Whenever an organisation radically changes the design of its website there is often a negative knee-jerk reaction by some because they're taken out of their comfort zone and struggle to find things that were easy before. I felt the same when the BBC recently changed theirs.

 

But after a few weeks you do get used to the change and I'm sure the same will apply here. The old AvSim website did look tired and I think the new one is a great improvement. :good:

 

Blaming everything on "comfort zone" is demagoguery. As in many other fields, there are objective criteria for evaluating designs in web design. The new Avsim ranks as very poor, and this is clearly not a work of a professional designer (I think we could've raised enough money for that), but of someone just fiddling around with a few tools. Avsim deserves better.

 

I have outlined the very basic flaws of the new "design" at a length in a comment for the news article, but unfortunately I can't see comments past their first page there to link or copy-paste it.

 

I can only hope no-one screws up the current very sleek and functional File Library.

You know for a site that is totally run by donated time and money, requires absolutley no membership fees especially to "unthrottle" download speed and his here 24/7 at your disposal alot of you have nothing better to do then complain and nitpick at such small things. Love it or leave it and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Just my opinion.

Blaming everything on "comfort zone" is demagoguery. As in many other fields, there are objective criteria for evaluating designs in web design. The new Avsim ranks as very poor, and this is clearly not a work of a professional designer (I think we could've raised enough money for that), but of someone just fiddling around with a few tools. Avsim deserves better.

 

Is "very poor" your opinion or is it based on an objective criteria? If the former everyone is entitled to an opinion. If the latter, please point me to your source for determining this.

 

I have outlined the very basic flaws of the new "design" at a length in a comment for the news article, but unfortunately I can't see comments past their first page there to link or copy-paste it.

 

The two outer vertical sections are pretty much as they were before - adverts and other info. The new central section contains various news items clearly separated from each other. Not sure why you see that as a poor design. Arguments always carry more weight when you can back them up with examples of what you think is wrong rather than just saying it "ranks as very poor".

 

You know for a site that is totally run by donated time and money, requires absolutley no membership fees especially to "unthrottle" download speed and his here 24/7 at your disposal alot of you have nothing better to do then complain and nitpick at such small things. Love it or leave it and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Just my opinion.

Well said Dave. :Applause:

Wow, I actually like the new front page, its very squared away and functional, does what it is supposed to do for me, my thanks to the folks that worked on it.

You know for a site that is totally run by donated time and money, requires absolutley no membership fees especially to "unthrottle" download speed and his here 24/7 at your disposal alot of you have nothing better to do then complain and nitpick at such small things. Love it or leave it and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Just my opinion.

 

If you're not paying for it, then you're the product. Look at the ads on this very page and give it a thought; it's not a gift, but a two-way street.

 

Is "very poor" your opinion or is it based on an objective criteria? If the former everyone is entitled to an opinion. If the latter, please point me to your source for determining this.

 

As I said, it's posted as a comment to the news item on the front page. If you wish to see it, ask the comment system to be fixed to allow viewing comments after the first page.

 

But to give an overview, the new design is simply a mashup of old Avsim into the default theme of IP Board forum and community software, killing the unique look Avsim had. The old menus don't follow the visual and functional style set by IPB theme (in some places, colored background denotes menu header, in another place it denotes the start of a submenu), the use of whitespace is random (just look how much screen space is wasted by the header. How many lines of text worth of empty space is wasted before you reach the first line of the first post?) and elements on the page are accidentally placed and don't adhere to "the grid", meaning, the whole layout is unsystematic and feels unnesseccary cluttered. See http://www.welie.com...id-based-layout There are websites with much more information displayed that come off far less cluttered; it's not the amount of information, but the design that matters in this regard.

 

These are very basic web design issues and no professional web designer would allow them to happen. My own site is at http://www.lennusimu.net/, and I've put countless hours into making it as clean and visually organized as possible - and that required learning the basic rules and principles of design I've outlined. It saddens to see that Avsim with its much larger community has failed in this area, and what prompted me to express my opinion is so many calling the new looks "professional". Sorry, but it's not even close.

 

You may believe it's all a matter of taste, but it isn't, see Color Theory for example.

 

Edit:

 

Have a look at a small mock-up of less cluttered header design I did in less than 15 minutes:

 

 

Compare it with the original:

So long as people are contributing genuine constructive criticisms, then it is fair enough. Simple comments such as 'I hate it' or whatever are not helpful. There are some things I dislike about the new look and some I like. Having worked as a designer for a large portion of my life, and having been a news sub editor also for a number of years, I know that there are many criteria to meet when producing a design which gets the message across, not least of which is the system side of things, but the main one should always be: 'is it fit for purpose'? With that in mind, here's my two cents on it:

 

On the plus side, it has a very clean look, use of white space contributes an invitation to read things, which is of course the whole point of creative use of white space, but the need to scroll down in order to do so for more than the very top article somewhat defeats that object. Part of the problem with that is the over-expansive depth of the banner area, forcing one to scroll down for things which should be accessible right from where the page opens, such as reviews, the Avsim shop, etc. Of course there is the need to sell advertising space, and to display the Avsim 'corporate identity' so the large banner area cannot go completely, but there certainly is a lot of wasted 'column inches', which I know would have a professional media buyer in tears, although on the plus side for revenue, that's a big space to be able to sell into. The point here is, most people have 16:9 aspect ratio monitors these days, so to waste that width and force scrolling down is something that should have gone with the passing of the 4:3 aspect ratio era.

