TechCrunch Redesigns, The Emperor Has No Clothes
Friday, May 12th, 2006 by MR
TechCrunch has redesigned.
I debated writing about this, not because I didn’t think it was important to talk about, but because I’m very sure that the design did not look like this when Rachel presented it to him. Rachel does very fine work (I’ve spoken highly of her work on other occasions), her recent work is really hot, but this caught me off-guard because it doesn’t hit me with the cool-factor her designs normally hit me with. Then after digging a bit further, I noticed a few key quotes that indicated to me that the design she sent Mike originally looked a lot different than what’s up there. First, a quote from Mike’s CrunchNotes entry:
“Everything wonderful about the new design is because of the awesome Rachel Cunliffe, my designer. Everything wrong with it is my fault for overrulling some of her ideas.”
Okay, when the client falls on his sword via the launch entry you know it’s not a good sign.
Next, Rachel has this to say over at her blog:
“Thanks. Design is incredibly personal and I’m not taking the negative comments to heart because I know I’ve created what my client had in mind and wanted - layout, ads, exact colors and format.”
What this says to me is that Michael gave her specific instructions on what he wanted it to look like (”newspaper-ish” comes to mind as a common client request), and although Rachel had her thoughts and ideas about what a new TechCrunch should look like, they were pre-empted by what Mike gave her as an instruction set. This happens a lot in client work, which I’m sure Rachel knows very well, and that’s the idea that no matter what vision you have in your head for a client’s site, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t match their vision for the site. In this case, I’m sure Rachel had a great design all dreamed up and then Mike’s requirements were the total opposite. That’s really tough.
Feedback Around The Blogosphere
You can always tell when people don’t really like the design but are being nice when they preface their comment with, “well the old one was good, but…” or “I like the design.” with no exclamation marks or emotion. Su, somebody who’s been commenting on this site a lot lately (and knows way more about Movable Type than anybody else on the planet) had this to say:
“I have to disagree on your new design Mike.
The sidebar’s too thick, the green is too strong, the links list is missing and the amount of ads clustered on the top makes techCrush looks like a sell out. Or a spam blog, which ever you fancy.
Just my 2 cents, and sorry if I sounded too strong.”
Ouriel has a critique entry up with a poll (if you don’t want to say the emperor has no clothes, then put up a poll so people can vote anonymously and the numbers can speak for themselves). Just before 7am west coast time, here are the results from the poll (hint, the bottom line was for “I liked the old one better”):
Some more assorted comments:
“Sorry, for using this news to comment about the site of TechCrunch, but i didn’t find the mail of Michael Arrington. What a crap site redesign, TechCrunch layout was better before this new junk, please turn back. I can only see advertise now, that’s really bad for a guy who knows about community.” -rodrigobarba
“This site redesign is a sell out to the man. Really bad, and NEVER display “your ad here”, very tacky.” -oy
“It seems you are forgetting philosophy of web 2.0, your blog now shows all advertisement banners. Whats up ?” -nil
“May be, it is just that my eyes are so used to the lovely old layout that I just am not able to admire this new one. I however completely admire Rachel and most of her works but this just doesn’t seem to be better than the old one. The heavy green makes it kind of uncomfortable to read as well.” -Startups.in
“Ahhh the green. The old design was a showcase of how great a website can look, this just looks plain mediocer.” -Thierry Schellenbach
Design Critique
While others may just be saying that “the right side is too busy” or “it looks too plain”, I’d rather go into actual detail with my thoughts on the design rather than just throw out subjective euphemisms.
- It’s not “Web 2.0″ — I know you’re all groaning right now, and I am too, however this is a very important point. The previous TechCrunch design (screenshot provided below) was a pivotal example of what “Web 2.0″ design looked like, even though you can’t really describe it but clients love to ask for it. Subtle gradients, strong typography, lighter colors, rounded corners. The new design has not-so-subtle gradients, weak typographical choices (Tahoma regular weight vs. negatively-kerned Helvetica Bold on the previous design for entry titles), very dark colors, and a blockier design. The new TechCrunch doesn’t exhibit “Web 2.0″ design traits even though it’s a “Web 2.0″ weblog. The old TC had that look going for it, and for the new version I’d expect it to retain some of the nice details and design touches, but no dice. It’s now a “Web 2.0″ blog with a semi-newspaperish look, two very contrasting styles.
