2007 LJWorld.com redesign
We're pleased to present a new, more cleanly designed LJWorld.com today with a number of improvements that we hope will make your experience here a better one.
A few of our goals are:
- A front page that reduces clutter, gives you the latest in Lawrence news and community information, and serves as a jumping off point for the content that interests you.
- Cleaner, simplified design and navigation. We hope to make it easier to find what you're looking for and to discover things you might not have known about.
- A wider design that takes advantage of users' predominantly having larger monitors. We can present more rich and immersive news and information more fully for readers.
- A local events calendar to help you keep up with what's going on in Lawrence. Get event reminders by e-mail or text-message.
- Even easier access to our archives. LJWorld.com has always had free access to archived stories and content; we've made our archives even easier to navigate and have added to the types of content you can browse.
- Redesigned sections - like Arts and Entertainment and Opinion - that will put more related content at your fingertips.
- Daily e-mail editions of our most popular sections. You can sign up to get our latest published stories every morning in your inbox.
We're psyched about the work still to do. Do let us know what you think - good or bad.
Go ahead and comment below or e-mail us at editor@ljworld.com if you'd like to keep your comments private.
Top ads RSS
- Academic Counselor Kansas Athletics, Inc. Visit www.kuathletics.com for complete details. ...
- Higuchi Biosciences Center, KU Grant Monitor Duties include coordination of ...
- KU Facilities Operations
- Insurance Home Surveyor Perform field work & computer reporting for ...
- ACT FAST! 18/25 positions avail. in our customer service dept. ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Sarah Palin: With Interest July 4, 2009 · 41 comments
- Poll: Do you consider yourself to be patriotic? July 4, 2009 · 7 comments
- Increased government control poses threat to America July 4, 2009 · 28 comments
- Palin to resign as Alaska governor July 3, 2009 · 87 comments
- Much-needed tax refunds delayed July 4, 2009 · 6 comments
- A guide to what is, is not open today July 4, 2009 · 2 comments
- Appeal to restore president rejected July 4, 2009 · 9 comments
- Blog: What's Cooking Today? July 4, 2009 · 2 comments
26 April 2007
at 4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Very easy on the eyes. Thanks.
26 April 2007
at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
drewdun (Anonymous) says…
I like the redesign. The only suggestion I have is to emulate the KC Buzz Blog and allow users to have MS Word-like options, such as bold, italics, or underlined text. Otherwise, great job!
26 April 2007
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
one big thing: you seem to be getting double numbering in the comments section. The CSS is generating numbers for the comment, and there seems to be some other code that is generating numbers automatically as well.
Also, it seems annoying to me that the “suggest removal” link is on a line all by itself. Perhaps you could move the “suggest removal” link up to the previous line and leave a blank line there. And I would like it better if the block containing the reply (the user generated content) were outdented or something to further to differentiate it better from the auto generated content.
I like the way the article part of it looks, but I think it might be nice if there was more differentiation of the article from the comments part. Maybe by making the background color different for the comments from the white background of the news article? Or a different font for the comments or something.
26 April 2007
at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
Wow, I think it's changing right before my eyes! So ignore the CSS double numbering thing, and the suggest removal thing, but i'd still like something to differentiate the comments from the rest of the article, like a different background or something. Of course as soon as I say that, you'll probably have it change again!
Anyways, it looks pretty good so far.
26 April 2007
at 4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Hey guys…we are definitely rolling out the redesign one section at a time, and the homepage will come last. So, you will possibly see things “changing before your eyes” over the next hour or so. We'll get there, and we hope you'll like it! :)
Thanks!
Jeff Croft, Senior Web Designer
26 April 2007
at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porkchop (Anonymous) says…
Wow. You just blew my mind.
26 April 2007
at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
nothing fits on my page, I don't like it…too big for someone who wants to read multiple pages….get rid of the new design
26 April 2007
at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
it is a bit big, but we will adjust.
26 April 2007
at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
News_to_me (Anonymous) says…
So, what's the deal? You click on a most discussed story and it used to take you to the story and the comments. But , not anymore. Not yet anyway. Page is also awfully big and white.
26 April 2007
at 5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
News_to_me: that was an oversight on our part. It's been fixed. Thanks for noticing it and pointing it out!
26 April 2007
at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
Why so big? I have to enlarge beyong enlarge to see the page. I know you get it.
Kinda stark or plain I guess but you are the experts and I just type so go for it.
26 April 2007
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Actually Jeff, it hasn't been fixed yet. If I click on a “Most discussed” story link, everything just disappears. If I click on “Most discussed” itself, then the links come back, but I still can't get to any story from there.
26 April 2007
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Nevermind. It's working for me now.
26 April 2007
at 5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Dambudzo: The little white guy in a blue background is there as part of our plans to implement the ability for you to upload a photo or graphic as an avatar. We haven't enabled that feature yet, but when we do, you'll be able to replace the blue guy with a graphic of your choice.
26 April 2007
at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
One other thing though. The old pages had a link at the top where we could access our own profiles or log in. Is that a thing of the past? Or can we expect those links back?
26 April 2007
at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
News_to_me (Anonymous) says…
Thanks jcroft. All better now.
26 April 2007
at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
classclown: Check the little downward-facing arrow next to your name in the upper-left. :)
26 April 2007
at 5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Jeff I see it however it says welcome not my name. No big deal. At least no I know it's there.
26 April 2007
at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Classclown: Doh! I see the problem you were referring to. I believe it's fixed. let me know if it's not. Thanks, and sorry about that! :)
26 April 2007
at 6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
In the page that contains the entire post history of a user such as myself, there's no link to go to the article. Only suggest removal. So if I go to my history page to see what I've written, there's no way for me to see what article that is from, nor is there a way to get there. I also can't access my own post history without knowing the www2. address by heart, I don't see any links for that anywhere.
There's also too much white space and the screen is off-balance, all the writing's on the left with ads on the right.
26 April 2007
at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Why does every poster have “Anonymous” in front of it? Even if that's somehow required, can you move it to a less conspicuous place?
26 April 2007
at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
princess (Anonymous) says…
Getting use to it, but so far so good.
And yeah I dislike the “Anonymous” being where it is as well.
26 April 2007
at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
went away for a couple hours and bam even more has changed.
26 April 2007
at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Resize on my firefox browser was not working properly and the headers ran off the page. It will probably get better. Doesn't look too bad, same problem with Windows Mobile which 8 am using now. The old format worked well for both of those, but didn't work well with the Smart Phone browser found in the Motorola Q.
I think eventually I am going to like it, once it gets fine tuned.
26 April 2007
at 7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
The larger print might be easier for some, but it's rather disorienting right now. Too much white space. Perhaps a different shade of white (less glaring) would work better?
Also, at the bottom of the list of most recently commented on articles, there used to be a link to take you to the next page, so if you wanted to you could comment on stories that were older. I no longer see that link. The only articles that I found available to comment on were the last 20 to be commented on. I couldn't find a way to get to any of the other articles.
26 April 2007
at 7:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
And right now, I'm seeing, on the very lefthand side, under the “suggest removal” and at the bottom, the last letter in everyone's comments is repeated there.
26 April 2007
at 7:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hujiko (Anonymous) says…
its magnified, all the text runs of the edge without a bottom scroll bar, all the sides are too cramped, and the menus are jumbled up
please email me if you need my os and version
26 April 2007
at 7:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Yuck
26 April 2007
at 7:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
I don't like it either.
26 April 2007
at 8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, I'm really liking it now, of course I am open minded kind of guy. I would really prefer the reader comments were 'slightly” larger face type and ran a tad wider (little smaller ad).
I like the front page over all, but I too would like a little bit more differentiation on the sections and a slightly larger typeface, Darn maybe it only me, should I go to the optometrist?
A really offbeat comments I really like the front page pictures landscape format better than the portrait rectangle. Will this new layout allow the main photograph on the front page to run both horizontal and vertical?
26 April 2007
at 8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
i really like the section layouts, they are perfect don”t touch them!!! Front page needs some work, I miss the weekly weather header landscape.
26 April 2007
at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
This redesign is the perfect excuse for me to never turn on my computer room lamp! I just have to load up ljworld.com on the machine with the ancient 21” CRT monitor, and there's light! I like how much cleaner the pages are, awesome work. But I feel like I'm staring at a light bulb with all this white. Also, I usually post from my PDA, and the old site used to render REALLY well on it…I'll post back when I see how it looks on Windows Mobile.
26 April 2007
at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…
Jeff,
In the user comments section, are you going to include a link back to the original article/page?
26 April 2007
at 8:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
Not really liking it. It is harder to get around. I liked being able to find everything on the left side. Maybe I will like it better after I get used to it.
26 April 2007
at 9 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
spacystaci8: One of our main goals is more intuitive and powerful navigation, so we'd be quite interested to know what you're experience is. Is there something you couldn't get to as easily / quickly as you'd've liked?
David Ryan
Online editorial projects manager
26 April 2007
at 9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Is there a link to OTS on the front page? I didn't see one a moment ago.
26 April 2007
at 9:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
First FARK, now this?
It's a conspiracy, I tell's ya…
26 April 2007
at 9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
werekoala (Anonymous) says…
test
[b]test[/b]
Okay, as long as you're at it, why not some basic HTML formatting in the comments sections, at the very least the ability to italicize, bold, and underline?
26 April 2007
at 9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
snap_pop_no_crackle: On the street and the reader poll, along with some new items, will return to the front page soon.
26 April 2007
at 9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
inatux (Anonymous) says…
It's a little too wide for my taste.
And the white is overpowering.
And, the white isn't very “green.”
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/218…
Tsk.
26 April 2007
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nugget (Anonymous) says…
Bravo. Readers here are spoiled and don't know it. This is easily the best newspaper site in the region. Check out the messes that serve Topeka, Wichita and K.C. if you don't believe it. The web guys are top-notch (no, I don't work for them). Great CSS effort. Improved usability from what I'm seeing.
26 April 2007
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Katara (Anonymous) says…
Werekoala - I was thinking the same thing! Think it is any co-inky dink that there is/was a Jeff in charge there & a Jeff in charge here? It gives the more conspiracy-minded something further to obsess about.
Sorry, LJW, I need something with a much less brighter background. My retinas are slowly being burned away.
And if we get pictures, then we most definitely need some HTML for the comments.
26 April 2007
at 9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
No bold, no highlighting, no italics please. I prefer the emphasis be from the writing and not from formatting.
26 April 2007
at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Good2go (Anonymous) says…
Ya baby something new I likey. Do I have to use quicktime. I just wouldn't be me if I didn't complane about something. I need a spell check on this mother too.
26 April 2007
at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
getalife2 (Anonymous) says…
Too wide, too bright, don't like. I will change my home page to something other than LJ world and get my news elsewhere.
26 April 2007
at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imagold (Anonymous) says…
I'll get back with you later…my head's still reeling. Had no idea this was coming. Did I miss an announcement?
26 April 2007
at 10:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
warthog (Anonymous) says…
It's different, but nothing that I can't get used to. At least you don't have to sign in to read the news like the Capital Journal does.
26 April 2007
at 10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mhenders (Anonymous) says…
Awesome work guys. Best on the web.
26 April 2007
at 10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
I like the layout and format and so forth.
But… the color… it's not easy on the eyes. It also happens to be UNC blue.
26 April 2007
at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
spacystaci8: One of our main goals is more intuitive and powerful navigation, so we'd be quite interested to know what you're experience is. Is there something
you couldn't get to as easily / quickly as you'd've liked?
David Ryan
Online editorial projects manager
–
no link on the start page to *letters to the editor* only to submit one! little suddenly disorienting zowie.
