is to mistake the
current solution for a problem to be solved."


Overhauling a UI Without Upsetting Current Users
<http://uxmag.com/articles/overhauling-a-ui-without-upsetting-current-users>

"In order to make functional (not just aesthetic) improvements, product
managers and design teams need to perform research with real-world users."

"One of the most common mistakes companies make is to implement UI changes
based on what users say they want."

Strongly agree with these above and thankful for Abbey's existence. We
should look into users' difficulties more than we read what they say.

Post by Sarah

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi Erik, I really love the WikiWand design. The big image at the top,

the

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
larger images throughout, the pale-grey boxes for block quotes, white

space,

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
larger fonts, different fonts. It's very clean and inviting.

*nod* It's very nicely done. Though it's technically not a redesign but a
separate site, so none of the change management issues come into play --
users who don't like it simply don't go there, and their experience

remains

Post by Erik Moeller
unchanged, therefore no calls for heads on sticks etc.
We've made much more dramatic changes to the UX on mobile, where there's
less user aversion to change. Check out the Night article on mobile. Note
how images are already styled differently, and blockquotes are as well
(different style of quotes, different typography). The measure is

narrower,

Post by Erik Moeller
the font is larger, etc.
We've been gradually porting over these changes to desktop, starting with
the typography (which is now default everywhere). Changes to images are
next, and we'll hopefully get to the quote styling soon. Edge cases and

the

Post by Erik Moeller
10% where things don't quite look right become much more important when
going to desktop - hence moving carefully.
That said, you could take the mobile quotation style and port it over
locally.
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

​Hi Erik,
​
The mobile design <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_%28book%29>
looks fabulous, and I love that the block quotes have a different font.
I
​see​
that the
​quote​
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_%28book%29&diff=prev&oldid=622808906>
box I added toda
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_%28book%29&diff=prev&oldid=622808906>y
to Night around one of the block quotes – the one starting "He's just
trying to make us pity him" – changed the font in the mobile article.
And again the images are interfering. You can see that the large quotation
marks aren't showing up properly around the images.
There is something about the way images are presented on WP that causes a
lot of problems, but I don't have the vocabulary to explain what I mean.
But is there some way images can be "boxed off," so that no matter where
they are placed they don't have these effects on the surrounding text?
For example, we could have a dedicated sidebar running down the right side
of the article that is only for images, infoboxes, etc, and it could also
be left empty, so that images c
​ould​
be placed near the text they relate to.
​Then no matter what we do to text, it wouldn't affect the images, and
vice versa. ​
​A sidebar on the right​
would have the added benefit of shortening the lines of text.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20140825/e9b00f4c/attachment.html>

[Pau Giner]

In this talk <http://vimeo.com/29965463> (min. 12), Jon Wiley from Google
talks about the reactions to the Gmail redesign by their own Google
employees, and how those reactions evolved from "turn it off, my eyes are
bleeding" to "actually, it looks pretty good".

Pau

Post by Sarah

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi Erik, I really love the WikiWand design. The big image at the top,

the

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
larger images throughout, the pale-grey boxes for block quotes, white

space,

Post by Erik Moeller

Post by Erik Moeller
larger fonts, different fonts. It's very clean and inviting.

*nod* It's very nicely done. Though it's technically not a redesign but a
separate site, so none of the change management issues come into play --
users who don't like it simply don't go there, and their experience

remains

Post by Erik Moeller
unchanged, therefore no calls for heads on sticks etc.
We've made much more dramatic changes to the UX on mobile, where there's
less user aversion to change. Check out the Night article on mobile. Note
how images are already styled differently, and blockquotes are as well
(different style of quotes, different typography). The measure is

narrower,

Post by Erik Moeller
the font is larger, etc.
We've been gradually porting over these changes to desktop, starting with
the typography (which is now default everywhere). Changes to images are
next, and we'll hopefully get to the quote styling soon. Edge cases and

the

Post by Erik Moeller
10% where things don't quite look right become much more important when
going to desktop - hence moving carefully.
That said, you could take the mobile quotation style and port it over
locally.
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