- Wrong focal points — In the previous design, the darkest and most eye-attracting area on the page was the very first entry title atop the center column. Front and center. This worked out well because, hey, it’s a weblog focused on content, so what else should be highlighted? With the new design, there are two distinct focal points: the navigation bar and the dark green boxes on the bottom right, both have nothing to do with the content on the site. In fact, now, the content seems pretty secondary to the ad placement. I did my best on GigaOM.com to maintain the content-centric priorities that Om and his readers had while introducing ads into the layout, and the feedback on that design has been the most positive I’ve ever received because the focus remained on the content. With the new design, my eyes are attracted to the (almost unnecessary) top navigation bar and the search boxes which extend past the bounds of their dark green boxes.
- Entry titles? — On a blog, the most important text on the entire page is the entry title, hands down. A blog is focused on content, content = entries, every entry has as title, therefore the design of the entry title is the most important. You can tell that the new TC design isn’t focused on content anymore because the entry titles aren’t even in bold weight for emphasis.
- Knowing why gradients are used — I’m not sure if people know this or not, but there’s a very specific reason why some layouts “look off” while others look very rendered and nice, and that’s because gradients and drop shadows have to be done a certain way or else they’ll look like they belong somewhere else. In a computer interface, “light” comes from the top left. This means that to give your layout a rendered look, the gradient should be subtle and have a lighter color on the top (or top-left) than on the bottom (or bottom-right). The interface light is important, because it dictates where shadows should fall (down, or down to the right just like in real life, when the sun shines in front of you your shadow is behind you), it shows how to fake 3D and layering effects (mimic the real-life shading of a shelf, the area under the edge is darker because it’s hidden from the light), and it also dictates that you should be consistent with your lighting because faking multiple light sources confuses the user and is different from everything else they see. Take a look at Apple icon design guidelines to see good examples of how a top-left light source dictates the look and feel of the icon.
Anyway, so having said all that, the lighting in the TechCrunch interface is inconsistent and throws the eye off. The navigation bar is rendered correctly (light on top, dark on the bottom) so that automatically sets up the light source’s location as in the top-left. Then on the bottom right, you have the dark green boxes (layout is goofed in Safari) and they’re supposed to mimic the design of the navigation bar, but these boxes have an inverted gradient that suggests light coming from the bottom. Once you setup your light source as having a top-left location, if you switch it and flip the rendering on another area, a user’s eye is automatically drawn there because it looks out of place. Flipping the gradient to give it a “shelved” or beveled-in effect is fine, but you have to execute it correctly. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about. Original on the left, two versions of what it could have looked like on the right, if we were following normal interface light convention:
Tough Call
I’m not sure if Michael Arrington knows just how important the design of his site actually is. One of the main reasons that the design industry is so full of work right now is because of the booming tech industry, and TechCrunch is the megaphone that connects people looking for new work with people starting up companies, so TC is the major commonground between new companies and the consultants/designers they hire. The previous design of TC was very slick and was a good representation of what “good blog and app design” looks like, or if you want, what “Web 2.0 design” looks like, and it was easy for clients to communicate that to designers. “Hey designer, I really like how TC is rendered and slick, I’d like something like that.” Now, because the new TC doesn’t exhibit any of the previous rendered “Web 2.0″ look, it’ll be tougher for designers to pitch a nice 3D-esque layout because they won’t be able to say, “Hey client, check out TechCrunch for an example of what I mean” and immediately be on commonground. That, apart from the rest of this critique, is the toughest part about this redesign. Because it has a totally new look and is a big departure from the previous version, it might actually throw off how Valley startups understand design now, and that could be huge. I hope that the karmic balance in the Web 2.0 world is somehow balanced or modified, because right now, things feel a little out of whack.
The old design:
Reader Comments
35 Responses to “TechCrunch Redesigns, The Emperor Has No Clothes”
jesus christ the new techcrunch looks awful! wow i can’t believe they would launch with it looking the way it does. ugggh.!
May 12th, 2006 at 11:34 am
I am really disappointed in the way things turned especially since the old site was hot. I realize that Michael has taken responsibility for this, and taken it on his shoulders is respectable, but thats no excuse for the simple mistakes that are there… Such as the search boxes not fitting in the page, and the poor usage of gradients. I mean come on. I am not trying to rag on another designer, just asking the question… What happened?