***
hate to sound like an ol' fahrt…but the previous design was fine, why'd ya' have to go 'n change it…darnit! suppose I'll figger this out. once you get done diddling, just leave it alone don't succumb to the temptation keep messing with it.
26 April 2007
at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sco (Scott Raymond) says…
Bravo. It's gorgeous. The only shame is that you have to besmirch such a nice design with garish ads. But I suppose you gotta feed the monkey.
26 April 2007
at 10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
frwent (Anonymous) says…
I don't like it. If it works, why fix it??
I willnot be cancelling my subscription to a printed copy that I can read and locate the stories.
Everyone these days wants to seem to find something “new and better” and ends up screwing up things. Yuck!
26 April 2007
at 10:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
also, no link on the start page to “forums” “reader forums” etc. seem to have to go through “opinion. is this some of the “clutter” you got off of the start page. well put it back, i like my clutter!
26 April 2007
at 11:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Not counting Marion, everyone is “anonymous.”
Put the forum name first, followed by “anonymous” or real name.
Thanks, Marion, for having the guts to be who you are.
26 April 2007
at 11:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bryan (Bryan Wilcox) says…
crap. the previous release was fine. ellington, or whatever the hell you are up to these days is just getting more and more bloated. Is this the next hunk of crap you'll be selling to Scripps? I'll get used to it. like I have many times in the past. will http://www.49abcnews.com/ be next? since they are pretty much your sister site? That one might actually be helped by this new bloated site.
26 April 2007
at 11:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
Seems like lots more scrolling down with the new layout. Old layout was more compact and got more comments on one screen.
27 April 2007
at 12:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DanAlexander (Dan Alexander) says…
I like this set up much more, reminds me of a national news organization like BBC rather than a homepage.
27 April 2007
at 12:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nathan (Nathan Borror) says…
The feedback has been fantastic. We're still rolling out new things here and there and polishing all around. Hope this isn't a huge inconvenience.
The brightness issue is quite interesting. I never would have thought people would have found that troubling since sites like nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com balance about the same amount of brightness. Good to know though.
Nathan Borror
Senior Designer
27 April 2007
at 12:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
Can I say, for the record, I never knew how many fellow Farkers were among the LJWorld user base. I've counted three or four people already, just a few hours after launch, mentioning the fact that they redesigned Wednesday… who knew? Maybe we should plan a Lawrence Fark party ;)—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
27 April 2007
at 12:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
A few responses:
1. Anyone can be non-anonymous. Just as with the previous design, anonymous users are those who have not had their identities verified. If you'd like to have your identity verified, edit your anonymity setting: http://www2.ljworld.com/accounts/prof…
2. To those suggesting we allow HTML formatting in comments; this is a massive security risk, and one we simply can't take. Sorry.
3. On the width: we have followed industry trends to the 980 pixels wide layout. Whereas we usually prefer to innovate, we actually held out on the narrower width much longer than our peers. You'll find this same width on national news sites like The New York Times, CNN, and ESPN, as well as those from local news operations like The Kansas City Star.
4. One of the biggest improvements is actually not able to be seen and not mentioned above. We've set ourselves up with a framework for very fast, agile iteration and improvements. You will see much more constant enhancements and improvements — based on your constructive feedback — than ever before.
Thanks for all the constructive comments. We worked long and hard on this design, and will be working even longer and harder over the next several weeks to iron out any wrinkles. We do this to serve the Lawrence community, so your feedback is definitely welcome.
Jeff Croft
Senior Designer
27 April 2007
at 12:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Any thoughts of allowing users to pick the old “standard edition” or the “new edition”? Also, nobody has spoken to my preference for landscape picture for the main story on the front page. Any chance pictures will be allowed to be more than 1 column wide and not dead center? “The brightness” of the nytimes (my favorite look) and washingtonpost sites is the typeface. Its slightly larger, thicker, and more ornate (more typewriter'ish) and lowers the overall brightness.
27 April 2007
at 12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Sigmund:
The old design will not be available as a choice, I'm afraid. We simply don't have the staff to maintain two entirely separate designs. The homepage design accommodates both landscape and portrait orientation photos. You'll see both at various times. Our 16-column grid for the design of this site is quite flexible, and you'll find us using it in various ways to convey the meaning behind the content we design to support.
27 April 2007
at 12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
You do know that you look like everyone else, you've lost your uniqueness.
27 April 2007
at 12:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Sigmund: We are not artists, we are designers. Familiarity breeds usability.
27 April 2007
at 12:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Ben would be proud, I think ….
27 April 2007
at 12:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pywacket (Anonymous) says…
So far, I liked the previous look much better. Hate all this white, and the fact that ther are no sidebars for “the usual stuff” people might want to link to—like the hot jobs, candles, etc.
Thanks for asking for reader feedback, LHS..
27 April 2007
at 12:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Agreed, lots of hard work and thanks for asking for feedback. BTW, design standards are meant to be broken. :p
27 April 2007
at 1:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
1000% A-OK in my book!
Good work all!
David, you are fine!
Jeff, you are right up there!
Thank you for a very, very nice site!
Marion.
27 April 2007
at 1:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
Question: On my public profile page, it says I'm a verified user. However, the linked description of a verified user implies that it is someone whose identity you have confirmed. This is not true for me, as I'm an “anonymous” user. Is this a bug?
27 April 2007
at 1:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
compmd: Sounds like it might be. We'll look into it. Thanks for pointing it out!
27 April 2007
at 2:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xyz (Anonymous) says…
—When I click on an article link under the “most discussed article” tab, it does not go to the top of the page.
—12:39 am post—surely you will not be using the term non-anonymous! ID verified is what you mean, right? What is the big deal with putting Anonymous/ID verified/Name on this screen, since the vast number of posters are anon. If a reader wants to know the poster's status, they can click on the poster's link.
—The 2 lighter shades of blue that you are using really fade out and are very hard to read against the WHITE background.
—Why are all stories smack up against the lefthand margin?
27 April 2007
at 2:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kcwarpony (Anonymous) says…
Would like a direct link to the forums on the start page.
Can't find a link to the Most Recently Commented Articles, only the Most Discussed. Earlier when I could find it, I couldn't find anything older than 3 hours and no next page button. If I post something and I can't get back for a day or so, how am I going to find out if someone cussed me out?
What's wrong with being unique? Why does LJW web site have to look like The New York Times and The Washington Post?
“Familiarity breeds usability.” That sounds like the changes were meant for those who read the other newspaper sites. I understand trying to generate more hits but does it have to be at the expense of the current users? I liked the old format, loved it actually. This new format is going to make me blind. How many complaints were there about the old format?
If it ain't broke, let it alone…
27 April 2007
at 2:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
perkins (Anonymous) says…
Right. Like the library, people. If it ain't broke, leave it alone. But at least we taxpayers did not finance this new design! Thanks, LJW and web designer Jeff Croft for continuing to provide a wicked good blog site.
This site rocks and we will get get accustomed to the new design soon, massive white space and North Carolina blue and all. I am thankful for such a forum in which the bright Lawrence minds can blog.
Finally, I, too, think Marion deserves a pat on the back for not being anonymous.
27 April 2007
at 4:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
Much too bland and way too much of this blue-grey color, in my opinion anyway. I tend to agree with the if it ain't broke, why try to “fix” it mindset.
Also the information seems to be too north/south oriented with way too much open space on the right of the screen. The old design with plenty of links and information on the right side of the screen was preferable.
On a plus side, I think the avatar idea is a good one.
27 April 2007
at 5:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
punkrockmom (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, not a fan of the whiteness. It looks kinda like when you make your first homepage when you first get on the internet and it's all white and text.
I like the weather; it's easy to find and access. Last night, I couldn't find anything; now I can, so that's good.
Also, I hate the anonymous thing. I think the screen name should be first. Maybe make the non-anonymous people a different color. We don't need their real names on the same place, if you really want to know, you can click their profile.
27 April 2007
at 6 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overthemoon (Anonymous) says…
nice and clean…but I agree wtith the 'too white' comments. A little tone and focus on the front page would be good. Perhaps hierarchy of info is a better term. I liked the old format with top stories headlines for quick browsing.
Overall, a good effort!!
27 April 2007
at 6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gkwhdw (Anonymous) says…
I'm having trouble finding the weather forecast. Shouldn't have to do anything but push weather to get. What's the secret? Please don't make things difficult, otherwise the layout is very nice.
27 April 2007
at 7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanzer (Anonymous) says…
the text starts right at the edge of the browser screen unless i enlarge my brwoser window and then i can't see any other sites i might be looking at in the same moment… … i miss a big margin!
27 April 2007
at 7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
well done, imho. less cluttered and loads well.
good job, folks.
27 April 2007
at 7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
It's nice and big. I actually like it. Not too much going on in the background doesn't have to be a bad thing. Makes things easier to read.
27 April 2007
at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
need a direct link to forum threads like the old version , i find the pages not distinct enough , used to be able to scan headlines very easy and go to what you want to read , guess im not impressed with the change so far.
27 April 2007
at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
Day 2 - I still dig it. Anytime a site changes it's design people bitch and moan and I'm pleasantly surprised there hasn't been too much of that.
On the brightness… I think it is more of an issue as you scroll down the comments. Just a lot of white (no banner ads or links on the side when you get this low).
27 April 2007
at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
day two and finding it a little hard to get around but it is new so will get used to it I think.
27 April 2007
at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
clyde_never_barks (Anonymous) says…
I don't like it. The font is very difficult to read - seems as though the spacing is not correct - letters and numbers blend together. Also don't like the fact that when you click the “back” button, you go back to the main page, not the “most discussed” tab. One final thought/question…what are the little letters followed by a period at the bottom and to the left of each post?
27 April 2007
at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
It is WAY too big, and I have perfect eyesight and a large hi-res monitor. I really dislike the new design, makes everything too hard to read.
27 April 2007
at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
Also, the 'Most Discussed' link doesn't do anything. Even if you right click and choose 'Open in a New Window' it doesn't work correctly.
27 April 2007
at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Easy_Does_It (Anonymous) says…
Who moved my cheese?
27 April 2007
at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MeeMa8 (Anonymous) says…
So far I hate it. Maybe just busy because everyone is trying it out. But it took be 5 tries just to log on to ljworld and now it is taking forever to go anywhere. can't find anything and it keeps kicking me off. Too spread out. Where are births at hospital?
27 April 2007
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KStater (Kristen Murphy) says…
It's ok - I just want to know where the small stuff is: ex: births, engagements, weddings ,etc? Thanks! Other than that - It's kinda nice!
27 April 2007
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MeeMa8 (Anonymous) says…
Again, got kicked off and took 1/2 hour to get back on! where are the designers that commented on feed back last night? They should be here today when most people are seeing the new design for the first time.
27 April 2007
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pywacket (Anonymous) says…
I just think it's extremely unattractive—vast expanses of white, broken by bars of anemic blue. Change for change's sake, apparently, rather than for any logical or improvement-driven reason.
And, yes, part of my impression could simply be due to being accustomed to the former appearance, but I'm trying to adjust for that. I also realize that it's a work in progress, so I'm less concerned about the links that don't connect (or that lead to error pages) than the intentional changes—which, to me, seem to be for the worse rather than the better.
27 April 2007
at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Guys, the site problems this morning aren't related to the design. There are some issues with the servers and our IT staff is working on it. Our apologies.
27 April 2007
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lmpaul (Anonymous) says…
Dont' like this new look. Have to go to search to find obits - too stark, too big. New isn't always wonderful. Wish your look was still simple. How much $$ did you blow on this?
27 April 2007
at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rhd99 (Anonymous) says…
Way to go, LJW!
