unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
Snapster wrote:unixrab, I've spent a lot of time requesting input on this with you directly but you move on and then come back later to jab on the same topic. Again, what is your opinion of the maximum pixel count and/or physical width and/or field of view for webpage content on an imaginary future "screen" with unlimited resolution and size?


Matt - you have been great!!... I am not trying to move on and comeback. I do appreciate your responses, I read them and understand your desire to distill the hatred of the new width down into manageable and debatable categories. That being said, My dislike of the width is not just in the 1a or 1b categories... I would lean more toward 1b if that was all there was (is that what you are saying? It's 1a or 1b or nothing?) My opinion on the 1a & 1b arguments are that they are strawmen, in the sense that there is already ways to knock down anyone who subscribes to 1a or 1b camp ... read on:

annierose wrote:
It is just, as was said, not as much fun, no longer somewhere I want to hang out. Ah well, if nothing has been done to change back, improve, correct, or even explain after 37 pages of "I don't like it" comments, I will not expect my comment to tip the scale.



Well said... I think it's simplistic to attempt to divorce the width from the other things that make 3.0 so distasteful. It's true that people are either complaining about the width, color, or design, but (for me... and maybe just me) I believe they are ALL connected.... No doubt, the width is a big one. People just do not like it. No one was asking for a wider woot prior to the change (that I'm privy to) and it's a monkey-wrench to both 1a'ers and 1b'ers. and those (like me) who don't fit just into those 2 boxes. Attempting to categorize disdain is missing the huge elephant in the room... for whatever/however myriad reasons, the point is: it is NOT LIKED.... And it wasn't liked by the majority of posters in this thread from Day One... and it has been discussed, distilled, analyzed and beat to death for 37 pages which leads to.....

Sonan wrote:I'm 100% on this page now and ready to debate it, but I almost have to ask what's the use? The bottom line is that the new layout requires the extra width, and I don't see you going back to Woot 2.0 this late into the game. And a redesign of 3.0 to make it a "normal" width would be quite an undertaking. So what benefit will come from further debating width issues, other than trying to placate both the outspoken and lurking width haters?



....detachment, disillusionment, apathy. It doesn't really matter if I'm a 1a or 1b. Woot 3.0 is what it is, and (while you, Snapster, have been kind and extremely responsive here in the forums) it seems that it's not helping. The width is still unchanged. The colors are corporate. The 3 column design is bulky, awkward and uninviting. a particularly-extreme (and disappointing) woot makeover.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Snapster


quality posts: 16 Private Messages Snapster
unixrab wrote:
Matt - you have been great!!... I am not trying to move on and comeback. I do appreciate your responses, I read them and understand your desire to distill the hatred of the new width down into manageable and debatable categories. That being said, My dislike of the width is not just in the 1a or 1b categories... I would lean more toward 1b if that was all there was (is that what you are saying? It's 1a or 1b or nothing?) My opinion on the 1a & 1b arguments are that they are strawmen, in the sense that there is already ways to knock down anyone who subscribes to 1a or 1b camp ... read on:

annierose said:
It is just, as was said, not as much fun, no longer somewhere I want to hang out. Ah well, if nothing has been done to change back, improve, correct, or even explain after 37 pages of "I don't like it" comments, I will not expect my comment to tip the scale.

Well said... I think it's simplistic to attempt to divorce the width from the other things that make 3.0 so distasteful. It's true that people are either complaining about the width, color, or design, but (for me... and maybe just me) I believe they are ALL connected.... No doubt, the width is a big one. People just do not like it. No one was asking for a wider woot prior to the change (that I'm privy to) and it's a monkey-wrench to both 1a'ers and 1b'ers. and those (like me) who don't fit just into those 2 boxes. Attempting to categorize disdain is missing the huge elephant in the room... for whatever/however myriad reasons, the point is: it is NOT LIKED.... And it wasn't liked by the majority of posters in this thread from Day One... and it has been discussed, distilled, analyzed and beat to death for 37 pages which leads to.....