May 12th, 2006 at 11:48 am
The problem is that I think people closest to Michael were probably asked for their input and they backed down. They insulated him from the truth, and the truth is that he should not have let TechCrunch, the most important weblog covering the tech industry, go live like this. Just like President Bush’s advisors insulate him from what’s really going on, Michael’s “friends” were unwilling to give him the straight dope on the design, they were “yes men” when Michael truly needed people to give him real feedback and real opinions. Because of that, the reputation of TechCrunch is in pretty grave jeopardy, and if I were an advertiser paying $7,500 a month, I’d be asking why the site I’m advertising on is now the black sheep of the design and tech world.
The previous design was slick, rendered, detail-oriented, and the new look is a big departure from that. Like I said in the entry, I’m positive that Rachel’s initial design interpretation was MUCH different from this current design, but she had to change it based on what Michael wanted.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Mike, I read your entry before I clicked over to TechCrunch. So I will readily admit that I was biased before clicking. However…
My first thought when the TechCrunch page loaded (finally) was, “Did Calacanis buy TechCrunch?”
Everyone’s a designer, clients included. But as some advice to clients and potential clients out there… if you decide to pay someone to design your site, have a lot of conversations with them first then let them do their thing. If they are any good you will be happy. The design may not be what you imagined, but a good designer will be able to tell you why watch design element meets your requirements.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Mike,
The criticism is a bit harsh, its not a terrible design, honestly some of the elements in there reminded me of your style. But I agree on liking the previous design better. What it boils down to is that the old design looked sharper, more refined.
Some things I’d change in this new one are making the techcrunch sponsors thing the same width as the two columns beneath. Lots of other little things too, but since i wasn’t involved in the process, i don;t know why any of these decisions were made.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Hey Brian, I agree, it’s not a terrible design. Compared to the previous design though, then it really falters because the previous one was so slick and well-done. I’d like to think that the previous design was a bit closer to my style, but either one is alright ;)
May 12th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Mike,
Great explanation of why the new design fails. At first I thought my dislike for the new design was just because I was so use to the old one. But you are right in that there are things that are just completely off. I’m intrigued to see what ‘damage control’ is actually done, if any. Nice article.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
With java script blocked, it looks ok. ;)
In general though I can’t help myself thinking that it just looks cheap and unbalanced. The latter is the real bummer. No visual hierarchy worth mentioning and that, for me, makes the site difficult to take in fast enough to catch my attention.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I saw the redesign this morning and was, to be frank, shocked. I think Techcrunch’s image is pretty important to them, and this design is just all wrong for that image.
It’s really not that bad, and I can imagine how much better it looked in the original conception before certain decisions were overruled (it would be interesting to see Rachel’s original), but it’s so not TechCrunch.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
You said almost exactly what I was thinking when I saw the design, except more to the point and elaborate ;)
The ads catch attention when you first view the site and it stays there for some time before you’re able to focus on the content, at least that’s my impression. It looks crowded and there are a lot of small inconcistencies that are hard to pinpoint (but you did a good job) that make it look unrefined.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
I always read techcrunch from RSS, but I am very familiar with the old design, and I do agree the new one is just off- unbalanced. I personally think the green is too dark and too rich - it distracts from the content too much.
I don’t care about the ads being there, but the advertisers box is smaller in width than the two columns below it, and it is not centered above the two columns to make up for that difference. And then below in the first adbar (middle column the ads do not align - some are centered, some are indented others are flush to the columns left edge).
It just isn’t polished enough … and I wouldn’t solely blame that on the client because as a designer you are supposed to advise and bring details like this to his attention. On the other hand some clients just won’t listen no matter how many ways you explain and prove it to them…
In most cases I would say - well it IS his site and if he loves it, then so be it - but since TechCrunch isn’t just an ordinary site- the design should reflect that. I have to say I’m pretty disapointed.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I think you’re spot-on with your commentary. Having heard about the upcoming redesign a couple days ago, I was very much looking forward to the launch. It fell well short of my expectations (which were, perhaps, were too high?)