27 April 2007
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cellogrl (Anonymous) says…
I'm not sure that I like the new look either. I could always access the crossword and sudoku easily before but I had to search for it this time. And the sudoku look stinks. There are no lines and it's really hard to see what is where. Could you please fix this? I need my daily fix of sudoku!
27 April 2007
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
grubesteak (Anonymous) says…
OK, I must admit, I don't like the washed out look. The white just seems too … white.
Sorry, I'm generally behind a redesign but this look is too blah for my taste. I really feel like I have to scroll down pretty far to see what I want to see, even with 1280 X 1024 resolution. The text just doesn't “pop.”
27 April 2007
at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
cellogirl: sorry about the Sudoku. That was an oversight. I'll fix it right away…
27 April 2007
at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Pilgrim: The “Popular” tab on the homepage is your most active discussion list. On any other page you can still get the Most Active Discussions on the right-hand side of the page under “Most discussed.”
27 April 2007
at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
This looks like some high school kid's blog. Also there seem to be a lot of broken links.
27 April 2007
at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
acg (Anonymous) says…
You guys quit bustin his chops. The redesign is good. If it has some kinks in it, I'm sure they will be worked out in due time. Everyone fears change but they'll get used to it.
27 April 2007
at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Pilgrim: This is the link I have bookmarked for “Most Popular Discussions.” Granted, it's been pretty spotty today, but it does work. GIve it a try…
http://www2.ljworld.com/popular/discu…
Small request for you, jcroft: Sometimes, I like to wade back through my personal post archives to look for things. I've noticed today that while my archives are still good, I no longer have the active link at the end of each post that tells me *where* (to what article) I posted the particular comment. Any chance of bringing that back?
As to the overall “whole ball of redesigned wax”… well, okay, I'll grow into it. As somebody else pointed out, I also like the “bigger” look of things, even if it's all just an optical illusion. ;)
Thanks!
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
27 April 2007
at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Oh, and what's this deal about… whenever I post a comment to a thread, it dumps me out at the *top* of the thread, rather than at the bottom of the page, where my new comment is? I'm much rather be dumped out at the bottom.
—Ag
27 April 2007
at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MeeMa8 (Anonymous) says…
Still can't find births, engagements, weddings etc.???
27 April 2007
at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
On broken links: can you guys please indicate where you're finding these? We can't fix them if we don't know where they are. Thanks.
Couples (Weddings, Engagements, etc.): http://www2.ljworld.com/couples/
Births: http://www2.ljworld.com/births/
27 April 2007
at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
I still do not see the old, familiar, “previous page” and “next page” options, so you could scroll through the stories and comment on the ones you wanted to, even if no one had posted anything new for two or three days.
I want to be able to go through the entire list of stories if I want to, as I used to be able to do.
Any chance of fixing that?
27 April 2007
at 11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
crazyks: We haven't removed those links. You can still find them at the bottom of each section, but they have been named “Older” and “Newer,” rather than “Previous page” and “Next page.”
27 April 2007
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
I've been kicked completely off the site twice just now while trying to use the “older” function on letters to the editor. Or else the link doesn't work if you go back about 3 or 4 pages in the “older” letters category. When I posted a comment on a State News thread, it took several minutes to load, then went to a white screen. I had to exit my browser then, after 2 or 3 attempts, i was able to reload the ljw site. There is also a LOT of lag time while trying to access various articles.
27 April 2007
at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marshalus (Michael Stanclift) says…
Love the new design, very Web 2.0! Keep up the good work!
27 April 2007
at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kef104 (Anonymous) says…
The page is far too wide. It messes up the rest of my page sizes for all the other work I do. Also, the spacing of the left margin is weird, It is not comfortable having to directly read off of the margin. Can you imagine reading a book without a left margin? No fun at all.
27 April 2007
at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
deec: We've been having server issues today. This isn't really related to the design of the site, there are just some database problems. This is what is causing the slowness and “being kicked off,” and it should be fixed soon.
27 April 2007
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
We fear change…
27 April 2007
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cellogrl (Anonymous) says…
The sudoku looks much better! Thank you!
27 April 2007
at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
murphy59 (Anonymous) says…
Not a big fan of it right away but it's probably not going to change back so I'll get used to it.
27 April 2007
at 2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GSWtotheheart (Anonymous) says…
eeeeehhhhh I don't like it. I am trying to figure out if it's because you changed the site and I don't like change, or if it's because of how it looks.
So far, this is what I've come up with.
waaaaay too wide
too white
barely any or no left margin at all
not everything is intuitive
comments are too big-you used to be able to see more than 1-3 at a time
liked the links down the side instead of at the top
And it sucks because this is how I read the LJW, don't get the hard copy, so I guess it's a take it or leave it situation…
27 April 2007
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Overall I give it 8-1/2 paperboys out of 10. I absolutely love the layout in the individual sections in all browsers including Window Mobile. The biggest single drawback being the rigid three column with portrait layout picture in the middle column. Way too static and rigid. It reads way too fast and there isn't enough movement or interest to keep my eye busy.
The only other “complaint” (more of a critique really) is I don't care for the typeface (yes I know I can change that in my browser but I wont do that to accommodate a single site). I really like the typeface and line spacing used on the nytimes site better, it gives less of a empty whiteness feel.
Finally, lots and lots of stuff I do like and far outweighs the “bad.” The suggestions from readers you have already implemented has made it better. The single best thing I like is how you have sought feedback, answered questions, and implemented many suggestion quickly without getting all defensive. That in and of itself makes a huge difference.
Really, really good job on the roll out. Ya'll deserve raises. Open up your wallet Dolf …….
27 April 2007
at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hornband (Anonymous) says…
love it. great job, guys.
jeff, as you know, redesigns can be frustrating for readers bc it forces a change in habits and slows them down for a few days as they get used to where things are now located.
but you should be commended for hearing their complaints and even changing the site to meet their requests when necessary.
27 April 2007
at 2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
Blinding even with large or small print. We don't care for it here not that it really matters.
27 April 2007
at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
Can't wait to upload an avatar!!
Looks good guys!!
27 April 2007
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
Its getting better as I get used to it. Earlier I was having trouble finding obits and births. I think I found them now.
27 April 2007
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KStater (Kristen Murphy) says…
spacystaci8 - where did you find the births? I found the obits, but I can't find the births….
27 April 2007
at 2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KStater (Kristen Murphy) says…
Nm - found them! :o)
27 April 2007
at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ryanjasondesch (Anonymous) says…
The redesign seems quite sterile and cold to me. I hate redesigns. I'll get used to it.
27 April 2007
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Ditto what ryanjas said
27 April 2007
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Also..way too much space/whiteness and too little print!
27 April 2007
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
promitida (Anonymous) says…
Eh, it's alright. It's kind of hard to navigate. I liked having the links to the different sections going down the side. Also, having the pictures scattered on the front page makes it look a little amateur. It's difficult to decipher which pictures apply to which blurb.
The last thing, I think you would help out a lot of people on here if you added a “spell check” option when posting a comment!
27 April 2007
at 4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Someone pointed out last night that the post history on a user's comment page was lacking links to the stories. Each comment shows a “suggest removal” link, but no link to the relating story for any comment.
This has not been fixed yet.
27 April 2007
at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Why is there no link for National/Global news?
It really is a bit much on the white.
27 April 2007
at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
looks nice, jeff.
good work everyone.
and way to go w/ the quick response to some of the suggestions above. from what the comments were, it seems you fixed some of the things almost immediately (the order of real name and screename for example). that's some fast coding, i imagine.
classclown, i think there is no national/global section because they are sorting stories based on their topic (ie. politics, business, etc.) So under each section you'll have local and national/global stories. i could be wrong though.
27 April 2007
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Several comments lately have mentioned me by name. That's great — I love being able to have a dialog with the users of the site.
But, I just wanted to say, for the record, that I was not the lead designer on this project. Nathan Borror, our other senior web designer, was. And Christian Metts, another of our web designers, did a TON of work also. I've been following this thread and helping to get all the quirks worked out, but I didn't want anyone to give me credit where credit wasn't due. Nathan and Christian definitely deserve most of the accolades for this redesign. Our programming and editorial staff had a big hand in getting everything up to speed, as well!
Okay, that's out of the way. As you were. :)
27 April 2007
at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
I found National/Global under “Todays News”.
I miss the left hand column Where there was a link to any section you wanted to go through without having to go through a series of clicks. It's basically a blind maze now.
But if that's how other bigger newspapers do it, then by golly we should do it that way as well.
It's no secret that the town of Lawrence suffers from “Little Brother” syndrome when it comes to other cities, But I'm surpirised its newspaper does as well. Especially one that constantly wins multiple awards.
27 April 2007
at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Where's the link to the crossword puzzle? I need my crossword fix!
27 April 2007
at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
I got some HTTP 500 errors around 1:00pm today as well as an unknown error in Pocket Internet Explorer when trying to view the new site on my phone. I'm running Windows Mobile 5 on a Sprint/htc ppc6700. i was not able to actually load the site on my phone. I'll try again later this evening.
27 April 2007
at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kcwarpony (Anonymous) says…
dorothyhr, I saw a link to the crossword in the Sitemap (bottom of page). Click and scroll down the left and it's in the A&E.
The Sitemap is the only way I can get to the comments page at the moment but I'm not seeing the “Older” and “Newer” at the bottom. Is it me or is it you? Sometimes I can't tell :)
I kind of feel like a moth to a flame here because of the brightness.
27 April 2007
at 6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
inatux (Anonymous) says…
Now that I've had about a day to play with it, I dislike it even more.
I don't like that POTS is gone from the front front page.
I loved the sundown edition vs. the standard edition, but that's gone too.
Images without borders look odd to me.
Plus, it's just so boring looking.
The search engine seems to really, really suck.
Maybe this look is great for others, but not for me. You've removed all the favorite things I used to love about the site. I hate to say it, but I've removed the bookmark from my browser.
Maybe I'm a sourpuss, but I can't figure out why you asked for comments a few months back, and then did the exact opposite of what most people said - which was, “please leave it the way it is, we think it's great.”
27 April 2007
at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
moosejeffries (Anonymous) says…
were is the links to the small town newpapers that the world co. owns??????? I love the small towns
27 April 2007
at 7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nathan (Nathan Borror) says…
@b3 - Try the mobile version: http://mobile.ljworld.com
27 April 2007
at 7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
I can confirm that the new site does not play nice with Windows Mobile 5, now,
27 April 2007
at 10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowgomoo (Anonymous) says…
Not liking this. It's too wide and expansive and has a very faded effect that's hard on the eyes. Literally, hard on the eyes. I'm getting a headache just after going over one page.
I need snow goggles to read this.
Stop patting yourselves on the back. This is a step backwards.
27 April 2007
at 10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sinkorswim (Anonymous) says…
I miss the top of the old page…with Frasier Hall and “stuff!”
I also agree the new design has too much white space. I guess I'll probably adjust, but so far I miss the old design. I guess there's always kansascitychannel.com…
27 April 2007
at 11:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
I, too, miss having links to stories I've commented on in my comments history. Also, it's way too white. I had to turn on a room light to balance it out, making the site less energy efficient. The white I can get used to, but if the post history links don't return, I can't see remaining as an active contributor.
28 April 2007
at 1:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
Still needs work….
28 April 2007
at 4:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kcwarpony (Anonymous) says…
“I would give this a full week at least before all the kinks are worked out.”
The kinks should have been worked out before going public but I guess this way they are getting us to do their beta testing for them.
28 April 2007
at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…
Format's too wide. Gives too much space to less important items.
Color's too pale.
Items listed individually, Letters to the editor, rather than in a one-click destination.
No weather forecast on front page - only current temperature.
Look at the wasted space in columns two and three on today's front page!
