Why is it a good thing that they all share the same design? They have completely different on-air looks, completely different looks, and cater for completely different audiences?
At a time when the BBC is finally settling into the relaxation of its previously rigid branding guidelines, and when channels are now being allowed to enjoy more distinctive sub-brands of their own under the BBC umbrella, why is it a cause of celebration that the channels' online presences are now weak replicas of one another?
Improvements were needed for the terrible BBC Three site, and the BBC Four site became a shadow of its once brilliant self as the years passed, but the loss of the highly individual BBC Two site is not a price that should have been paid.
Such a shame BBC Two had to drop their superb design though.
The previous BBC2 webpage was very difficult to navigate (everything was tucked away behind 3 or so link headings) and for those without a fast connection, impossible to look at.
Why is it a good thing that they all share the same design? They have completely different on-air looks, completely different looks, and cater for completely different audiences?
Well I think they
shouldn't
have completely different looks, on-air or on their websites. They are from the same broadcaster, so should share something. It's easy to give separate branding to things. You have to be clever to give things a common branding but allow separate identities within this branding. When it's done well it looks great. You should be able to look at two TV channels, or two websites, and know that they're from the same stable. To say they cater for totally different audiences is ridiculous. I would say the vast majority of people watch all four channels.
The previous BBC Two website was awful, and I complained about it to the BBC on numerous occasions. It became so lacking in content as to be completely useless. I'd equate it to BBC News online being replaced with the BBC News player.
If I wanted to watch BBC Two, I'd turn on a TV. The website should have information to complement the programmes, not just clips of them.
And I'm sorry if this is obvious, but how difficult is it to make a fluid width channel page? Or put it in the centre? Because around half of my 1280*1024 screen is blank space.
urgh >.<
how is it a good thing to replace the original designs with ones that are all identical? the bbc two website was really unique, and the only ones that really needed refreshes were bbc three's site and bbc four's site.
individuality is by far better than this; the consistent design is ugly anyway.
And I'm sorry if this is obvious, but how difficult is it to make a fluid width channel page? Or put it in the centre? Because around half of my 1280*1024 screen is blank space.
Don't use maximised windows maybe, smartarse? Who needs a browser window at that resolution anyway?
And I'm sorry if this is obvious, but how difficult is it to make a fluid width channel page? Or put it in the centre? Because around half of my 1280*1024 screen is blank space.
Don't use maximised windows maybe, smartarse? Who needs a browser window at that resolution anyway?
I get distracted unless the window is full-screen.
And I'm sorry if this is obvious, but how difficult is it to make a fluid width channel page? Or put it in the centre? Because around half of my 1280*1024 screen is blank space.
Don't use maximised windows maybe, smartarse? Who needs a browser window at that resolution anyway?
A person with a 1280x1024 monitor. Not everybody is running at 800x600. Also, not everyone is multitasking with Live Messenger, AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, MySpace, Facebook, TV Forum, and an Virus Scanner running at the same time. When somebody is running just one browser window, doing one thing, they would probably want a browser window to fill the whole screen.
I have a 1440x900 monitor and it does look squashed. The only bit of CSS they use is for that header bar and it looks silly. It's not as if they don't know how to use CSS.