It’s surprisingly hard to focus on the content.. and that, among other things, just pushes me to read the site purely through its feed.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Great points Mike. As far as gradients, would you think there are exceptions in terms of light-source? For me, like you said, it just doesn’t work for TC’s. I’m pointing that out because you have a gradient going from dark-to-light on your footer area. Then, over at your “#sidecontent .rulesad” (http://businesslogs.com/springtime/images/9r_rightad.gif), you have it from light-to-dark.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Hey Sherwin, thanks for the comment.
The top of the footer is meant to emulate the shadow cast by the big white content area above it, kinda like the footer is a green panel, sliding up underneath the white panel. If a light source is at the top, then the shadow cast by the white content area will cast down on the part “hidden” from the light, aka the top of the footer. Like I said in the entry, top lighting will either highlight an area or cast a shadow, but it has to be in the right direction.
If you check out the green blocks on the bottom right of the TC layout, you’ll see that there’s nothing that could possibly be casting the “top shadow” (the dark gradient) on the top of the box so it looks out of place. That probably was a terrible explanation, so maybe I should turn this whole interface light concept into a weblog entry ;)
May 12th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
For the record, the Su over at CrunchNotes isn’t me, the one who’s been commenting here recently. I’ve never said anything over there. Had a minor freakout moment when Mike quoted above, as it just doesn’t sound like me. It’s niggling(read: inexplicably important to me), but it’s highly unlikely I’d use the “2 cents” phrase, for example.
I do generally agree the design seems a step down. I was always pleased by how “nice” TC looked for a tech site(Imagine my suprise when the Sourceforge redesign happened in the middle of my browsing around.)
I don’t think the sidebar’s particularly thick, but it is maybe a bit disorganized-looking. I’m actually kind of intrigued by the ad(sponsor?) cluster up top, though I wonder if any of the advertisers will object to such close proximity of others’.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
@Mike: Thanks for the clarification on gradients and light-source. I guess you were “in the zone” when writing that part (this article) and just had to get all of those ideas in writing.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
I haven’t been a big visitor to TechCrunch, but I have got to say they have pretty much pulled a 180 on us here.
In a time when everyone is working towards focusing on user-centered content over ads and secondary content, TechCrunch has done the exact opposite. Usually a redesign of an online publication is to move towards users while improving the overall design.
I must say I am not impressed…
May 12th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Mike,
I get what you’re saying w/the light source, it does make sense to keep them consistent, otherwise you’ve got some confused vissual cues going on with the site.
Not to be rude to the designer, but I think a site redesign like this could be a great example for a re-redesign case study like 37s used to do w/ http://www.37signals.com/better.php
I think i woulda played around a bit more with the typography on thius redesign, like the navbar mouseovers don’t do it for me, the comment listing, i think i woulda gone w/something bigger, but softer. anyway, good writeup Mike.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Mike, love the write up here, and I’m glad that amidst all the noise surrounding the re-design, you’ve added some very sensible, reason-driven points to the mix.
As you have astutely pointed out within your post, both Rachel and Mike use qualifying speech when introducing the new design. This makes me think that they were keen on the idea that something wasn’t quite right with the re-design, so now I’m left wondering why it was published.
A quick glance at your screenshot of the old design says it all for me. The balance - of both color and content - was both striking and functional, and for someone who’s an avid fan of change for the better, this is a real kick in the ass.
I have seen quite a few people comment that Rachel was merely doing what her client asked, but as a designer, I’d like to add my two cents to this topic. Regardless of how things played out behind the curtain, Rachel is going to end up taking a PR hit because of this fiasco. I have no doubts that many will come to her support - as well they should given her expansive body of fine work - but I still think that as a designer, you have the right to put your foot down and say, “No, this sucks!” And on a site like TechCrunch, which is arguably Rachel’s opus? I hate the thought.
On top of that, this is an issue of expertise. As you reveal in your post, there is a lot more to good design than meets the eye. People like Rachel, you, Jason Santa Maria, etc. are experts in the field, much like Tiger Woods is an expert golfer. Did Buick hire him and then tell him how to play his game per their specifications?
The thought is ridiculous when placed in a different context.
For my money, design is no different. Provide experts with a loose set of requirements, and let them work the magic that brought you to them in the first place.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Mike,
Good write up. I feel for Rachel, I’ve had a few designs hijacked by the client lately. Having them go against what you know are ‘basic principals’ really sucks, especially as you don’t want to show something like that in your portfolio.