Different, especially if it's “trendy”, isn't always better.
28 April 2007
at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…
“Anonymous user
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says:
On broken links: can you guys please indicate where you're finding these? We can't fix them if we don't know where they are. Thanks.”
Oh NOW I get it! Micro$oft mentatily takes over Journal-World offices.
We change it to make it easier for us. Now YOU can debug it for us.
28 April 2007
at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
miscellany:
can someone tell me where to find the old calendar links? the events section they elude to isn't the one that was linked to the lawrence.com (i think) calendar events site.
i like the look of the new site, but i find that i'm not compelled to look around as much. typically, i would browse the site a couple of times a day for a good 45 minutes or hour, flitting from topic to topic.
i definitely miss the front page accessibility to the public forums (as opposed to the most discussed), the showtimes, and the calendar events.
on the other hand, i like having fewer blinking ads around the page. that would be a fair chunk of lost ad revenue, i'm guessing.
regardless, kudos to the staff staying involved with public feedback.
28 April 2007
at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SpiritTat (Anonymous) says…
It is difficult to follow… a linear format would make it more reader-friendly. I'm fine w/change - I experience quite a bit of it w/the career I have as well as w/parenting!
This new format, however, is nearly impossible to peruse (which is a favorite way for many to read/begin reading the paper - on-line and in paper form). The links are not immediately visible and finding out where the links are for such things as the crossword, events, and other items is just not easily found nor intuitional to the user.
Sorry, LJ folks. You all are my hometown paper and I love being able to stay connected w/the updates that go into the on-line site, plus keeping up w/local, regional, national and international news. But this new format makes me want to go elsewhere for my news where I can clearly, quickly find the topics etc. in which I'm interested.
Plus: where are the daily updates?!?!
And it doesn't all fit on my screen either.
Love my Lawrence paper; really really dislike the new on-line format.
~Spirittat
28 April 2007
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
I too miss the “updates” section and weather week panorama at the top of the page. Honestly I really like the individual sections design, the front page not so much.
28 April 2007
at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
It's OK on my home computer, but it is hard to read on the scrawny 19” monitor I have at work. On the other hand, it makes better use of my wide format monitor at home.
Some links seem to be missing, (or at least are well hidden) like the link for comics.
28 April 2007
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Way way way too much white and the margins are extremely off-balance as well. And in our post histories we still can't link back to the original article we were posting on.
28 April 2007
at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
what exactly was wrong with the old version? new version seems stark.
i notice that you can't lookup your user name, go to your recent postings, then that article of debate - you have to search for the article you commented on instead of just looking up your name and going to the article. hope this makes sense, and i hope you change back to this feature of the old site.
28 April 2007
at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greyhawk (Anonymous) says…
i intensely dislike the new font!!!!! i do not like the new font!!!!!!l the new font is not, repeat not readily legible!!!!!! Did I mention that I don't like the new font?
I'm not fond of the wider format since I have an older screen but I'll get used to it.
I DO like the white space.
28 April 2007
at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KUweatherman (Curtis Lange) says…
I like the new layout. The only thing I dislike, as many others have mentioned, is the brightness. Way too much blank white space. The white space can be a good thing if one is reading the site in a well lit room, however, I doubt that is the case most of the time. I could seriously use this site as a flashlight at night; it's that bright.
28 April 2007
at 5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
A couple of situations need to be corrected.
1…..When checking a past post under my name or anyone elses there is not a link to the story that the post referred to on the past posts. The story line link needs to be restored.
2…..The forum roll over is far to quick. The limited number of hours that a current days posts is up is so short that readers who log in later in the day are not able to see the mornings posts unless it is a high traffic post. There needs to be more time, maybe a week or more before it rolls over into archive land.
These problems inhibit the continuity and flow of discussion and references. I will concede that the yammering should be slowed down for a short while but will not solve the petty arguments if that is the intent.
The archive search information is better now . At least I was able to find more information faster and easier than in the past.
28 April 2007
at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Getting better by the hour. I do not know anything about programming, but it seems to me to be an amazing feat to be making this transformation in real time, without taking the site down. It appears to me to be a work in progress, and it is fun to watch.
I, for one, appreciate the stark look of the forum. Helps to put one's comments in perspective.
28 April 2007
at 8:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
frwent (Anonymous) says…
Day Two. Ditto Day One too damned white. phlttttttttttttttttttt!
Who hired you? Must have been some Cablevision (oops, sorry, broadband!) geek.
28 April 2007
at 8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Tychoman and anybody else that has mentioned the lack of links on the “user comments” page. I found a workaround to the problem. On any comment just click on the “suggest removal” link. On the next page where it asks if you are sure you want to do it( I'm sure you're all familiar with that), click the link that says “No. Take me back to the comment” and it will bring you to the page that the comment relates to.
Not that this in any way excuses LJW for its failure to fix this problem in spite of the fact that many posters have brought it up. Especially after the following was posted at 11:41 on April 27th :
“Anonymous user
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says:
On broken links: can you guys please indicate where you're finding these? We can't fix them if we don't know where they are. Thanks.”
But then again, perhaps this is part of the new design since LJW apparently wants us to make several clicks on this new site where one click sufficed with the previous one.
28 April 2007
at 10:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
yes, I too, have noticed that the new setup causes many more clicks to get to the same destination…rather irritating. as I said i love my clutter, and want it back on the frontpage.
kudos for keeping up with the comments and making changes in real time.
***
heh! you kids get off my lawn!
28 April 2007
at 10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
just now, one shining example of *more clicks*! no link to *letters to the editor* on the frontpage, just today's LTE's. so, if I wanna look at a comment from one or more days ago, have to go to opinion, then letters to the editor. stop the insanity!
28 April 2007
at 10:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well, silly me!
I've been sittin' around here looking at what was REALLY the cached version of the error page!
A simple “refresh” and ALL was well!
SOME kind of a 'net guy am I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that some of the complainers might try the same thing.
On the other hand, I know what a pain in the Kiester it is to put up a new website and get out all the bugs so some of these people should just sit on their hands and let the Geeks get things up and running properly.
Nice job, LJW!
Thanks.
Marion.
28 April 2007
at 11:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
Since a couple people have asked about spell-checking…While I don't have final say over this, I don't think it's something we'd end up doing; supporting quality spell-checking through a web page is really tricky and, more importantly, introduces a lot of overhead; there are only a couple options and none of them are good:1. Bundle up a spell-checking script and send it along with the page, to be executed in your web browser. This will make pages load more slowly and the overhead of the spell-check script will probably make your browser slower while you're on the page.2. Set up a system which monitors while you type in the comment box, and sends the text back to our server for spell-checking in the background. This probably wouldn't be feasible given the number of people who comment here; Google does something like that with their online word processor, but they've also got hundreds of thousands of web servers all around the world to distribute the load to ;)3. Give up on dynamic spell-checking and add a “spell check my comment” button you have to manually click each time you want to check. That's relatively cumbersome for you to use — because you have to remember to spell-check manually over and over again — and as a result probably wouldn't get used enough to be worth it.It is worth noting, though, that there are some browser plug-ins available which will let you have spell-checking on any text box on any web page you visit; SpellBound for the Firefox browser (http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/) is a good example, and the Safari browser on the Mac has a spell-checking feature enabled by default :)—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
28 April 2007
at 11:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nathan (Nathan Borror) says…
Comment history page now has links back to the content that was commented on. Sorry for the oversight.
28 April 2007
at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
@OnlyTheOne:If you find a broken link, it'll probably get fixed lot more quickly if you bring it to our attention. We can and do dig through logs and other automatic notification systems to find these things, but there's no guarantee that we'll quickly find any specific page; LJWorld.com has hundreds of thousands of stories alone, plus daily videos, photos, galleries, special features, chats, polls, “on the street” discussions and tons of other types of content. And that's just one of the sites we manage; we don't like errors any more than you do, but we've got a pretty big haystack to go hunting in, and we might not always find the same error at the same time you do.So if you spot a bad link on the site, mentioning it to us can help focus attention on it and get it working again much sooner :)—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
29 April 2007
at 12:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Screw spell checking!
I was taught British English and have problems enough without having to defend my honour against some darned illiterate box!
Thanks.
Marion.
29 April 2007
at 1:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
Thank you, Nathan. That's much better.
29 April 2007
at 4:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prairie_girl (Anonymous) says…
I don't care for the new design….I can”t find a thing. Had to do a search just to find the obituaries….how am I supposed to know if I died or not if I can't find it? Also can't find the daily record to see if I was arrested either. The old front page was much better with the column on the left.
29 April 2007
at 8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
Now that I've figured it out–—it blows,looks cheap,and blinds a person after about 5 minutes. So tell me again what was wrong with the old layout?
29 April 2007
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jean1183 (Anonymous) says…
Where do I find “military news” that contains basic training graduation annoucements?
29 April 2007
at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Say, are those little blue heads supposed to be for avatars?
Now that WOULD be cool!
By the way, I don't think that the counters are working properly yet.
Thanks.
Marion.
29 April 2007
at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Get a great browser with a spell checker here http://www.moziiia.com/en-US/firefox/ Works like a charm.
29 April 2007
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Counters aren't working, I dislike the font typeface, bring back the weather week panorama at the top, I want a “breaking news” section.
29 April 2007
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
BTW, how would I find that article about Mike Rundle being a deadbeat loser who won't pay his debts?
29 April 2007
at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Better than avatars, links to a chat client would be awesome! I heard merrill complain that the liked the LJW website they had back in the 60's and bozo complain the the new website just takes traffic from other local websites …..
29 April 2007
at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
freeandeasy (Anonymous) says…
I hate it
29 April 2007
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
Having a home link at the top of the page wouldn't hurt either.
29 April 2007
at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
it seems the most dissused section has not been updated, still not getting used to this maybe I'm to old.
Sigmund I like my mis spells come on now give us bad spellers some fun.
29 April 2007
at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
there is nothing in the most popular from today but I noticed from reading articles that there are a few articles that are getting many comments so I can only assume that the ljw is being slow on updating the most pop. or discussed section. The new design is a little hard to navigate.
29 April 2007
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmom (Anonymous) says…
don't like it. I'm sure it will grow on me the more I learn the new navigation steps. Off to do some more snooping and see what happens. :-)
29 April 2007
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xyz (Anonymous) says…
Ks Twister—the HOME link is the LJWorld.com at the left on the top of the page. I just stumbled upon that little trick. Is HOME a non-PC word now?
29 April 2007
at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
so whose idea was it to down grade the LJW web page . each day I read the Rocky mtn News , London Telegraph , NYT , KC Star , Az Republic , huffpost , Raw Story , NONE of them look like this .
typical geeks selling someone a bill of goods and then delivering a piece of crap.
29 April 2007
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Couple of responses:
1. The home link is the LJWorld.com logo. There is one of these on every page, in the upper-left. I don't know about “non-PC,” but logo-as-home-link is certainly convention all over the web these days.
2. “Most popular” is updated automatically. It's not updated by any human — it's all programatic.
3. Just for the record: “I hate it,” “it blows,” and “piece of crap,” aren't phrases with which we can make a lot of useful deductions about what could be done to make the experience better for you. If you're interested in making this site as good a service for Lawrence as it can be — like we are — then please provide a bit more context and details as to what it is you don't like. If you're just interested in venting about the change, we're fine with that too. Vent away — but do realize it probably won't be the impetus for a lot of change. Unlike most news organizations undergoing a redesign, we are here, listening to your feedback, and making changes accordingly. But I'm afraid “I hate it,” doesn't give us much to go on.
29 April 2007
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
“3. Just for the record: “I hate it,” “it blows,” and “piece of crap,” aren't phrases with which we can make a lot of useful deductions about what could be done to make the experience better for you.”