Sonan said:
I'm 100% on this page now and ready to debate it, but I almost have to ask what's the use? The bottom line is that the new layout requires the extra width, and I don't see you going back to Woot 2.0 this late into the game. And a redesign of 3.0 to make it a "normal" width would be quite an undertaking. So what benefit will come from further debating width issues, other than trying to placate both the outspoken and lurking width haters?

....detachment, disillusionment, apathy. It doesn't really matter if I'm a 1a or 1b. Woot 3.0 is what it is, and (while you, Snapster, have been kind and extremely responsive here in the forums) it seems that it's not helping. The width is still unchanged. The colors are corporate. The 3 column design is bulky, awkward and uninviting. a particularly-extreme (and disappointing) woot makeover.



Thanks - I appreciate your time organizing and voicing this. It's a good illustration to respond to on the various challenges involved in this discussion.

The majority of the members in the first 30+ pages of this thread likely feel very much like annierose. They are disappointed to come "home" to find what was comfortable has changed. This is heart warming and heart breaking at the same time. Inspiring that our brand/site can cause an emotional reaction and challenging to us to uphold our core values as we evolve - hopefully for the better. It is invaluable feedback and I am extremely thankful to have it, especially when phrased as nicely as annierose’s. Perhaps it will sound incredibly callous, but when asked before our site launch (mid-december) what core member reaction would be to our design, I replied “they will hate it. some will hate the color and some will hate the width.” I definitely hope people do not leave, but there's not much I can do to about their initial disappointment.

The group discussion exhibited on later pages here is classic internet forum debate, which as anyone involved in forum discussions knows, can be pretty pointless. Casual visitors to the thread tend to take in the last 3-5 posts of data to get the tone and form conclusions - other participants know this and play group moderator, summarizing with their own bias inserted. Fresh participants coming in read the summary and join in assuming the worst. As this goes on, then meta discussion are produced, like this post I’m making, and this cycles until everyone is bored or someone invokes Godwin's Law. In this case the summary effort and continued participation is very respected by me - being empathetic to each individual message of disappointment and summarizing that everyone is against all change period. It's a sign of a solid community atmosphere. Unfortunately, it’s intentionally biased and just not progressive conversation and it’s not why I’m here (unless you want it to devolve again into me posting sarcastic pictures about the uproar)

As things slowed down within this thread a few weeks ago, I really enjoyed separating points of contention, sharing data, highlighting some of our internal considerations, and most of all listening and thinking through the topics of concern. With healthy conversation from members Sonan and others we have taken the conversation past the initial anti-change topicality and assessed the design for it's long term viability. While it's valid for you to feel that I have set up strawman topics to corner folks into, it is not my intention. My intention is to dive in deeper to core issues and share a learning experience. Getting to parts of the conversation we've not yet reached is all that's interesting to me in this topic – I have no reason to string this out otherwise. Will I be convinced that we’ve made a mistake in an aspect of the redesign? We’ve fixed quite a few minor issues but I still remain pretty confident about our major ones – I’d definitely say it’s unlikely. Unfortunately, we’re not in a private discussion and my hands are tied as to how bluntly I can shoot down some of what I consider weaker concerns without coming off as a jerk to valuable woot members. Seemingly knowing of this, you have come back to the beginning, loading up all issues as a big club to hit me over the head with, refusing to take the conversation any deeper.

So.. rather than ask again for you to define your width opinion a bit more clearly when you fear me setting up strawman arguments, I can at least be blunt and do my best to publicly disregard one of your stated issues:

Color: I’ve posted plenty of softer opinion earlier, but let me close the gap. I, for one, welcome our new green overlords. Yep - I now love the new colors of Woot.com. New observations can be posted about how corporate or non-woot or eye searing or whatever someone subjectively thinks it is but all I read is “I love woot.com and I hope this color change doesn’t reflect some other business change I won’t like.” Thanks for that concern. When we change colors again some day in the future hopefully it will be a valid concern again.