​Hi Erik,
​
The mobile design <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_%28book%29>
looks fabulous, and I love that the block quotes have a different font.
I
​see​
that the
​quote​
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_%28book%29&diff=prev&oldid=622808906>
box I added toda
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_%28book%29&diff=prev&oldid=622808906>y
to Night around one of the block quotes – the one starting "He's just
trying to make us pity him" – changed the font in the mobile article.
And again the images are interfering. You can see that the large quotation
marks aren't showing up properly around the images.
There is something about the way images are presented on WP that causes a
lot of problems, but I don't have the vocabulary to explain what I mean.
But is there some way images can be "boxed off," so that no matter where
they are placed they don't have these effects on the surrounding text?
For example, we could have a dedicated sidebar running down the right side
of the article that is only for images, infoboxes, etc, and it could also
be left empty, so that images c
​ould​
be placed near the text they relate to.
​Then no matter what we do to text, it wouldn't affect the images, and
vice versa. ​
​A sidebar on the right​
would have the added benefit of shortening the lines of text.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I'm surprised that a rather obvious example isn't mentioned: Facebook,
which makes very frequent design changes. Some big and some small. Every
time they do it, the users grumble in their status updates for a couple of
days and then carry on. Probably the biggest design change came in 2011
with the "timeline" - a lot of people complained very loudly then for a bit
more than a couple of days, but now it's taken for granted. Does anybody
remember how did Facebook look before that time?

Googling for <facebook redesign timeline upset> shows a lot of relevant
stories over the years.

Of course, comparing ourselves to Facebook is not even apples and oranges :)


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · א־מ֮י׹ אֱל֎ישׁ֞ע אַהֲךוֹנ֎י
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi folks,
As WMF looks to clarify its role for UX changes, I think it's important to
look at other examples, and initial reactions to major design changes. It's
also important to understand which efforts have succeeded and failed.
1) NYT redesign
<http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/times-designers-are-monitoring-reaction-to-the-redesign-with-adjustments-possible/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body> (1000+
comments, mostly negative).
2) Flickr redesign
<https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/> (if you
think disputes in Wikimedia can be unpleasant ..). Even their recent
changes <https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157642911765443/> to
the photo view got similar reactions.
3) Slashdot redesign
<http://meta.slashdot.org/story/13/10/01/1849218/come-try-out-slashdots-new-design-in-beta> (which
led to - ongoing - protests and boycott suggestions)
4) Gawker redesign
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#2011_redesign_and_traffic_loss> (which
by all accounts was a failure - PVs declined) - anyone got a comment thread
for this one?
5) Wikia 2010 redesign, which led to many wikis forking (including the
World of Warcraft Wiki) and the formation of an Anti-Wikia Alliance
<http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Anti-Wikia_Alliance>
Others you can think of? Other than Gawker, what's the evidence for
success/failure of the above changes? What are examples of really
successful major UX changes that were welcomed by communities, if any?
Thanks,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20140826/155934c7/attachment.html>

[Pau Giner]

Post by Amir E. Aharoni
Googling for <facebook redesign timeline upset> shows a lot of relevant
stories over the years.

A post by Julie Zhuo
<https://medium.com/@joulee/whatevers-best-for-the-people-thats-what-we-do-ed75a0ee7641>
(product design director at Facebook) provides interesting details on the
rationale for one of the biggest redesigns they made, and the issues that
made them reconsider it later.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <

Post by Amir E. Aharoni
I'm surprised that a rather obvious example isn't mentioned: Facebook,
which makes very frequent design changes. Some big and some small. Every
time they do it, the users grumble in their status updates for a couple of
days and then carry on. Probably the biggest design change came in 2011
with the "timeline" - a lot of people complained very loudly then for a bit
more than a couple of days, but now it's taken for granted. Does anybody
remember how did Facebook look before that time?
Googling for <facebook redesign timeline upset> shows a lot of relevant
stories over the years.
Of course, comparing ourselves to Facebook is not even apples and oranges :)
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · א־מ֮י׹ אֱל֎ישׁ֞ע אַהֲךוֹנ֎י
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi folks,
As WMF looks to clarify its role for UX changes, I think it's important
to look at other examples, and initial reactions to major design changes.
It's also important to understand which efforts have succeeded and failed.
1) NYT redesign
<http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/times-designers-are-monitoring-reaction-to-the-redesign-with-adjustments-possible/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body> (1000+
comments, mostly negative).
2) Flickr redesign
<https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/> (if you
think disputes in Wikimedia can be unpleasant ..). Even their recent
changes <https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157642911765443/> to
the photo view got similar reactions.
3) Slashdot redesign
<http://meta.slashdot.org/story/13/10/01/1849218/come-try-out-slashdots-new-design-in-beta> (which
led to - ongoing - protests and boycott suggestions)
4) Gawker redesign
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#2011_redesign_and_traffic_loss> (which
by all accounts was a failure - PVs declined) - anyone got a comment thread
for this one?
5) Wikia 2010 redesign, which led to many wikis forking (including the
World of Warcraft Wiki) and the formation of an Anti-Wikia Alliance
<http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Anti-Wikia_Alliance>
Others you can think of? Other than Gawker, what's the evidence for
success/failure of the above changes? What are examples of really
successful major UX changes that were welcomed by communities, if any?
Thanks,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