Well THAT blows! Man, what a piece of crap. I hate it.
29 April 2007
at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Rightthinker the only reason the LJW would lose readership is because of your continued presence on these boards.
LJW: because of your concentration of the ads on the right side of the page and all the text and content on the left, the page still feels extremely off-balance and disorienting. Maybe you could keep everything symmetrical like before? It would also cut down on the astounding amount of white space that makes the text hard to read because of contrast.
29 April 2007
at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
And thanks for adding the links in the post histories page.
29 April 2007
at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
@mommaeffortx2:The “most popular” tab is updated automatically throughout the day, and the programming logic which generates it hasn't changed; it's just that sometimes stories that are a day or two old are still generating lots of discussion (like this one, for example), and that's the big factor we take into account — for example, a story published two days ago that's had fifteen comments today can be weighted “more popular” than a story published today that's only got five comments.Because it doesn't refresh every time a comment is posted, though (generating the “most popular” list is a pretty big hit on our database), it's entirely possible for the comment counts in the “most popular” list to get out of sync with the actual number of comments.@prairie_girl:To get to obituaries and crime reports, click the “Local” link at the top of the page, and the line of subsections under the main navigation will refresh with the full list of local sections, including obits and crime :)Quick links here if you want 'em:http://www2.ljworld.com/obits/http://www2.ljworld.com/news/crime/—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
29 April 2007
at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
The most popular hasn't update in days…..
29 April 2007
at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
The most popular seems to be updating fine to me. As James said, it doesn't update with every comment, nor is number of comments the only factor in determining what is “popular”. It definitely is updating, though.
29 April 2007
at 6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
sorry croft no it does not seem to be on this end.
29 April 2007
at 6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
the # of post have not changed so that would suggest that no new ones are being posted bu articles that I see have new post are not on there of course could just be me.
29 April 2007
at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
I agree, the “most popular” is not updating, the counter is not working.
Just a question. Is the home page hidden in the ljworld logo for the purpose of increasing the “hit” number?
29 April 2007
at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
The “sidewalk” thread shows “29” posts on the “most popular” index.
By my count, there are 49 posts.
29 April 2007
at 6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowgomoo (Anonymous) says…
I could say that the new design is not aesthetically pleasing in the least, but it's so much more satisfying to say, “I hate it,” “it blows,” and “piece of crap.”
When the readers are making those comments, it's really directed to the decision makers behind the design team, who are just doing what they're told.
To the higher up mucky mucks at LJ World: “I hate it,” “it blows,” and “piece of crap.”
Still have not heard what was wrong with the previous design. It was attractive and functional.
29 April 2007
at 7:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Godot: As was already noted, the “most popular” list does not update with every comment, so the actual number of comments may not match that listed by the latest “most popular” list. And no, we are not “hiding” the home page link to increase stats of any kind. We are making the logo the home page link, because that is the user interface convention readers expect, since it is the common place for the home link on the web today. By doing what readers expect, we aim to make things easier on our readers.
@Cowgomoo: We designers are the decision makers during the design process. After all, design is by definition the process of making decisions. Those of us commenting in this thread made virtually all of the design decisions — so we are the appropriate people to direct your design concerns at. “It blows” won't help us make the design better for you — I promise.
29 April 2007
at 7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
To be perfectly honest, RT, you're right. I DON'T think you should have a right to post on these boards because you're nothing but a troll that posts inflammatory and biased rhetoric that is entirely unoriginal. You don't speak your mind, you do nothing but mock other posters.
But that doesn't make me a hypocrite, and I don't fight 24/7 for “gay rights.” I advocate EQUAL rights when the issue comes up.
29 April 2007
at 7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
We'll look into whether we can update the “most popular” tab more frequently, but trust me: it does update periodically, it's just a fairly expensive hit on the database so we have to be careful about how often it refreshes.Godot: as I explained above, the fact that the “most popular” tab doesn't refresh every time a comment is posted means that the comment count can get out of sync, especially if a story gets a lot of comments in a short time; the comment count refreshes at the same time as the list of stories.Using the logo as a link to the home page isn't a secret ploy to get more clicks (I'm not sure how that would do it, anyway); it's just that there is no unanimous convention on the web for this, and many sites use a logo as a link back to the home page, while others use varying levels of explicit “click here for the home page” text. Most people have seen both types of sites, and the LJWorld.com logo has pretty much always been a clickable link to the home page anyway :)—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
29 April 2007
at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
You guys need some sleep, or some drugs from Bert Nash.
i was asking the question about hiding the homepage in the logo from the perspective of a business person.
I provided you with a specific example of the counter not updating for a period of over 24 hours to be of help to you in indentifying problems.
Sorry if I stepped on your very sensitive toes.
29 April 2007
at 8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
Don't threaten me with that “further action,” RT. I can't count how many times I've written complaints about you because you break far more rules than I do. I can't believe you haven't lost your account privileges.
29 April 2007
at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Wouldn't we all make great co-owners of Delaware Commons?
29 April 2007
at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Godot: We appreciate your giving us a specific example. We have looked into the matter, and can assure you the “most popular” list does update as it's supposed to. As James said, we will look into making it update more often and do so if it is possible without affecting performance of the site. Thanks for your help.
There is only one reason the logo was made the home page link: because that's what most users expect, and by leveraging user expectations, we make the site easier to use for readers. There is no business reason for this at all. That decision was made by us web designers, and our goal as designers is simple: to create the most effective and engaging news experience possible for the Lawrence community. That's the *only* thing I care about. I figure if we do that, all the business matters will sort themselves out.
29 April 2007
at 8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Jeff, I checked out other newspaper websites and confirm that they use the logo as a homepage. The websites I visit most often are those of service & retail businesses, and they have a “home” tab. thank you for showing me something I did not know about the web.
29 April 2007
at 8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Here is what I show as the most popular. My web browser has been stuck on this for at least the last 24 hours. (Firefox 2 on Windows and/or FC6)
2007 LJWorld.com redesign
128 comments
Local pastor helps rally for gay rights April 23, 2007
208 comments
Kansas Senate overrides Sebelius concealed gun veto April 27, 2007
6 comments
On the street: Should Kansas University basketball player Brandon Rush go pro? April 27, 2007
38 comments
Sidewalk funding at center of debate April 27, 2007
29 comments
High court considers city's ban on smoking April 26, 2007
189 comments
Rushing off April 28, 2007
15 comments
Another plan for university repairs fails in Legislature April 27, 2007
9 comments
On the street: How high do you predict gas prices will get this summer? April 26, 2007
88 comments
29 April 2007
at 9:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
BTW, this thread has well over 200 posts, not the 128 listed….
29 April 2007
at 9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Tychoman write letters of complaints about users trying to get them removed? Retired and bored or just a little sensitive are we?
29 April 2007
at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
denak (Anonymous) says…
I hate this redesign. It is too white and bland. It is hard to read. And I can't find the discussions I am looking for. Also, it is cold and impersonal.
29 April 2007
at 9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Jeff, you asked for specific comments so here are some specific comments about the font:
The lowercase letter “t” is virtually swallowed when followed by another letter. The lowercase letter “r” is barely distinguishable from the letter “i” and the “r” is continually crowded by other letters. The upper left side of letters “m”, “n” and “p” appears to be missing some pixels. There is very little in the way of visual clues to differentiate “f” and “t”. The letters “o”, “e” and “s” are given disproportionate visual weight due to their size. The proportions of the various letters do not work together harmoniously. The font is difficult to read at 12 points. With so many hundreds of legible, pleasing (not to mention, stylish) fonts, it boggles the imagination how you design mavens could make such an abysmal selection.
29 April 2007
at 9:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
Sigmund, yes, the discrepancy in comment counts has been covered — it's because we're having the “most popular” list update only infrequently because of the load it puts on our database. We are (right at this moment, actually) experimenting with having it update more often, but we need to test it safely before it hits the live site so we can find the right balance between updates and not bringing the site to a crawl :)
29 April 2007
at 9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tlcinks (Anonymous) says…
I like the site layout.
Thanks!
29 April 2007
at 9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
James, thanks. I was trying to report this has not updated for well over 24 hours, if this is what you call “infrequently.” I was thinking it might be my browser/OS issue but just confirmed it on IE6/XP as well….
Good luck and thanks for running this down. I use that feature to see what fellow readers find important and interesting.
Long weekend, no?
:)
29 April 2007
at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
inatux (Anonymous) says…
My most popular list is the same as sigmund's.
It's quite possible that the DNS cache for the LJW is not the same as what the world is seeing.
I say that with painful experience of a similar nature.
29 April 2007
at 9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Greyhawk: Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what font you're seeing on your computer. Our specific selection of typefaces is as follows:
'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif
Helvetica, as you may know, is a classic that was recently named the most readable typeface of all time. Helvetica Neue (found on all Mac computers) is a version of Helvetica that is hinted specifically for on-screen display. Arial is a knock-off of Helvetica that is found on most Windows-based PCs. So the way this works is: if you have Helvetica Neue, you'll see our site in that typeface. If you don't, we'll look for regular Helvetica and use it if found. If that's not found, we'll use Arial. And if Arial isn't found, we'll use any sans serif typeface that you do have on your machine. Given that Helvetica is such a wonderful typeface and Arial is a pretty faithful copy of it, I'm suspecting you have neither and are instead getting some random sans serif font. This would be unusual, as all Macs have Helvetica and all Windows PCs have Arial by default, but if you are on Linux or another alternative platform, or if fonts that were installed have been removed or disabled, it is possible you are not seeing the site optimally.
The type for stories is sized at 14 pixels (not 12 point), which is larger than in our previous design (which used 11 pixel Arial). For the record, our old site also used Arial, so we haven't really changed typefaces for this new one. Instead, we've kept Arial around but given those who have it the ability to read in the very similar, but slightly nicer Helvetica.
(For the curious, the design history of Arial and Helvetica is quite fascinating: http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html)
Greyhawk, if you would like to e-mail me your browser (name and version), OS (name and version), and a screenshot of what you're seeing (you can get me at jcroft at ljworld dot com), I'll be happy to try to help you individually. Thanks!
29 April 2007
at 9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
For the record, the “most popular” list that Sigmund is seeing is indeed the most recent (I'm seeing that one, as well). It would be nice if this could update more frequently. James is looking into whether or not that is possible, and we will make it so if we can.
29 April 2007
at 9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
broken link dept.:
was in the “sound off” archive, hit the link “subscrbe to sound off questions.” twice, and both times, it tried the link, failed, and just sat there with my browser sitting on the “subscribe” link. good luck.
29 April 2007
at 9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says…
I despise the new format and have been reading fewer stories on ljworld.com. Why mess with something that worked? This layout is more difficult to navigate. The bigger print IS nice…but, that's the only redeeming quality.
29 April 2007
at 9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
Sigmund: we've been working on it a bit tonight, and we may have found a good balance with a much shorter timeout. We may tweak it a bit here and there the rest of the night, but in general it should update every ten minutes or so now (and if you hit the home page now you'll see it's got fresh listings in the “most popular” tab) and hopefully we'll be able to leave it updating that often.And yes, “infrequently” is a fun word; we've been tweaking the time limit on that and it's gone up to some pretty high limits over the weekend, which is why the tab hasn't seemed to be updating much today.—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
29 April 2007
at 10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
bearded_gnome: Thanks for the report. It's been noted, and we'll get it fixed ASAP. :)
29 April 2007
at 10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
James — looks good to me. Thanks. Go get some rest …..