Snapster


quality posts: 16 Private Messages Snapster
Sonan wrote:I'm 100% on this page now and ready to debate it, but I almost have to ask what's the use? The bottom line is that the new layout requires the extra width, and I don't see you going back to Woot 2.0 this late into the game. And a redesign of 3.0 to make it a "normal" width would be quite an undertaking. So what benefit will come from further debating width issues, other than trying to placate both the outspoken and lurking width haters?


I continue to see gain in gathering member observations on the effect of our design width post-assessment of our demographic data, goals and needs (posted earlier) and against the very broad question of whether other web pages are headed in this direction in the future or not.

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
Snapster wrote:
So.. rather than ask again for you to define your width opinion a bit more clearly when you fear me setting up strawman arguments, I can at least be blunt and do my best to publicly disregard one of your stated issues:

Color: I’ve posted plenty of softer opinion earlier, but let me close the gap. I, for one, welcome our new green overlords. Yep - I now love the new colors of Woot.com. New observations can be posted about how corporate or non-woot or eye searing or whatever someone subjectively thinks it is but all I read is “I love woot.com and I hope this color change doesn’t reflect some other business change I won’t like.” Thanks for that concern. When we change colors again some day in the future hopefully it will be a valid concern again.



A timely response... and it echoes the same feelings I have... though opposite (???). I have to say... the very fact of your interaction here has been admirable and worthy of my repeat business DESPITE my loathing (no better word) for the 'upgrades'. I will still ocassionally frequent woot(s).com... however... jumptheshark and redo the site slogan too: ("One day, one deal." ((YAWN! 1.OHHHH))

... In the end (props to Gatsby.... I stopped watching MST3k When Joel was replaced by the crappy-green-too-wide Mike... Lo, 14 years Later, my patience was rewarded with Cinematic Titanic.

the en......................(insert 1056 more dots)d

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

vegaboyz


quality posts: 0 Private Messages vegaboyz
unixrab wrote:....detachment, disillusionment, apathy. It doesn't really matter if I'm a 1a or 1b. Woot 3.0 is what it is, and (while you, Snapster, have been kind and extremely responsive here in the forums) it seems that it's not helping. The width is still unchanged. The colors are corporate. The 3 column design is bulky, awkward and uninviting. a particularly-extreme (and disappointing) woot makeover.



Extremely well said, Unixrab.
It's been very frustrating for some of us who have been trying to make the same point as you just splendidly did. Frustrating due to the seeming disconnect between our comments and Snapster's replies.
While many of us were commenting on the subjective impact of 3.0 (general dislike, no longer a site you want to "hang-out" at, no longer "fun," and, as you said in your Jan 15th post, "Sorry w00t, you're no longer my homepage...it's just too ugly"), Snapster kept trying to categorize this dissafection into a 1a or 1b proposition. He consistently elects to deflect the point.
So many of his replies have been wrapped in spreadsheets and demos and future front-page enhancements and tolerable pixels that I feel like crying out The Emperor Has No Clothes...but it's actually the other way around.
Though still clueless, he's wrapped in too many clothes; too many to see out from under them to appreciate the whole point of the opposition: We don't like the new w00t! It's just not fun anymore! You follow? Mr. Snapster?

It's sad, and even poignant, to go back to Jan 14th and scroll through this thread's pages one by one. It is so evident that 3.0 has had a visceral impact on so many w00ters.
Most of the posters are trying to be helpful...they don't want to see their "club" evaporate into corporate sameness. But the nature of their pleas is ignored while Snapster clings to the numbers and his resulting self-glorification of the site, presumably because of the future revenue potential of the re-design.
A poster by the name of deepspace pointed out several times in this thread when he'd notice a first post by someone who'd been a member since the very early days. He was making an effective statement: w00t, here's someone who not only doesn't like the new site, they feel strongly enough about it to come out of the void to tell you so.
KippyJ was the first poster, and her comment contained incredulity about the new look, hoping it was an "interim oddity."
You (Unixrab) made a point of saying that w00t's stupendous growth happened during and, perhaps, because of the 2.0 period.
Let's face it...the whole scene makes many of us feel totally disconnected from the folks we thought we knew.
I think many of us, including myself, thought the new look was some kind of demographic research scheme in which data would be mined from the comments for use in some future marketing purposes, and then the site would revert to 2.0.
By now we know this was not a test, nor an interim oddity. This, unfortunately, is for real.
I don't hang around here anymore. I used to stay up till one (eastern) every night because I was an enthusiastic w00ter. I'm not much into it anymore.
Snapster doesn't seem to realize that it wasn't so much the deals we were here for...it was the fraternity.