[Jon Robson]

tldr:
Change is scary to most people but we shouldn't be scared of making change.
Is it clear what change we are bringing about? If it's not to us, how
can it be to others?
I think our process of bringing about change is the issue.

Longer version:
I'm a little confused about this thread, I can only assume it's in the
context of MMV so will work with that assumption.

Personally, I think pushback to any design change is a given. I hated
the new Foursquare app when it came out for example, I still don't
like it. I didn't like the new iOS design when it came out but I've
grown to appreciate it over time. I loved the new Flickr redesign from
day 1. Big changes are always going to result in polarity in the
community. Change is scary to most people. There are loads of essays
out there on why. We have to be more confident about our changes, and
not allow ourselves to be put off by pushback.

I don't think this should put us off making radical changes. In fact
we are better positioned then most sites in that we can make the path
to change more comfortable. We have:
* a beta feature mode where we can refine features and get feedback
* an entire skin system, which would allow us to build radically
different skins without upsetting the status quo of Vector/Monobook
* we allow individuals to customise their own experience - the
typography refresh for example came with some user css that could
revert the change.
* a completely different infrastructure on the mobile site where we
can experiment with new ideas where change doesn't seem to cause as
much irritation.

When I worked on typography refresh, when it went live a lot of people
were seeing it for the first time and reacted angrily. A lot of people
who had seen it were annoyed as they felt it 'wasn't ready'.

I think the real problem with pushback for a design is when it is a
__sudden__, __big__ change. It's clear to me that we don't do a very
good job about communicating release dates/our work on feature. This
is not surprising when we have such fragmented conversation places -
mailing lists, Village pump, beta feature talk pages, engineering
report to name a few. We need to find ways of setting expectations and
communicating better.

Even I don't know the answers to the following questions:
* Do things in Beta Features always eventually become default? (Will
Hovercards ever be default?)
* How do I know what things in Beta Features are going to become
default? Why do the others exist? What are their goals?
* When will they become default? (Does Hovercards have a rough release
date? Did we set an expectation of when Multimedia Viewer would be
made default?)
*. Is our community aware of the vision/and what we are working on? If
they knew that would they be reacting differently to it right now,
maybe even helping us more?
* Should all our new features have an opt out?

I really feel like our main problem is that we are not very good at
setting expectations and we surprise our community far too often. We
have the tools we just are not using them well at all. We need to find
the right way for us to bring about change with the least amount of
resistance.

Post by Amir E. Aharoni
Googling for <facebook redesign timeline upset> shows a lot of relevant
stories over the years.

A post by Julie Zhuo (product design director at Facebook) provides
interesting details on the rationale for one of the biggest redesigns they
made, and the issues that made them reconsider it later.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni

Post by Amir E. Aharoni
I'm surprised that a rather obvious example isn't mentioned: Facebook,
which makes very frequent design changes. Some big and some small. Every
time they do it, the users grumble in their status updates for a couple of
days and then carry on. Probably the biggest design change came in 2011 with
the "timeline" - a lot of people complained very loudly then for a bit more
than a couple of days, but now it's taken for granted. Does anybody remember
how did Facebook look before that time?
Googling for <facebook redesign timeline upset> shows a lot of relevant
stories over the years.
Of course, comparing ourselves to Facebook is not even apples and oranges :)
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · א־מ֮י׹ אֱל֎ישׁ֞ע אַהֲךוֹנ֎י
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi folks,
As WMF looks to clarify its role for UX changes, I think it's important
to look at other examples, and initial reactions to major design changes.
It's also important to understand which efforts have succeeded and failed.
1) NYT redesign (1000+ comments, mostly negative).
2) Flickr redesign (if you think disputes in Wikimedia can be unpleasant
..). Even their recent changes to the photo view got similar reactions.
3) Slashdot redesign (which led to - ongoing - protests and boycott
suggestions)
4) Gawker redesign (which by all accounts was a failure - PVs declined) -
anyone got a comment thread for this one?
5) Wikia 2010 redesign, which led to many wikis forking (including the
World of Warcraft Wiki) and the formation of an Anti-Wikia Alliance
Others you can think of? Other than Gawker, what's the evidence for
success/failure of the above changes? What are examples of really successful
major UX changes that were welcomed by communities, if any?
Thanks,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