29 April 2007
at 10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
bearded_gnome: we're going to remove that link for now, so it'll be gone in a few minutes; the feed it's supposed to point to doesn't exist right now, and we'll put the link back once the feed is set up again. Thanks for spotting it and mentioning it.—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
29 April 2007
at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
just to reiterate my previous comment… i don't think the “Today's Events” link is of any use at all unless you're in a 12-step program or are otherwise retired.
did we lose the right-margin calendar/events link that directed you to lawrence.com as a trade-off for this Marketplace module? having to fish around through that option makes finding events more cumbersome than ever.
as i was suspecting, i've spent exponentially less time on the site than i did before. at first, it looked clean, but now it just seems barren. imo, i miss the public forum link (i never used most popular because of the fact that it never updated in a timely manner), the events calendar that linked to lawrence.com, and anything else that i've forgotten (ha!).
i'm a little saddened that my own interest has dwindled. i literally forgot to even look at the site this weekend and it's been a morning ritual for me for ages.
just my $0.02.
29 April 2007
at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
nice quick response.
you boys are going through the pizza down there?
29 April 2007
at 10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
wench: Thanks for the input. We'll evaluate these things early this week when the whole design team can get together and see where to go from here.
gnome: We're all at home, not at work. But yes, I'm going through pizzas and caffeine. :)
29 April 2007
at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
under “blogs”
“Head on the Hill
”
ha-ha-ha.
29 April 2007
at 10:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
okay, now you've gone and done it. I cannot find a “readers' forum type link on the frontpage, or *under opinion*!
what is the place to go if I want a list of stories commented on, or the on-the-street's commented on?????~!!!!!~?????
used that feature daily. hope you have not removed it!
30 April 2007
at 12:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xian (Christian Metts) says…
@bearded_gnome: Thanks for the Heard on the Hill heads up. It's fixed!
-
Christian Metts
Designer, LJWorld.com
30 April 2007
at 12:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
RT I like how you categorize anyone who isn't Republican as far-left or secular-progressive, both incorrect generalizations about people who disagree with you. I give up on trying to confront you on your idiocy tonight. I'm done with you. I haven't threatened, harassed, OR stalked you. Don't flatter yourself, you're not THAT interesting.
30 April 2007
at 3:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kcwarpony (Anonymous) says…
“okay, now you've gone and done it. I cannot find a “readers' forum type link on the frontpage, or *under opinion*!”
bg, I've been having to click on Sitemap at the bottom of the page for that link. It will get you to the Reader's Forum page but the Stories page only shows 20 stories with no way to get to older stories. Last Friday afternoon, with all the comments people were posting on different stories, anything older than 3 hours fell of the list and you had to go search for the articles.
To the designers: I really dislike this fact about the Stories page.
30 April 2007
at 5:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
News_to_me (Anonymous) says…
This may be something you could do in the future if you have the capabilities. Why not allow users to customize their view? For example, CBS Sportsline allows users to pick their own colors for background and text. You can also move sections around to suit your needs. Just a thought.
30 April 2007
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“A wider design that takes advantage of users' predominantly having larger monitors. ”
Is this something against the poor people?
Predominantly? I question that.
30 April 2007
at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nobody1793 (Anonymous) says…
The article text font is extremely hard to read compared to every other site I vist.
30 April 2007
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
gr: We, of course, have the statistics to back up the fact that the nearly all of our users now have screens with at least 1024 pixels in width. We would obviously not make this decision for no reason. We are constantly monitoring our readers' browser, platform, screen size, and so forth so that we can make informed decisions.
30 April 2007
at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
Thanks Warpony:
right on.
bg, I've been having to click on Sitemap at the bottom of the page for that link. It will get you to the Reader's Forum page but the Stories page only shows
20 stories with no way to get to older stories. Last Friday afternoon, with all the comments people were posting on different stories, anything older than
3 hours fell of the list and you had to go search for the articles.
To the designers: I really dislike this fact about the Stories page.
30 April 2007 at 5:42 a.m.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30 April 2007
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
gnome: we are looking into it. No need to post your comment twice. I assure you, we are reading them. Whereas obvious small bug fixes and oversights we can usually fix right away, design changes need to be evaluated by the design team and sometimes take more coding to correct. Thanks again for your suggestions.
30 April 2007
at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
bearded_gnome and other who are missing the”comments on stories” page:
I've re-added this page, and souped it up with more stories per page, a better design, and a few other quick niceties for you. You can find it as “Discussions” under the “Opinion” navigation. Or, you can take this direct link:
http://www2.ljworld.com/discussions/
Enjoy!
30 April 2007
at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pywacket (Anonymous) says…
No, it is not growing on me. Change for change's sake, apparently, rather than for logical reasons.
Among other things, are obits a thing of the past? If you go to what passes as a directory (in the blue rectangle at the bottom of the page), the only “obituary” mention is in the “submit” section (and the link is broken, by the way).
Likewise, you can only submit (not read about) births, weddings, engagements, etc., although at least those links are NOT broken.
Once submitted, however, they apparently go to some limbo. I've looked under “local” and “living” with no luck. Assuming the births, obits, etc., ARE findable somewhere in the new “improved” format, it must be very very intuitive. NOT.
Why, oh, why, do people love to take something that isn't broken and try to “fix” it? The format was excellent before—easy to navigate and—yes—intuitive. And whatever genius came up with the blinding expanse of white should be pilloried.
30 April 2007
at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Earlier I rated the new design as a “8-1/2 paperboys out of 10” but need to revise that rating. As I am liking it more and more, I rate it 9-1/4 webmonkeys* out of 10!
*The term webmonkey is used affectionately and as high praise. It is not meant as a pejorative against any primate living or deceased.
Scoring:
3/4 of a point deduction for no weather week panorama at the top of the homepage. It just gave the site a hometown, Lawrence uniqueness. Consider redesigning and adding it back in, please?
Am I getting used to the type face or did you make a change? It looks better to my eye now.
30 April 2007
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I like the new format and recognise that there will be a few bugs which have to be worked out.
Good job Monkeys!
Thanks.
Marion.
30 April 2007
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
ok I have noticed that most popular and most active disscussion are not the same. Sigmund the easiest way around all this confusion is using the site map I found obits in there.
30 April 2007
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
Jeff, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't know if it was just presumed or you had actual facts on screen resolution. Guess you did!
One thing I did like was the story showed. Now it doesn't from the comments. Long story on a long list of comments does not work well, but short stories or short list of comments works good to display the story.
30 April 2007
at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
OK, Monkeys; I found what I think is a glitch.
If I am viewing a story in “Most Popular” and hit the “back” button, I am returned to the home page instead of “Most Popular”.
Keep up the great work!
Thanks.
Marion.
30 April 2007
at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Pywacket: All of the things you reer to (obits, births, couple events like engagements, etc.) are available in the subnavigation under the “Local” tab. They've been there all along. They're right at the top. I know you said you couldn't find them under “Local,” but i assure you, they're there! :) Also, they will always be findable at the new daily archives (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/today/), which show absolutely everything we publish on a given day.
@Sigmund: We did make a slight change to the typeface this morning. Glad to hear it's helping. We will be heavily expanding the weather page in the next week or so, and you may see a return of the panorama (or some variant thereof). We haven't quite worked out exactly what we're going to do there yet.
@Marion: Thanks! :)
@Momma: The most popular list on the homepage is indeed the same logic as the most active discussions, but they update at different frequencies, so they may not always match exactly. I'll talk to our programmers about trying to get them in sync. Also, as I said above, the Obits are found in the subnavigation under “local” at the top of the page.
For those of you who spend a lot of time here and are interested in seeing things as we publish them, I highly recommend the new daily archive pages (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/today/). These are updated in real time, and cover every type of information we publish, including stories, blogs, photos, galleries, videos, audio, obits, births, couple events, and so on. It's really the most complete and non-editorialized way to view our site. The homepage, obviously, is more editorialized.
30 April 2007
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Marion: The “glitch” you refer to isn't quite a glitch (that's the way it's supposed to work, for now), but it is something we'd like to change. We'd like to make it such that your preference between the two tabs (“latest news” and “most popular”) on the homepage is saved, such that you are returned to the one you were on before. We don't have this functionality yet, but we'll definitely look into adding it. Thanks!
30 April 2007
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
no need croft its ok was just stating cuz it had me cunfused for a few minutes.
30 April 2007
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xyz (Anonymous) says…
Changing the text to black in the various posts around 1:30pm is MUCH easier to read. Will this be permanent?
30 April 2007
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
hawkperchedatriverfront: That's exactly what it does. You click on the day, and it takes you to the archive for that day. Is it not working for you? If not, can you provide us with your browser (name and version) and operating system (name and version)?
Thanks!
30 April 2007
at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
ok guys can not find times or even a listing for southwinds just liberty hall. Am I missing it? If so HELP please.
30 April 2007
at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Momma: A&E > Movies > Movie listings.
:)
30 April 2007
at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
The Suggest removal links overlap oh-so-slightly with the poster's username. Also the text of the site seems to be alternating between black and gray. Is this a problem with my browser or something you guys are fiddling with on purpose? The gray makes it even harder to read (because of that astoundingly bright white contrast you have going on).
30 April 2007
at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Tychoman: can you tell me what browser and version you're using? The suggest removal link should most definitely not overlap the username, and it's not overlapping it in any browser I've tested it in. Let me know what you're using and I'll give it a test in that, as well. Thanks for your help!
As for the black and grey text (which, to be pedantic, is gray and darker gray): the lighter grey is used for anonymous (non-verified) users. The darker grey (almost black) is for verified users. One of the advantages of becoming verified is having your comments stand out a bit from the anonymous ones. It's just a subtle visual cue to help indicate the credibility of a given commenter.
So, get verified! http://www2.ljworld.com/accounts/prof…
:)
30 April 2007
at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
“As for the black and grey text (which, to be pedantic, is gray and darker gray): the lighter grey is used for anonymous (non-verified) users. The darker grey (almost black) is for verified users. One of the advantages of becoming verified is having your comments stand out a bit from the anonymous ones. It's just a subtle visual cue to help indicate the credibility of a given commenter.”
=================================================================
Or perhaps a way of letting those who are not verified that their opinions do not matter as much so it's not worth making their comments easy to read.
Why does the LJW seem hellbent on alienating their readers so?
30 April 2007
at 8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@right_thinker: Haha. Nice one. :)
@classclown: In journalism, a named source is always more credible than an anonymous one. Your opinion is great as is, but it would certainly be seen as stronger and even more credible if you were willing to have your name next to it. Just as you'd want our reporters to cite real names for their sources whenever possible (rather than keeping them anonymous), so too would we prefer you use your real name here on the site. Why? Because screennames seem less credible. Attaching your real name to your commentary gives it more credibility to our readers, simply by virtue of it being attached to a “real person.”
In addition, we feel like the accountability of having a real name attached to a comment helps encourage people to be more respectful and more thoughtful when they post comments.
By making the anonymous comments a slightly lighter shade, we encourage people to get verified and attach their real names to their comments — which in turn encourages a better environment for discussion here at LJWorld.com. You'll always be free to comment without using your real name, though, if that's what you prefer. It's totally up to you.
30 April 2007
at 8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@classclown: For the sake of readability, I've just made a quick change to the anonymous vs. verified display. Now, if you mouse over a lighter grey anonymous comment, it will “light up” to the darker color, making it just as readable at the verified comments. Hope this helps. Note that this will only work in modern browsers like IE7, Firefox, and Safari.
Thanks for your input.
30 April 2007
at 9:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
Croft I tried still can't find southwind ton of other in the more lising oh well probably just me but thanks for answering me.
30 April 2007
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
Something's been a little screwy the last few days with the source we use for the movie listings feed; I've manually run the listings updater, and listings for Southwind should show up in a few minutes. Thanks for the heads-up.—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
30 April 2007
at 9:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
JeffK,
thanks for the hard work, your “discussions” section works great. didn't check to see but would encourage you to place link to that on the frontpage please.