Below is my first post in this thread on the first day of the change. It reflects my emotional reaction to 3.0 rather than the numerical scheme Snapster employs. Unixrab said it better than I in his full post at the top of this page.
His words on this will serve as my last. I couldn't have said it better.
GodSpeed, Mr. Snapster. I'm gone.

"Sadly, you've rendered your brand into a look-alike image of your tackiest wannabe imitators (ThingFling, DailySteals, Yugster, Shnoop, Stootsi).

We w00ters welcome any technical improvements to the site, but was the change in format necessary?
Aside from the unanimous comments regarding the page being too wide, the color and layout are not ingratiating. They are, in fact, cold and repulsive.

I've always enjoyed turning people into new w00ters. But, this new format doesn't provide the arcane feel of the older...the sense of being among an elite corps of insiders. Now, the site just looks like so many of the others.

In its original form, w00t! was an icon. Why, oh why, did you feel you had to mess with it?"

Oh, here's one from deepspace that I came across while signing out:

"I dislike this a great deal.

The green is bad to say the least, but the layout makes me feel like I am at K-Mart.

Please, do not make us use this. I am truly saddened by this.

You removed all the comfortable feel Woot had and made it look like just another AOL style shopping site.

Please, I am begging you, do not do this."

Snapster's pigeon-holing w00ter discontent into 1a/1b obscures and belittles the subjective, but essential, point that it's no longer "fun" to hang-out around here anymore.
Review the thread. Many w00ters came out of the closet to express their dissatisfaction. I wonder how many of them have just shrugged and moved along because, like me, they just don't like it. Period.

saltone


quality posts: 1 Private Messages saltone

Problem Solved!!!!!

I shouldn't say this here, because it will probably get changed, but just use Opera browser, just click fit to page at the bottom,and it will squeeze the page together by moving the center column to the bottom. Since those are mostly adds and the sales stats, It is a double benefit! and then I never have to side scroll.

"What the hell are we doing fighting government, let's become government and we can then take whatever we want!".
Al Capone

fishzine


quality posts: 0 Private Messages fishzine

Been lurking and reading the thread since the 3.0 change over. I am one of those that simply hate the horizional scroll bars, that I am forced into uses when viewin the site on my laptop screen. Avioded putting my 'me too' commit because simply put it isn't likly to make any difference what so every. I also wanted to give the new look some time to grow on me and while I don't find the green as bad as I once did (but still not very readable and I never read the product descriptions any more) the I hate the width more so now then when it started. So consider this my 'me too' post.

I would also make a suggestion, and consider it a suggested exercise in walking a mile in your customer's shoes. I simply suggest that it might be a good idea for the people at woot to restrict themselves to viewing and interacting with the site at a 1024 by 768 or similar non-wide resolution for two weeks. I find it hard to believe that if everyone at woot, from Snapster down to the code slaves and everyone in between that thought this wide format was a good idea was forced to use it day in and day out for a period of time that they would come to better understand the problem.

sciotosurfer


quality posts: 0 Private Messages sciotosurfer

Saw this and thought of woot.

Tropicana Discovers Some Buyers Are Passionate About Packaging

"Redesigned packaging that was introduced in early January is being discontinued, executives plan to announce on Monday, and the previous version will be brought back in the next month."

ArthurWootarelli


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ArthurWootarelli

I don't like the new width. It doesn't fit on my 1024x768 laptop.

And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that 1024x768 is too small. I just visited each of the top 100 sites in the United States, as listed by total traffic on Alexa.

