bbc.co.uk

Where on earth did you find that Facebook logo? It's not even vaguelly correct!

The "f logo" doesn't have any of the "web 2.0" effects applied, and should look like this:
http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/zDMQE/hash/9f1u6nrr.gif

The Facebook logo (which is only the "Facebook" text), isn't squashed like in your image, it should look like this: http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/z2ATO/hash/6mrq57iz.gif

Actually, the whole thing is stretched - do you know Mr Shatliff by any chance?

It's a shame that Facebook doesn't have a Logo's page where you can get hold of their official logos...

that's the iphone graphic

it did NOT say that at 8am this morning. Please cast your eyes upon result number 3



Yay though, probably a misunderstanding regarding moving everything onto www. in bits and pieces

There's a new breaking news image...

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48333000/gif/_48333893_bn-304x171.gif

which replaces

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44532000/jpg/_44532673_breaking_splash_466x260.jpg

Old one wins, just wish they would use a Swiss type font instead of Gill Sans.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48333000/gif/_48333893_bn-304x171.gif

I like how the letters aren't all the same size. Very professional.

edit

Whilst people will always complain about a refreshed website, there are a few serious design issues here. The site (designed by the same guy who did The Guardian's website I'm told) most probably cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

A few things I hate are the horizontal navigation. It's trashy, especially with abbreviations due to lack of space, and very itv.com. The vertical navigation looked better and was also easier to use as a navigation tool!

I also despise the new 'facebook' and 'twitter' integration, and am not at all keen on the increasing number of stories which allow 'your comments' to be published. I don't give a **** what the dumb public think, I don't care how many idiots have retweeted it, or which of my facebook friends 'like' it - I just want the news, written by journalists and not the stupid public.

Also hate how articles are now split into sentences instead of paragraphs. Talk about dumbing down.

My biggest concern however is the lack of spell checking and grammar checking. Yesterday a headline read "New film spooks Bin Laden" whilst the article referred to "spoofing" Bin Laden.

I imagine the whole site redesign did, yes, of BBC Online. But so?


Very ITV.com? I didn't realise they now had rights to one of two styles of navigation.


Do you struggle to ignore them that much?


I imagine this was a big part of the style guidelines.

Rather than being a p**** Jugalug, you could take my comments at face value in the way they were intended, but for your benefit I will clarify.



I was referring to the fact they've spent thousands of pounds on 'brand consultants' who have convinced them to do something they didn't need to do, and even with all that money spent there's errors and bugs, like the breaking news graphic shown above.



I was obviously referring to the fact that itv.com is notoriously ugly, and that this awful style of navigation is better suited to itv.com than to the BBC's site.



They can be ignored but I think it's a valid point to say, in my opinion, they shouldn't be there at all, editorially.



I was making a point that they should be investing their money in journalists that are capable of spelling properly, rather than redesigning a website which had only recently received a refresh and didn't really need relaunching at all, let alone badly.

When I first saw the screenshots I thought it looked really nice, but I guess things never look as nice when you're actually using them. Not a huge fan of the horizontal navigation, really, but I guess I will get used to it. The whole thing just seems a little stretched out vertically, and so it's harder to get an at-a-glance view of the news. I think it would probably be better if the 'More from BBC News' section was a bit higher up, because I don't really see why 'Also in the news' has such a prominent position.

I like the implementation of the new global visual language, but I don't really understand why they launched with another new header - surely this is just confusing things? They could have launched with the new standard Barlesque header that they only started rolling out a couple of months ago, and then changed it over with the whole site when the new homepage eventually launches, for example.

There's something about the story pages that doesn't make them nice to read - I think it has something to do with the line breaks between sentences which makes the story look ridiculously fragmented. The white gap between the story and the sidebar makes little design sense, too - I really don't understand the purpose of that when they could have just extended the story text a little. Agree also that the Facebook and Twitter icons stand out a little too much, and should be all under one share button.

I've read a few of the comments on the blog which are the standard 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', 'I will be going elsewhere', 'why are you spending my license fee on this' - but I think that the site has to progress, and nobody ever likes change. It's just a radical change and will take some time to get used to.

BBC News has always broken paragraphs into single point/sentences because it makes it easier to skim read online and the majority of people do read like that.

Also - people like to be able to share stories they've read and enjoyed - adding Facebook and Twitter integration makes that a lot easier.