Speebs wrote:I'm not clear on 2 things though:
1) What were my factual misunderstandings? (not really important, just curious)
I was referring to these points in your initial comments
Speebs wrote:... the largest percentage of users (by a long shot) are running at 1024?
Speebs wrote:... until pixel density/clarity increases
On Woot, the largest percentage of users are not running 1024, even with the sprawl of resolutions beyond it. And by my read of the majority of 1024 width monitors versus the majority of 1280 or greater monitors, pixel density has increased to such degree that our webpage is more physically narrow on them than our 960 wide Woot 2.0 design was on a 1024 screen.
Speebs wrote:2) It sounds like you are blaming those who are annoyed by the side-scrolling for making assumptions about woot.com.
I've stated often that this design is annoying for those running 1024 and that nothing I can say will resolve that annoyance. All I can do is be transparant on our decision including the need we have for a wider design and the data it is based on.
It's largely irrelevant what woot's intentions are. If in 1 year everyone can fit 1080 pixels onto a screen with no scrolling, and you say "see, I told you so," that doesn't make it any less aggravating or more acceptable for those who have to side-scroll now. Why impose it before the technology is ready? What purpose does it serve, other than absolving you of the responsibility of figuring out a better layout for most people?
I've attempted to establish our need earlier with regards to columns and content we desire on the front page. I could probably do a lot better job, but the eventual addition of content modules on the front page will be the best proof. The voice of users satisfied with our decision and enjoying our additional front page content is not going to be heard here, or likely in any of our forums. 90% of our audience doesn't post, a good portion of these members view our front page content only.
I've attempted to share our demographic data, and compare it to what's reported as the norm. I would offer that we're expanding beyond 1024 at approximately the same data point many sites expanded beyond 640x480 and 800x600.
EDIT: Also, for the record, I run at 1280x1024 both at work and at home. I don't have any scrolling issues, and don't mind the new color scheme at all. What confuses and irks me a little bit is the decision to alienate customers/fans without what I would consider good justification.
Fair enough. Often times we see the most reaction on display from those with overactive empathy, but your concern is still valid and even a refreshing perspective here in this thread. Do we value an improvement to the Woot experience of the majority at the discomfort of the minority? Maybe. We definitely value the objectives of some new page elements (like the discussion module to pull people into the community more) If the minority is shrinking at over 2% a month and accelerating in it's decline, that's also a consideration. Designing the page so that the 1024 window can perform most necessary navigation was a definite consideration.
The only niggles I have with the new layout is the annoying ads, and the fact that at least 50% of the time I go to www.woot.com (either directly or by clicking on "today's woot", the CSS is entirely broken. I have to manually refresh for it to work again.
I've covered previously that there are less ads on woot 3.0, but easily agree that the top center one is in your face more. This makes the price of woot items cheaper.
CSS issues we definitely need to address and fix. There were a few right launch and there likely are on people's first visit with old css in their cache. Are you using Safari by chance? (I heard of an isolated issue there when combined with some third party stuff) Let us know any relevant specifics so we can track down and fix.