Each of them fit. Every single one of them.
Woot does not.

vegaboyz


quality posts: 0 Private Messages vegaboyz

Use this link to get to the full article referenced above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/media/23adcol.html?ref=media

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
sciotosurfer wrote:Saw this and thought of woot.

Tropicana Discovers Some Buyers Are Passionate About Packaging

"Redesigned packaging that was introduced in early January is being discontinued, executives plan to announce on Monday, and the previous version will be brought back in the next month."




(I like this part)

"“We underestimated the deep emotional bond” they had with the original packaging, he added. “Those consumers are very important to us, so we responded.”

Among those who underestimated that bond was (President) Mr. Campbell himself. In an interview last month to discuss the new packaging, he said, “The straw and orange have been there for a long time, but people have not necessarily had a huge connection to them.”

Good for Tropicana!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
unixrab wrote:(I like this part)

"“We underestimated the deep emotional bond” they had with the original packaging, he added. “Those consumers are very important to us, so we responded.”

Among those who underestimated that bond was (President) Mr. Campbell himself. In an interview last month to discuss the new packaging, he said, “The straw and orange have been there for a long time, but people have not necessarily had a huge connection to them.”

Good for Tropicana!



PS: They had to bring "the orange" back. buahahahahahahaha

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sonan


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Sonan
unixrab wrote:PS: They had to bring "the orange" back. buahahahahahahaha



At least we still have the button, and the lights during woot-offs. I swear, if those turn green I'm outta here! ;)

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
ArthurWootarelli wrote:I don't like the new width. It doesn't fit on my 1024x768 laptop.

And I'm not sure I buy into the argument that 1024x768 is too small. I just visited each of the top 100 sites in the United States, as listed by total traffic on Alexa.

Each of them fit. Every single one of them.
Woot does not.



Seems that woot has even angered the almighty Google... they've dedicated a post on their official (not epic wide) blog to fixing website blunders... I wonder what the 'bounce' rate is for woot.com ?

Check out Google's website tips! HERE

best quote: " I came, I puked, I left."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

vegaboyz


quality posts: 0 Private Messages vegaboyz

See what I mean? We rest our case.
Nothing 1a or 1b about this comment:
"I came, I puked, I left."

makoti


quality posts: 1 Private Messages makoti
unixrab wrote:....detachment, disillusionment, apathy. It doesn't really matter if I'm a 1a or 1b. Woot 3.0 is what it is, and (while you, Snapster, have been kind and extremely responsive here in the forums) it seems that it's not helping. The width is still unchanged. The colors are corporate. The 3 column design is bulky, awkward and uninviting. a particularly-extreme (and disappointing) woot makeover.



Snapster,

I still don't like it. I frankly cannot be bothered to follow all this close enough to know what in the world "1A or 1B" is all about. All I know is you changed the site, asked opinions, then ignored the responses. I don't care about your technical aspects or future plans. It's too wide. You cannot explain away that fact. The scroll bar is stupid & not needed. The colors are blah, but you love them so that case is closed as well.

My question to you is: If you never had any thought to change something if the responses called for it, why did you bother to ask?

MiNiCoNaN


quality posts: 2 Private Messages MiNiCoNaN

I like it. Way to go Woot! Use colors other sites won't touch because it's "too ugly". That's what you're all about, taking something no one else likes and making it your bread and butter!

raray


quality posts: 1 Private Messages raray

I dig. Sort of gives your mouth a fresh feeling.

DoucheNotMouthwash


quality posts: 0 Private Messages DoucheNotMouthwash
raray wrote:I dig. Sort of gives your mouth a fresh feeling.



Umm, dude, you really don't want to gargle with that.

Snapster


quality posts: 16 Private Messages Snapster
toby8915 wrote:


thanks toby8915. I had to share that here for my mid-day check in. good luck in the contest.

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab

Eh... I think this one is better Matt:

Hydoo wrote:



I even like the orange cat on green grass motif.. go figure.

Good luck Hydoo!!!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Snapster


quality posts: 16 Private Messages Snapster
unixrab wrote:Eh... I think this one is better Matt:


I even like the orange cat on green grass motif.. go figure.