Now, Techcrunch is all web 2.0, which is supposed to be about users, conversations and listening amongst other things. So given that Poll you link to above, I wonder: WIll Techcrunch listen to it’s audience?
May 13th, 2006 at 6:08 am
What an awful position for Rachel to find herself in. It’s inevitable that not every project will be portfolio material. Some clients have very strong opinions, and would rather listen to their own voice than that of their hired experts. What a shame for Rachel that this had to happen in such a public way.
In the end, this whole debacle will probably help Rachel – exposure is exposure, and I’m sure that once folks find their way to her portfolio, they’ll see what she’s really capable of.
Great write up Mike.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Only a blind man would think this redesign is an improvement over the last version. The one thing, though, it seems that people are overlooking is what was driving this redesign.
It looks to me like one of the big things driving it was trying to get more advertising space in there. That’s always a nice way to wreck your design.
But even beyond that, it looks like GolfCrunch, not TechCrunch… I’d say take a mulligan on this one and do it over.
May 13th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Stepping aside from the design issues for a moment - has it occurred to Michael that the most common form of colour blindness is red-green?
May 14th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
You know, for something with so much debate, this is the only posting that had reasonable information backing up why it wasn’t “web 2.0″ and is a “bad” design. I personally think the new site is fine… but I’m also one to look at a painting and think… “so why do people want to pay $2 million for this”.
But if you understand all of this, then prove it and help out all of the rest of us with poor website design…
My challenge to all…
http://marlincreek.com/content/view/66/35/
May 15th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Mike - I read your post a few days ago, and I just read it again and I think you hit the nail on the head.
That said, you’re looking at it as another designer, as I am. I’m not sure regular blog readers look at designs as closely as other designers do. Obviously it doesn’t have the appeal that some of your designs have, or some of Rachel’s recent work - but will it actually cause people to stop reading his blog? Probably not. He has 50,000+ subscribers who never have to glance at the design again if they don’t want to.
The new design is functional and it’s easy to read the content - that is enough for some people.
On another note - I have had more than a few clients say “I like the look of TechCrunch” when they are explaining what they want a design to look like. I don’t know that people will continnue to say that…
May 15th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Very harsh.
I prefer the old version too, but some of this criticism is ill-directed.
TC would always struggle to be a litmus test of Web 2.0 design, since it is a publisher and it isn’t stuffed with functionality.
It is useful as a reference source, not necessarily as an example of best in class Web 2.0 design. Some of the sites reviewed on TC *ARE* way better examples of Web 2.0 design, but not TC itself. How can it be? It is a simple blog (with a directory pinned on).
But hold on, you then say: “the new TC design isn’t focused on content anymore because the entry titles aren’t even in bold weight for emphasis.”
So it isn’t about content now, and the design is rubbish? Poor old Michael Arrington. A lack of functionality, a lack of Web 2.0 design finesse and a lack of focus on content! I think TechCrunch should remain *all about content*, and design - like it or not - comes second.
To suggest TC is in “grave danger” because of a change to the design is ridiculous. People will still read it, if the content remains useful. Designers might dodge it, if they are so appalled by the aesthetics, but that’s sort of missing the point. And people thinking that he’s selling out are taking a very Web 1.0 view.
We certainly need to avoid any fixed view of Web 2.0 design, lest we become straightjacketed. To hell with rules. Web 2.0 is surely about being agile, as much as anything. And sure, it is also about knowing what’s right for your audience, so maybe on that front Michael has failed, especially judging by the feedback to this article. But then nobody likes change, so maybe we’re all overreacting…?
This sort of analysis of what’s wrong with the design, from people who understand about what makes design effective is going to be very useful for TC. Listening to your users is essential, so presumably he’s got more than enough feedback to put things right (if he wants to).
May 16th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
I liked the old design for the simple reason that the design was not in the way of the content.
Mr. Arrington is in a tough spot now, should he listen to his readers or his personal preference for the site design?
May 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I think it is obvious that the old TechCrunch looks better. I can’t figure out who thought the new one actually looks better…it is never to late to go back to the oldie but goodies.
-Brandon Hopkins
May 16th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Your review was a hack job, plain and simple.