 

The use of a three column grid which eschews the classic horseshoe design shape that, under normal circumstances, would direct attention to the centre of the page, is foiled by the inability to see the bottom of that horseshoe. With lots of information to impart, necessitating scrolling down, a better choice would therfore be one large area on the right for the dynamic information, with a narrow column on the left for static info such as links, donation rollovers etc, which would then form the classic L-shaped composition by virtue of the bottom bar on a browser window. And on the subject of clarity, at present there appear to be two strap lines: 'where flight simulation enthusiasts gather from around the world', and 'Simulation's premier resource', we should pick one and stick to it.

 

On the copywriting course which I teach, one of the things I always stress, is that the essence of good communication, is to not try and get ten points over at the same time, but rather to pick one major point, and then use the other nine points you wanted to convey, as subordinate details which support the thrust of the main point you chose. To do otherwise risks none of it being read.

 

With that ethos in mind, I think a lot of the stuff on the main page which is causing the lack of maneuvering room from a design standpoint, could be relegated to being hyperlink buttons to a page where that info sits without having to be crammed in. For example, the list of Avsim staff could easily be accessed via a link to a dedicated page for that list, likewise, the list of reviews, which is surely a major reason for people to visit Avsim, could be accessed from a simple 'product reviews' button up at the top of the page, where it could be found easily. This would free up a lot of width.

 

Its not all doom and gloom however, one thing I do especially like, is that either by accident of design, the colour scheme is very well chosen, and to demonstrate what I mean, here is a screenshot of what the Avsim site would look like to someone who is colourblind with Deuteranopia or Protanopia (red/green colour blindness). As you can see (assuming you are not so afflicted), it is very little different from the full colour appearance and more importantly, nothing disappears.

 

 

Overall, the design ethos is good, with the use of white space adhering to the classic mantra from media messaging guru Marshall McCluan that 'the medium is the message'. I just think that medium could be decluttered a little bit in order to make the message even clearer.

 

Al

If you're not paying for it, then you're the product. Look at the ads on this very page and give it a thought; it's not a gift, but a two-way street.

 

 

It might be a 2 way street for You but not for Me. I have better things to worry about then trivial things such as what a website looks like. Regardless of what it looks like it doesn't stop me from coming here. It's a gift the the FS community. One I happen to be pretty thankful for.

Regardless of what it looks like it doesn't stop me from coming here.

 

Absolutely, I don't wait at a bus stop until a bus with a design which pleases me comes along.

 

Al

most people have 16:9 aspect ratio monitors these days

Do they? I didn't realise how far behind I am!

Yup, they do, especially flight simmers, who are known to go with technology more than most. Not everyone does of course, but a website design should be geared toward the fact that eventually it will be the case, just as much as it should take into account HTML 5, web browsing on mobiles, and technical malarkey such as that.

 

Al

Yep, but when you make the page wider, you have to put more stuff on it which will make the page appear even more cluttered. Vertical scrolling is not bad, as long as the important information is conveyed on upper part of the page that does not require scrolling.

 

But showing users a horizontal scroll bar is an absolute no-no. Remember that people do not always use the entire width of their screen for the browser content area. I always have my bookmarks tab open which steals some screen real estate. Other people do not run their browser maximized. Currently, it is rather uncommon to have web pages with a content area >1000 pixels wide.

It looks a bit generic, I guess, and the spacing is a bit all over the place, but I don't see what all the fuss is all about. How is it even remotely confusing?

Yep, but when you make the page wider, you have to put more stuff on it which will make the page appear even more cluttered.

 

Nope. In fact, you highlight the perennial problem which designers face all the time LOL, i.e. that of requests from clients who know little of design concepts, that any space must, by dint of being a space, have something put into it, or if not it must automatically be a waste. This is not a correct assumption where design is concerned. The whole point of creative use of white space is to make a design appear less cluttered and therefore more attractive and inviting to look at, not simply to make more room for more stuff to be jammed in there to clutter it up again.

 

Take for a simple example, a business card: 99 percent of them have loads of blank space on them, and that's because it looks better that way and conveys all that is necessary in a refined and clear manner. Thus its design follows its function. Skillful graphic design is often thought of as being a fussy or unecessary ideal, but it is not, it has a practical purpose with a solid theoretical basis behind it.

 

If you prefer a more visual example of how graphic designs can work, look at my signature banner. It is poking fun at old propaganda posters, but there is a serious design concept going on there nonetheless: The focus of it is the old jet plane, but this is framed in an inverted L-shape formed by the headline across the top and the pilot figure on the right, whose eye line is aiming at the exhaust trail leading to the jet, which you get to visually by reading the banner, then seeing the pilot, then seeing him looking down the exhaust trail, which leads to the plane, so your eyes are steered around the design in order to take in its message. This is not an accident, I designed it that way. It uses a phenomenon known as Saccades, where the eye scans about and tends to be drawn toward lighter colours and along dynamic lines.

 

Al

OK, point taken. But the other problem persists: not everyone can afford that amount of screen real estate. Print and web design have a lot of commonalities, but also some differences. One being: web pages are not a piece of paper where you can place things where you want and everybody sees exactly the same. Making web pages is more about finding the lowest common denominator so the page looks acceptable to everyone.

What happened to the list of new files by FS type? That was the greatest idea to list them on the front page. I much preferred the old style front page. Please go back to it. The new page is UGLY! Bob.