Good luck Hydoo!!!


I just like how I can see the whole cat

Sonan


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Sonan
toby8915 wrote:


And yet the contest entry width is still officially a measly 450 pixels. I should start entering again. Maybe if I win another Monkey Prize, I'll actually get one this time! ;)

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
Snapster wrote:I just like how I can see the whole cat



ahahahahaha.... I can see the whole cat from Hydoo... ... on MY supre 4Kpix xtrawide Monitor! (it's Japanese)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

saltone


quality posts: 1 Private Messages saltone
makoti wrote:

My question to you is: If you never had any thought to change something if the responses called for it, why did you bother to ask?



I would like to see a response to this, 38 pages of discussion, The majority no longer liking the site, and in one ear and out the other.

Snapster, Why did you even start this thread if you really are not going to make any changes in response to the comments?

"What the hell are we doing fighting government, let's become government and we can then take whatever we want!".
Al Capone

shrdlu


quality posts: 4 Private Messages shrdlu
saltone wrote:I would like to see a response to this, 38 pages of discussion, The majority no longer liking the site, and in one ear and out the other.

Snapster, Why did you even start this thread if you really are not going to make any changes in response to the comments?



As much as I don't care for most of the tone, and various responses, from Snapster and other Woot staff, I do have to say that many of the comments brought about changes. They may not have been the changes that some folk were looking for (including myself), but there have certainly been changes for things that were genuine flaws.

The original green has been toned down, and more sensible formats have been applied, so that older eyes (such as mine) have a chance of reading headers and such. The side deal moved around all over the place (including originally being visible only on the front page) before settling on the current, more sensible arrangement. There've been other changes, too, just not the ones that many of us had hoped for.

Personally, the color doesn't affect me. The ads are something I can ignore. I keep the height of the browser very short, so I really don't see them. I never stay on Woot in any case, since the traffic across the router (for loading all that ad stuff) annoys me. The width is stupid, but it isn't my call, and I don't know that I actually care.

I am far more likely not to read the description of the item, though, which is sad, since it was often funny. Personally, I find the insistence on having the "discussion" of whatever is being wooted on the main page to be pointless, since if I cared, I'd look at it, and I don't usually care.

I still like the site, and woot offs are my favorite thing (although I almost never try for the koi bag). I love the monkeys, and have a reasonable collection of them. I suppose I'm ambivalent. I think that Snapster might consider not jumping to the bait when he's feeling annoyed, but really, it's just a web site, folks. Get on with your lives.

It takes months to find a customer, but only seconds to lose one.
The good news is that we should run out of them in no time.

http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/disservicedemotivator.jpg

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
shrdlu wrote:but really, it's just a web site, folks. Get on with your lives.



... websites are my life.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Speebs


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Speebs
Snapster wrote:Perhaps it will sound incredibly callous, but when asked before our site launch (mid-december) what core member reaction would be to our design, I replied “they will hate it. some will hate the color and some will hate the width.” I definitely hope people do not leave, but there's not much I can do to about their initial disappointment.



Your last sentence makes me sad. Really really sad. Why are you so committed to this attitude of "well, if they don't like it, there's nothing we can do about that"? OF COURSE THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN DO. For example, not change everything all at once. Change the colors, let people get used to that. Add some widgets, let people get used to that. Add some width, let people get used to that.

You've already acknowledged that people feel "at home" here and part of the reason old-timers are complaining is that woot isn't familiar any more. Why not gradually transition instead of suddenly changing the site into something barely recognizable?

You throw this new, generic, corporate, sterile web site at your customers, then blame them when they are turned off. I just don't get it. It's become a really disappointing trend among companies lately, and I'm wondering when people will realize that it's alienating. It might net you more money in the end, but that doesn't make it "good business". I guess the question is, which is more important: greater profits, or higher customer satisfaction/lower turnover?

devzero


quality posts: 2 Private Messages devzero
Snapster wrote:
Color: I’ve posted plenty of softer opinion earlier, but let me close the gap. I, for one, welcome our new green overlords. Yep - I now love the new colors of Woot.com. New observations can be posted about how corporate or non-woot or eye searing or whatever someone subjectively thinks it is but all I read is “I love woot.com and I hope this color change doesn’t reflect some other business change I won’t like.” Thanks for that concern. When we change colors again some day in the future hopefully it will be a valid concern again.