I like my anonymity as sometimes my comments really hack off the liberal elite in this town.
***
you guys are obviously working very hard. thanks most of all for being so responsive.
30 April 2007
at 9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Jeff, just noticed the “subtle” text cues on users comments. Can't say I am fond of it but i do understand the motivation.
However, there are some very good reasons people need to remain “Anonymous Cowards.” Some people fear retaliation if they criticize police, public officials, or even convicted criminals for example. Others may work in positions (banks, public utilities, city government, large multimedia companies) where expressing their opinion in any public forum is either strictly prohibited or strongly discouraged. There are others that will fear harassment at their home, businesses, or on the phone because of their beliefs if their identity were known Your forum will not be as useful or valuable to the Citizens of Lawrence without their voices.
But, you will fairly counter, they can still post anonymous, and that is true. However, I think your readers can already judge for themselves who is credible and who is not without your “subtle” hint. Do you honestly believe we need such hints? Finally, this suggest that Marion is more “credible” because he is “verified” and Bozo less so because he is not. Just because I know the persons name doesn't make them any more or less credible, and this visual discounting of the opinions of those that wish, for whatever the reason, to remain anonymous does your readers a disservice. It also discounts the intelligence of your readers, they can and already do make the credibility call themselves.
30 April 2007
at 9:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
PS. I hope you didn't take “webmonkey” crack the wrong way. Where I come from that is a term of endearment… :)
30 April 2007
at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Thanks for your input, Sigmund. I will bring this matter up with the design team tomorrow and see what everyone thinks. I don't think the idea that we make some visual distinction between verified and non-verified users is up for debate (we've always done that, and I don't see it changing now). However, the matter of exactly HOW we make that visual distinction is something we are probably willing to think more about, and I'll make sure we do.
Remember, by “credible” we simply mean “accountable and assignable to a real person” — we don't mean “smarter,” “better,” or anything like that. It's not a personal matter — it's simply us following the same journalistic principles our reporters do: that named sources are always mean more than anonymous ones to the people reading. You (and several others) are here every day and probably can learn who you think is credible and who isn't over time. But for the more casual reader, I believe some indication of who is willing to stand behind their comments with their real name is necessary.
But we do understand that there are times when anonymity is necessary, and we'll always allow for anonymous posting. I also don't want those anonymous posts to be difficult to read. I just want them to be distinguishable from the verified ones — that's all.
We'll discuss it more with the design team tomorrow. Thanks for the input.
30 April 2007
at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Sigmund, we quite like the “webmonkey” title and often refer to ourselves that way. No offense taken at all! :)
30 April 2007
at 10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Whew!
Another thing to consider is I have seen threads where the discussions deteriorated into personal attacks upon “verified” users. I am sure you will be able to recall one or two as well. I am not sure the discussion was furthered in those instances.
Anywho. Have a good evening …..
30 April 2007
at 11:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Tychoman (Anonymous) says…
jcroft I was using IE 7, but I usually use Firefox and now it works fine. Thanks for fixing it. I'm getting used to the gray and darker gray. A darker darker gray would work even better :)
1 May 2007
at 12:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xyz (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund's 9:44pm post is right on! It is ridiculous that the text of the non-verified posters uses the harder on the eyes lighter gray text. So, glad to hear that the design team will further discuss this.
If staff is so concerned about a visual distinction between verified and anonymous posters, how about anonymous in caps and in dark red. That could be the JW's version of the scarlet letter.
1 May 2007
at 12:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
b_asinbeer (Anonymous) says…
Thanks ljworld…I've gotten used to this format already. Much easier (and prettier, I might add!) to read. Keep up the hard work.
1 May 2007
at 1:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hk45 (Anonymous) says…
The “suggest removal” and user name slightly overlap for my browser also. I am using IE6 and Windows XP. I believe the resolution is not at 1024, but I cannot view the settings to tell you for sure so this might be the issue.
Additionally, the lighter text is difficult to read as compared to the darker text.
Otherwise, the new format is growing on me every day. Nice job!
1 May 2007
at 1:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Thanks, hk45, for the browser info. We'll look into getting that fixed ASAP!
1 May 2007
at 4:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kcwarpony (Anonymous) says…
I checked my profile page and it says “kcwarpony is a verified user.” I would think it would say, “kcwarpony is not a verified user.” Mistake, maybe? Checked some other profiles and it says verified user on everybody.
BTW, excellent decision on returning the Discussions on Stories/Comments throughout the Site page back to its former glory. Thank you.
1 May 2007
at 4:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hk45 (Anonymous) says…
And, it overlaps on my home computer also. I am using IE7 and XP Pro at home. The resolution is set at: 1440x900.
1 May 2007
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lori (Anonymous) says…
It hurts my eyes, it's too bright to read. It is difficult to navigate; I used to spend a good hour on the website every day; now I spend 10 minutes tops. Look, I'm not a computerphile. If I could articulate why I don't like it, I'd probably not have difficulty navigating it all in the first place. I'm not sure I will return any time soon. I thought if I spent some time away from it, I'd be able to come back to it and not find it so frustrating; all I discovered is that I don't really need to newspaper at all; the newspaper is unfortunately not worth tolerating the design. Seriously, if you'd just pick another background color, plus another size of font, I might not need to gobble advil while I read.
I'll just use Lawrence.com. If you start f*****g with that, I'm in trouble.
1 May 2007
at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
This new format sucks, period. It is too bright, too large, too hard to navigate and find the things you want. You really need to change back to the old design, or do something much better than this.
1 May 2007
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
Thanks for the help guys the southwind listing is there now.
1 May 2007
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
p95151 (Anonymous) says…
Please put it back the way it was! This new format is terrible!!!
1 May 2007
at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Alfred_W (Anonymous) says…
I think the biggest mistake was taking the detailed navigation side bar from the left side and moving that to the bottom of the page. Well, some of it anyway. You're making me scroll to the bottom for things I use regularly that used to be right at the top of the page. Or I have to click twice to get to things (first into the major category, then the subcategory). Inconvenient.
Aesthetically, I think the near monochrome design (shades of soft blue and gray) is a poor choice but maybe that's just me. Everything seems to blend together and there don't seem to be well-defined 'sections' to the main page. It looks like one story with a big picture, and if you search for a while you can find the rest of the newspaper.
Overall, it looks more like the homepage for a wellness clinic than a newspaper.
1 May 2007
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1977 (Anonymous) says…
As someone who has a Photojournalism bakground I am happier to see more photos.
1 May 2007
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jackalope (Anonymous) says…
The new format is too large, too bright and too hard to navigate. HEY, guess I'm not the only one. It seems to be taking up space for the sake of taking up space. Too much time is taken up scrolling down the page to read what had been before in one view. And, even though this posting is anonyumous you can take it as jake that my comment is crediable and I believe what I am saying. I now rate this site lower than the Kansas City Star site.
1 May 2007
at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newport (Anonymous) says…
I think the new design is very nice. I like the white and the clean look. I work on a large widescreen monitor and it looks so nice on that. Today's lead story about the KU students writing names of soldiers who have died has a very nice layout when clicking to the main story.
My only suggestion so far is on the “mast” or navigation area at the top. The area that includes the logo and today's news etc menu needs more weight. It gets lost and seems unimportant. I think it is nice that you are freshening up what you had in the past, it was starting to look dated, but it still needs weight like that one had. I notice it too when I click on things like lifestyle for example. It just needs a little punch to draw attention to it a little more and just add a little visual interest to the page.
I recently worked on a redesign of my companies website. I know what a labor intensive task this is and how many bugs will have to be worked out as you go along. You never know until you take it live to the masses. This is a nice job indeed!!!!
1 May 2007
at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aquakej (Anonymous) says…
I dont like it, sorry. It's confusing to me. I dont' know where to find anything…your weather section is lacking, there is no “headlines” link to click on, and it's just airy and confusing in general. What was wrong with the old format?
1 May 2007
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newport (Anonymous) says…
I also think there needs to be an easier way to get to this area. I think calling a little more attention to the redesign on the home page and an easier way to get to this thread would be nice. I click on the main story and then go to the bottom to get to this. But that is skewing your traffic numbers a little because I am not actually reading that story even though I am clicking on it. I would like to come here with a little more ease.
A redesign is a big deal. Call more attention to what you did and your intent. Be proud of it.
1 May 2007
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newport (Anonymous) says…
One last comment. I think you need links to the other sites you produce. Lawrence.com Sunflower Broadband, Sunflower Publishing etc. You never know how people are going to find you and this would be a great way to get people on to other sites and utilizing your services in other areas. I know you are the newspaper in town, but the World Co as a whole has a wide range of services and this would be an easy way to get people on to your other sites and thus, give your advertisers more traffic as well. Just a thought.
1 May 2007
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
I like what you have done. Where have you placed the static camera pictures of the eagles and the roof of city hall, ect.?
Thanks
1 May 2007
at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pywacket (Anonymous) says…
Jeff~ You're right. How unintuitive of me! I went to “Local” and scrolled down the page looking for Obits, births, etc. and did not find them. I should have known I would have to go to yet another nav bar in order to find what I was actually looking for.
Sorry for the attitude (and it's certainly not personal), but I cannot for the life of me figure out why the LJW thinks it is an improvement to have to travel from page to page to find a list of daily staples when the links to them were formerly right there on the home page and took you there with one click.
1 May 2007
at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
altheasus (Althea Schnacke) says…
I'm having troubles finding all of the stories that were in the paper version. For instance, there was a story on Cheney at BYU that was in the print version Friday, but was not online, at least not under the “National News” section.
1 May 2007
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
Not to complain again but what happened to the “printer friendly” option on the top of articles and obits?? Am I just missing it?
1 May 2007
at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@altheasus: This is one of the main reasons we've implemented the new daily archive pages. Just go to the daily archive page for the day you're looking for to find all of our content published on that day. For Friday, that would be:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/apr…
The Cheney story is listed on that page, along with a note that it appeared in the print edition on page A3. :)
@momma: The idea of having a “printer friendly” version o page is kind of outdated, so we're moving away from it. With the newer technologies we're using now, you can simply go to File > Print in your web browser and it should print out just fine. We're able to specify stlyes for printing separately from styles for on-screen display without you having to open a separate version of the article.
So, just print normally — everything should work fine! :)
1 May 2007
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
In Praise of Anonymous Posters
I am assuming that the design team has decided that the gray text for anonymous posters will remain. Honestly, I don't like it because it makes anonymous posters comments difficult to read. As the big “Anonymous” next to the user name accomplishes the stated goal of noting that the comment is not “accountable and assignable to a real person”, and therefore is completely unnecessary, I can only conclude some other unstated non-design motivation is driving the decision to make anonymous posters comments hard to read.
Nobody here believes that posters are “sources” or “reporters” for the LJW, but you now wish to hold posters to the “same journalistic principles our (LJW) reporters do: that named sources are always mean more than anonymous ones?” Are we to now believe that verified posters are to be given the same credibility as the sources, anonymous or named, you quote in articles? I know won't and I doubt anyone else will. So what's the point?
99% the comments I find most provocative and interesting come from anonymous users. I give no more weight or credibility to a comment because I know the posters real name. It is the ideas and arguments, not the person, that cause me to read and respond to comments. In fact, I would say the majority of comments here are from anonymous users. By giving less textual emphasis to the ideas and arguments of anonymous posters and making them harder to read, you are giving the impression that their ideas are not valued by the LJW, staff and management.