--
Pau Giner
Interaction Designer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

[Max]

Couldn't agree more.

Design doesn't sell itself. Selling and explaining why decisions are made should be part of the design process and ideally not be done by community managers, but designers and developers themselves.

I think if we explained how our data and test results lead to our design decisions the Germans wouldn't be as upset.

Best, max
@awesomephant

Post by Jon Robson
Change is scary to most people but we shouldn't be scared of making change.
Is it clear what change we are bringing about? If it's not to us, how
can it be to others?
I think our process of bringing about change is the issue.
I'm a little confused about this thread, I can only assume it's in the
context of MMV so will work with that assumption.
Personally, I think pushback to any design change is a given. I hated
the new Foursquare app when it came out for example, I still don't
like it. I didn't like the new iOS design when it came out but I've
grown to appreciate it over time. I loved the new Flickr redesign from
day 1. Big changes are always going to result in polarity in the
community. Change is scary to most people. There are loads of essays
out there on why. We have to be more confident about our changes, and
not allow ourselves to be put off by pushback.
I don't think this should put us off making radical changes. In fact
we are better positioned then most sites in that we can make the path
* a beta feature mode where we can refine features and get feedback
* an entire skin system, which would allow us to build radically
different skins without upsetting the status quo of Vector/Monobook
* we allow individuals to customise their own experience - the
typography refresh for example came with some user css that could
revert the change.
* a completely different infrastructure on the mobile site where we
can experiment with new ideas where change doesn't seem to cause as
much irritation.
When I worked on typography refresh, when it went live a lot of people
were seeing it for the first time and reacted angrily. A lot of people
who had seen it were annoyed as they felt it 'wasn't ready'.
I think the real problem with pushback for a design is when it is a
__sudden__, __big__ change. It's clear to me that we don't do a very
good job about communicating release dates/our work on feature. This
is not surprising when we have such fragmented conversation places -
mailing lists, Village pump, beta feature talk pages, engineering
report to name a few. We need to find ways of setting expectations and
communicating better.
* Do things in Beta Features always eventually become default? (Will
Hovercards ever be default?)
* How do I know what things in Beta Features are going to become
default? Why do the others exist? What are their goals?
* When will they become default? (Does Hovercards have a rough release
date? Did we set an expectation of when Multimedia Viewer would be
made default?)
*. Is our community aware of the vision/and what we are working on? If
they knew that would they be reacting differently to it right now,
maybe even helping us more?
* Should all our new features have an opt out?
I really feel like our main problem is that we are not very good at
setting expectations and we surprise our community far too often. We
have the tools we just are not using them well at all. We need to find
the right way for us to bring about change with the least amount of
resistance.

Post by Amir E. Aharoni
Googling for <facebook redesign timeline upset> shows a lot of relevant
stories over the years.

A post by Julie Zhuo (product design director at Facebook) provides
interesting details on the rationale for one of the biggest redesigns they
made, and the issues that made them reconsider it later.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni

Post by Amir E. Aharoni
I'm surprised that a rather obvious example isn't mentioned: Facebook,
which makes very frequent design changes. Some big and some small. Every
time they do it, the users grumble in their status updates for a couple of
days and then carry on. Probably the biggest design change came in 2011 with
the "timeline" - a lot of people complained very loudly then for a bit more
than a couple of days, but now it's taken for granted. Does anybody remember
how did Facebook look before that time?
Googling for <facebook redesign timeline upset> shows a lot of relevant
stories over the years.
Of course, comparing ourselves to Facebook is not even apples and oranges :)
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · א־מ֮י׹ אֱל֎ישׁ֞ע אַהֲךוֹנ֎י
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi folks,
As WMF looks to clarify its role for UX changes, I think it's important
to look at other examples, and initial reactions to major design changes.
It's also important to understand which efforts have succeeded and failed.
1) NYT redesign (1000+ comments, mostly negative).
2) Flickr redesign (if you think disputes in Wikimedia can be unpleasant
..). Even their recent changes to the photo view got similar reactions.
3) Slashdot redesign (which led to - ongoing - protests and boycott
suggestions)
4) Gawker redesign (which by all accounts was a failure - PVs declined) -
anyone got a comment thread for this one?
5) Wikia 2010 redesign, which led to many wikis forking (including the
World of Warcraft Wiki) and the formation of an Anti-Wikia Alliance
Others you can think of? Other than Gawker, what's the evidence for
success/failure of the above changes? What are examples of really successful
major UX changes that were welcomed by communities, if any?
Thanks,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