You put some unsupported opinions down about what you think Web 2.0 is, or isn’t, and you couldn’t come up with anything more to support your ideas than light sources, pastel colors, and rounded corners. And you dragged a classy professional and a good design through the mud just to air these opinions.
Nice! Hope you got some traffic.
Web 2.0 isn’t about design, it’s about empowering the users of the site. Design is an element of that, an important one even, but it’s not something either you or anyone else can know about without listening to the user.
A designer (or anyone else) should know that a site needs to go out into the world, take feedback, and refine from there. A designer should know that people always hate a new version of anything, for a while.
And without a single reference to whether the site worked or not, you categorize this post under “usability”?
This is one of the cheapest shots I’ve seen in a while, made worse because you cloaked your opinions in the language of a substantive criticism. You didn’t even consider whether the design achieved its business goals, you didn’t even speak to Mike or Rachel to find out what was really going on, you didn’t wait to see what changes would be made, you didn’t mention the well-known behavioral phenomenon that new designs take some getting used to — it’s really low.
Your throwaway phrases about you how liked some of Rachel’s other recent work didn’t soften the blow, it only gave the illusion that you were being even-handed. You managed to call Mike a moronic client and Rachel a bad designer without a shred of evidence other than your opinion and those of a few other people you found on the web.
Classy! Hope you got some traffic.
I wrote more about this on my blog — a less restrained version of my comments here.
We’ll see if this comment makes it through the moderation process….
May 16th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Your review was a hack job, plain and simple.
You put some unsupported opinions down about what you think…
Do you realize you just made a claim with unsupported opinions in the first sentence?
After reading around crunchnotes.com:
It isn’t perfect, but we needed to launch and iterate from there.
I do give credit to Mike for trying out something new and bold even if parts of the site design were against the wishes of the designer. However the situation is all ugly and too messy now. It would have been helpful if this was posted to techmeme.com to track the drama but this isn’t really newsworthy anyway.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Lol Antony, tell me how you really feel :)
No, my traffic didn’t increase over normal, but that’s fine with me because I don’t blog for traffic: I blog because I like having an outlet for my opinions. You obviously have a very different opinion, and expressing that opinion is why blogs are great — you can write what you want, I can write what I want, and then our readers can read both and interpret the issue for themselves.
Thanks for stopping by.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
antony, your comment made me laugh!! how can you talk about what good design is or not when yourr damn company site looks as ugly as it does? what do you do…. sell domain names?
how’s “domain name marketing” or whatever you do the least bit relevant to the conversation and how does that give you any sort of authority to talk about design in any capacity whatsoever?? where are your designs you’ve worked on….. you rportfolio? do you haev anything to back up your opinion at all, or do you just like trolling so your ugly ass website gets an extra 5 pageviews today?
mike, i have no clue how you restrained yoruself in your comment….. but being nice vs. how he was a jackass says loads about your professionalism and his lack of professionalism. don’t worry about idiots like that… they’re just jealous
May 16th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Web 2.0 isn’t about design, it’s about empowering the users of the site.
? For some reason, this part calls out for a whole new debate… at least to me. Crappy design, empowered users. Just doesn’t hit home. Anyone, anyone, Bueller?
May 17th, 2006 at 11:07 am
People are by nature resistant to change. Very drastic changes to things we love make things even more difficult to accept. It is interesting that TechCrunch felt the need to change in the first place. Sometimes its best to make subtle changes first to see how concepts play out to your core audience.
For example, I am a fan of the color green (insert shameless self-website plug here). However the original design was well received and liked by many including myself. A better approach would have been to integrate the new color scheme into the old design to give it a fresh feel. Chances are that this would have resulted in a better overall “change” experience.
The bottom line is that over the last few days the general consensus is that the majority of people do not like the new design. I personally liked the old one much better. I think this review extends the thoughts of many and at least has the balls to say what many where already thinking. I wonder how long this debate will continue and how long it will be before we see TechCrunch change their design (again)?
May 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
“Now, because the new TC doesn’t exhibit any of the previous rendered ‘Web 2.0′ look, it’ll be tougher for designers to pitch a nice 3D-esque layout because they won’t be able to say, “Hey client, check out TechCrunch for an example of what I mean” and immediately be on commonground.”
Great review. At least we still have Digg as a good example.
May 19th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated because spam's not tolerated.