I humbly submit. I've come to terms with the new colors. However, I still have a hard time reading the (occasionally) well-written product narratives. I'm an excellent reader (so that's not the issue), but the black on medium-green still hurts.

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
Speebs wrote:which is more important: greater profits, or higher customer satisfaction/turnover?


ha. I give you three gue$$e$...and the fir$t two don't count. why. so. "green" ?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Josephus


quality posts: 25 Private Messages Josephus
Sonan wrote:And yet the contest entry width is still officially a measly 450 pixels. I should start entering again. Maybe if I win another Monkey Prize, I'll actually get one this time! ;)



Actually, we have approval from Dave to up it to at least 550, and possibly 580, to fit within the available width. This has been at least a week ago that we decided this, and it was a direct result of listening to the people who play the photoshop contest. At some point in the future, Jason will manage to get it into the contest announcement and we'll move on.

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab
Josephus wrote:Actually, we have approval from Dave to up it to at least 550, and possibly 580, to fit within the available width. This has been at least a week ago that we decided this, and it was a direct result of listening to the people who play the photoshop contest. At some point in the future, Jason will manage to get it into the contest announcement and we'll move on.



JOY! ..............................photoshop people get listened to

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sonan


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Sonan
Josephus wrote:Actually, we have approval from Dave to up it to at least 550, and possibly 580, to fit within the available width. This has been at least a week ago that we decided this, and it was a direct result of listening to the people who play the photoshop contest. At some point in the future, Jason will manage to get it into the contest announcement and we'll move on.



Sweet, but you of all people should know better than to call it a photoshop contest... ;)

sciotosurfer


quality posts: 0 Private Messages sciotosurfer

So Tropicana changed their design to help transfer the notion of LOVE (see part about squeezing).

http://adage.com/brightcove/lineup.php?lineup=1266084202

Is that why woot changed their design? They just want us to feel the love? ;)

grumb


quality posts: 2 Private Messages grumb

I had commented eary in this thread and have been casually following the dialog since then. As far as my own habits, what I have come to realize is the scroll bar is on the bottom and I just ignore it. Therefore if there is anything of import on the right side, I am missing it. So based on Snapsters comments about future content, if that content does not drive me to scroll, I probably won't. I am actually surprised at the results this personal human nature experiment yielded, since the changeover. Basically, I am not changing my habits and am treating this site like any other standard width page.

htnmmo


quality posts: 0 Private Messages htnmmo
Snapster wrote:I read it, but didn't find a lot to comment on. I'll stretch to comment. I did find irony that it was published the day that our site launched



Just a coincidence. I don't regularly visit your site. Might have come here once or twice while searching for something.


"For 5% of the visitors, it's just not worth the effort to redesign some sites to handle it. I do make sure the site is usable at that resolution though."

although I hope he has that misphrased - not worth the effort to redesign? or too difficult to redesign? or too punishing to the 95% left? I certainly hope he's not just lazy.



Don't have that misphrased and I'm not lazy. It's just not practical to make a site work in all resolutions. I like fixed width sites because even if someone has their browser maximized, it's just not readable to have very long lines, especially online. Like I said, even people with high resolution monitors usually don't use their browsers maximized.

Right now, I have a few browser windows opened, one to the right of this with the original thread so I can read as I make comments, a couple of SSH sessions tailing at the bottom of the screen while I'm trying to debug a problem on one of my sites. The only thing I ever run maximized is my IDE because I need as much workspace as I can between the project view, output window, and all the other koi that makes it effective.

I like three column layouts too. Left column has important navigation, center has content and right has extras plus some ads in most cases. At 800x600 I make sure you see at least the first two columns fully.