--
Pau Giner
Interaction Designer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

[Maryana Pinchuk]

It's good to get a list of these milestones as a general food-for-thought
exercise, but I also think it's a bit dangerous to make generalizations
from any of them individually, rather than thinking of them as part of a
continually evolving and extremely complex relationship between the people
who make software and the people who use it.

The fact is that none of these events occurred in isolation; each new major
site redesign comes with the baggage of the last. As the demographics of
Internet users shift (with technology becoming cheaper/more accessible and
techno-jargon spreading with it) and as the very concept of a "redesign"
becomes more mainstream, people approach change with a very different set
of expectations year to year. The first time Facebook introduced a major
new redesign, there were mobs armed with torches, out for blood. The
23435th time Facebook made some tweak to their interface since then has
been met with shrugs of apathy – in fact, if someone were to start a
petition today to abandon Facebook because of some new change to their
interface, I think most Facebook users would giggle and find that adorably
quaint. "Aw, grandpa hates the new like button..."

But that was a very particular – and in many ways irreproducible – set of
circumstances. We have no way of knowing what would have happened if the
first redesign had been rolled back, or if it had been a set of incremental
improvements rather than one big one. And no website can ever do a redesign
again without risking comparison to that moment, rightly or wrongly. That's
why it's dangerous to try to use history as hard data – not enough data
points, huge bias, and no way to A/B test ;)

So, I don't think we should be looking back at any one notable redesign
event or set of events for literal arguments pro/contra one huge redesign
versus many small incremental changes, how we should or shouldn't be
communicating changes to users, whether we ride the wave of criticism or
roll back, etc.

Or, at the very least, we can't *just* be doing that. What we should be
doing more of, imho, is looking forward, thinking about who our users are
today and who we want to attract to our projects tomorrow. The very fact
that "well of course the average person hates change" is becoming a
platitude among the digerati is a strong indication that the trend toward
*more* change isn't likely to go away anytime soon. It's extremely unlikely
that in the next 5-10 years, *fewer* people will own multiple
Internet-enabled devices, visit *fewer* sites and apps, and know *less* about
technology... what does that mean for the interfaces we build today? How
can we ensure that we're not spending all our efforts solving for
problems/users that won't exist in 5 years' time? Those, I think, are
things that are just as if not more important for us to start thinking and
talking about.

Post by Erik Moeller
Hi folks,
As WMF looks to clarify its role for UX changes, I think it's important to
look at other examples, and initial reactions to major design changes. It's
also important to understand which efforts have succeeded and failed.
1) NYT redesign
<http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/times-designers-are-monitoring-reaction-to-the-redesign-with-adjustments-possible/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body> (1000+
comments, mostly negative).
2) Flickr redesign
<https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/> (if you
think disputes in Wikimedia can be unpleasant ..). Even their recent
changes <https://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157642911765443/> to
the photo view got similar reactions.
3) Slashdot redesign
<http://meta.slashdot.org/story/13/10/01/1849218/come-try-out-slashdots-new-design-in-beta> (which
led to - ongoing - protests and boycott suggestions)
4) Gawker redesign
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#2011_redesign_and_traffic_loss> (which
by all accounts was a failure - PVs declined) - anyone got a comment thread
for this one?
5) Wikia 2010 redesign, which led to many wikis forking (including the
World of Warcraft Wiki) and the formation of an Anti-Wikia Alliance
<http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Anti-Wikia_Alliance>
Others you can think of? Other than Gawker, what's the evidence for
success/failure of the above changes? What are examples of really
successful major UX changes that were welcomed by communities, if any?
Thanks,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design