The main content column isn't usually very wide. I don't have a fixed width in mind but it's generally around the same range. It's easier to read if it's not wide. On a new design, I sit a few people down and ask them to just read the main content. If most of them wind up turning their heads a lot, not just their eyes to read it, I consider it too wide.

I didn't perform any type of detailed survey or study. I started web programming in the mid 90's. I've worked with startups, small businesses and fortune 500 companies. Through the years I've done different formal and informal usability tests on sites as well as worked with third party consultants that have reviewed the sites. My opinions come from my experience.

The domain name might make it sound like a splog, but it's just a place for me to put my thoughts since I get asked questions from time to time. Figured it would just be easier to put them all in one place. I thought the name might have been clever. Hopefully the content overpowers any stigma with the domain name because I kinda like it.

While I don't think you should put advertising over your user experience, if you're going to put advertising on your site, you have to treat your advertisers with respect.

Having an add on the bottom of the page that is partially obscured by a decent number of visitors makes the ad slot less valuable. Having an add covered by the vertical scroll bar could lead to accidental clicks, which could cause your earnings per click to decline with AdSense. They're pretty good at identifying accidental clicks.

Anyway, some interesting points here and I'm glad some of you enjoyed my post as the blog is fairly new.

Oh, one more thing, you should have your preview page display the post as it would appear when it is posted. Doesn't seem to identify quotes properly and the width is not the same.

unixrab


quality posts: 10 Private Messages unixrab

On Second Thought...

That wasn't really what you meant to say, was it? Hurry up and change it before anybody notice

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bags of Crap = 3 ------> woot 3.0 is DEAD!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

htnmmo


quality posts: 0 Private Messages htnmmo
unixrab wrote:On Second Thought...

That wasn't really what you meant to say, was it? Hurry up and change it before anybody notice




Unless I'm being dense and and not seeing a mistake in what I typed, no.

You have to make compromises sometimes. There are too many OS/browser combinations and you can't always justify the time spent on each.

In the site I was using as an example, less than 5% browsed the site at a resolution of less than 1024x768. That included 800x600 and various smaller sizes from handheld devices.

From the server side, you don't know the user's resolution. You'd need to add javascript to determine that. Resolution alone is not enough. You probably need to add a hidden element that is 100% wide and get that length and use it to rework the page. Maybe put it in session so then you can do the logic behind the scenes.

If the site was making $1k/day, maybe I could justify it, but it's not.

You're always going to have to make compromises if you want to stay profitable. If you can't stay profitable, you can't keep running.

The site should be usable to everyone, but some people are going to have to deal with horizontal scrolling.

Think of a steak house. Your waitress asks you how you'd like it. You have your choice of very rare, rare, medium rare, medium, well and very well. All those relate to the internal temperature of the meat. With very rare at 130deg to very well at 180deg.

If you order a medium rare steak, it's going to be about 145deg. The chefs aren't going to baby sit each individual steak to make sure it's exactly 145 deg, it's going to be somewhere in an acceptable range. If they wanted to, they could engineer a system with thermometers for each cut of meat, and enough staff or an automated system and be able to improve the accuracy to 1 deg to handle the small percentage of people that are that anal. But that small percentage probably isn't going to want to pay enough extra for that to cover the costs.

Just because it's technically possible to do something doesn't make it profitable. As much as it's great for things to be free for users, servers cost money, bandwith costs money and development time costs money.

Sonan


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Sonan
htnmmo wrote:Just because it's technically possible to do something doesn't make it profitable. As much as it's great for things to be free for users, servers cost money, bandwith costs money and development time costs money.



But we're Wooters. Aren't we worth the extra expense? ;)

Thanks for sharing your insights, and good luck with your new blog.

htnmmo


quality posts: 0 Private Messages htnmmo
Sonan wrote:But we're Wooters. Aren't we worth the extra expense? ;)



After 38 pages of comments and no indication that there will be any change... well... I guess you got your answer

I find it annoying too. Colors seem fine though but I haven't really explored the rest of the site.