I can say I'll be much less likely over time to post here or to read or respond to the comments of any posters, verified or not. The gray text makes it hard to read both the comments of others and my comments, so I won't bother to do either. While I don't mean to discount your paid reporters and bloggers, honestly a great deal of the value of, and I suspect “hits” on, your website are generated at little cost to the LJW by the comments of the anonymous users. For that they should be praised and valued for what they bring to your site, hits and advertising dollars, not grayness on a field of white!
1 May 2007
at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
Sigmund and everyone: Actually, the design team hasn't had time to fully evaluate this issue today, so no change had been made to this point. However, we have been convinced that the light grey text for anonymous comments isn't working. You guys are right: while we do need to make some distinction, we don't want to make the comments less readable. We may still find another way to provide some visual distinction, but we won't do it by lightening the comment text.
So, I'm going right now to change the light grey comments back to the same darker color as the verified users. Thanks to everyone for your input on this matter. Your feelings really do make a difference!
1 May 2007
at 4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
I quite like the new design — and I haven't had any of the navigation difficulties others have complained about.
I have only one nit to pick: Like Sigmund, I don't like the greyed-out text on anonymous posts in the discussion sections. I realize that I can roll my cursor over an entry and get it to blacken up, but that's a bother. I'm not sure what is being accomplished by greying-out the anonymous posts.
But, otherwise, as I said, I like the new design and think you've done a terrific job. It is head and shoulders above the websites of most newspapers.
1 May 2007
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
thanks
1 May 2007
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Souki (Anonymous) says…
Jeff:
Well, it appears I picked my nit just two minutes too late.
Thanks for changing the color.
1 May 2007
at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
perkins (Anonymous) says…
Hang in there, J. Croft. I preferred the old look, but I appreciate the effort you and your colleagues put in to make this blog work. And I guess I am getting accustomed to the white. It is not as blindingly annoying as it was last week.
1 May 2007
at 4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
perkins (Anonymous) says…
One last thing-the advertising seems much more prominent. Those insurance agents much be happy that their pictures and phone numbers are more readily noticed. And since I don't “pay” for enjoying this forum, I don't object.
1 May 2007
at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
It's redundant to say - Jeff and others have said it - but I do want to reiterate that we very much appreciate the discussion and feedback here.
Expect more features to be rolled out over the very near future, now that we've laid the groundwork for going into the future with LJWorld.com. We'll let you know about them as they happen.
David Ryan
Online editorial projects manager
1 May 2007
at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Jeff, thanks so much for fielding all these suggestions from users. Most people appreciate what you all do and the fine line you guys sometimes have to walk. I truly believe that the LJW site is cutting edge and deserves all the accolades it has received over the years. I expect more will be coming your way. The LJW needs to be commended for their responsiveness to readers and for the service www.ljworld.com provides to this community.
1 May 2007
at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aha (Anonymous) says…
I hate the new design.
1 May 2007
at 8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sleeperhawk (Anonymous) says…
Okay, now how do I get to all the stories related to Ku Basketball or football?
Used to be links to these, the KU upcoming games, I cannot find any of that anymore without scrolling through story after story after story after story.
If I am in a sports story, then that is what I want to see, sport stories, not other stories from other sections of the paper.
1 May 2007
at 8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
News_to_me (Anonymous) says…
Okay, I'm just hoping somebody's out there. Where can I find the Chad Lawhorn's live-blog from the city commission meeting? Please. Anybody?
1 May 2007
at 8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
I pretty much hate the new look. In fact, I've quit reading as many items as I used to. The JW on-line has always bragged about their awards and how good they've been (with good reason, IMO), so I don't know why a change had to be made.
I also don't know why you are soliciting “bad” comments, since the deed is done.
1 May 2007
at 8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
27 April 2007 at 12:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
nathan (Nathan Borror) says:
The feedback has been fantastic. We're still rolling out new things here and there and polishing all around. Hope this isn't a huge inconvenience
I don't think you've read all the comments.
1 May 2007
at 8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Still too much white/space which diminishes printed material…………but much better on front page than yesterday/before! less space /more print is my feeling about bog space. BUT looking goood!
1 May 2007
at 11:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sleeperhawk (Anonymous) says…
Ok, finally found this link buried on a sports page someplace, now have it booked marked.
http://www.kusports.com/
Please, please, please do not convert this section to the supposedly new and improved front pages, which the new pages are not, extremely hard to find items, no flow to the pages. I do know if my company allowed me to put this out there on their web site without first testing, our group would have had our heads handed to us.
There should have been a test phase with the general public via another link and then collected all the good and bad and fixed the issues before changing permanently.
1 May 2007
at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@News_to_me: The city commission meeting live blog has been linked from the home page this evening. It lives at this permanent URL:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/may…
@sleeperhawk: Sounds like you found the KU Sports section, but just for reference, that section is found simply by going to Sports and then clicking “KU Sports” in the subnavigation. Glad to hear you were able to find it.
KUSports.com is a separate, sister site to LJWorld.com. It will not be transitioned to this new design. KUSports.com is also due for a refresh, probably later this year, but it won't be this same design. The KUSports.com brand is separate from LJWorld.com, and its design will always reflect that. You can expect any redesign of KUSports.com to be KU-ish in nature, just as the current design is (crimson and blue, etc.). The same holds true for Lawrence.com. While that site will certainly get refreshed at some point, it will never be transitioned into the LJWorld.com design. Separate sites, separate brands, separate designs.
2 May 2007
at 12:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Is there, or will there be a link we can click to report any issues/problems with the site? If there is one, I have no idea where it ever was.
Speaking of bugs however, here is one that has been around a long time even with the old site.
On occasion I have made a comment on a story on LJWorld having to do with athletics at KU. However when I attempt to go to the story from the link on my “user comments” page, I am transported to a similiar or perhaps the same story on kusports.com. Or whatever it is.
I have never posted a comment on that web site and it is real irritating to be transported there instead of the actual article that I commented on which is on LJWorld. I know of at least one time that another user has mentioned this issue.
Anyway, if you can fix that, that would be real peachy. Thanks.
2 May 2007
at 1:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@classclown: That would be the exact same story, in the KUSports.com look and feel. With the same comments, and everything. This isn't exactly a bug (it's how our system is set up to work), but I do see how it's confusing and not ideal, so I'll talk to our programmers about changing it. Not sure how feasible it will be (I'm just a designer!), but I'll see what I can do.
For bugs, you can always use our feedback form:
http://www2.ljworld.com/feedback/
In addition, thanks to the positive response we've got from you guys in opening this dialog between the web team and our readers, we'll probably also be starting a blog so we can let you know about new features and continue this discussion on a much more regular basis.
2 May 2007
at 1:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Designers and programmers are natural enemies and they rarely unite unless they are confronted by their common enemy, the users. It has always been so. An ongoing dialog between users, designers, and programmers is unheard of. It is such an absurd, novel and chaotic concept that it is **likely** to produce some amazingly good results!
2 May 2007
at 5:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jean1183 (Anonymous) says…
I STILL can't find the Military News section!!!
I also do not like the new design. It's too difficult to locate specific sections.
2 May 2007
at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
Whoa, what happened? Last night I posted a comment that went beyond my “I hate it” comment. This morning it's not here.
Anyway, I asked, what happened to the obits? At my age, it's maybe the most important part of the paper (hope my name's not there).
Too much scrolling required. I've heard of this design being referred to as the “toilet paper” design. Everything's right there, just pull the roll until you find it.
Visually, the design is torture. Too much white, the font is too large for me, even though I am extremely near-sighted.
The former (perfectly fine, in no need of change) design allowed you to immediately and intuitively find content by clicking in the left hand “suite” of options. Not so, here.
I am convinced that the LJW must have had some kind of management change in the web chain, and that new management wanted to make an impression to show his or her “impact.” Surely you wouldn't make this change for no reason.
I'm now just checking the headlines and moving on. Goodbye, cruel LJW on-line edition.
2 May 2007
at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
I noticed in both the previous version, the “:visited” links were hard to see. In this version, I see no differences between links visited and not visited. Is there a reason for this?
2 May 2007
at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
southwords (Anonymous) says…
I really like your redesign. It's light, airy and easy to read. Plus, it looks like a NEWSpaper, not an advertising vehicle.
But (there's always one of those) the printer-friendly pages are not printer-friendly. There's a huge blank space at the top, so big that maybe only a couple of paragraphs of the story appears on the first page. Seems like a waste of paper. Mother Earth might thank you for going back to the previous printer-friendly style. I would.
2 May 2007
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@southwards: We won't go back to the old printer-friendly style (like I said, that technique is considered way out of date these days), but we will look into why that gap is happening and try to get it fixed ASAP. Thanks for the kind words! :)
2 May 2007
at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
FYI: After a couple of requests in this thread, we've removed the tease paragraphs from the home page under “Latest news” and simplified that list to just headlines. Thanks again for the input, everyone.
2 May 2007
at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Jean: We don't have a miliatry section, per se, but we do run a blog called “Military Matters.” I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for or not, but you can find it by going to Opinion > Blogs > Military Matters. Or, take this direct link:
http://www2.ljworld.com/blogs/militar…
If that's not what you're looking for, let me know and I'll try to help.
2 May 2007
at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
“One would think that there are editors at the Journal World who do make decisions as to what stories are most important. These decisions should be reflected on the main page.”
There are editorially chosen stories on the homepage — in fact, a lot moreso than on the old design. The lead story in the upper left, as well as the content in the grey box on the homepage is editorially-chosen. On the previous design, only the lead story was selected by an editor.
While it is true that we will always have editors helping to determine the most relevant stories of the day, our usage statistics (as well as the comments in this thread) suggest that most readers online prefer to view the stories the community finds the most popular, rather than those that our editors feel are most important (obviously, there is often overlap between the two). This is also borne out elsewhere online when you note the extraordinary popularity of “wisdom of crowds”-oriented sites like Digg.com and Del.icio.us.
Our goal for the homepage is to reach a nice balance between editorially-selected content and community-promoted content. We actually have some ideas in the works that will make users even more able to influence what content appears on the homepage alongside our editors' picks. We run this site for the Lawrence community, and we think it's importan that the homepage reflects what the community is interested in.
2 May 2007
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
“Jeff Croft says:FYI: After a couple of requests in this thread, we've removed the tease paragraphs from the home page under “Latest news” and simplified that list to just headlines.”
That's a shame. The LJW headlines have always been so misleading, I was enjoying getting just enough of a preview to know what the story was really about. Can I make a couple of requests that you put the tease paragraph back??
(It was worth a shot…)
2 May 2007
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
jcroft,
My PDA wants to die when I visit the site now. Its just too “Web 2.0” looking. Is the CSS IE friendly? I'm no fan of IE and I'm aware of its issues with CSS, but for smartphone and many PDA users, most people use Pocket IE. The load time is MUCH longer now for pages, and they don't render anywhere nearly as nicely as the old site did on a 320x240 screen. There is a huge amount of whitespace between the end of the content and the footer. Also, IE slows down immensely trying to display the site now. Perhaps you could use mod_rewrite to parse the user agent and decide that the full version of the site should be displayed for a particular visitor and instead display a “lite” version of ljworld.com. I think with all the people running around with Treos, Crackberries, and other Internet-enabled personal devices, this would be something you should consider.
2 May 2007
at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@compmd: The CSS is indeed IE friendly. We recommended mobile devices use the mobile version of our site at mobile.ljworld.com. It is the “lite” version of the site you suggest. We don't automatically redirect to that based on user agent (and we probably never will, as trying to keep track of all the possible user agent strings is something I grew very tired of in the late 90s), but it is available for your use if the full version o the site is too heavy for your device. Thanks! :)
2 May 2007
at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
can8iv66049 (Anonymous) says…
Would like to see breaking news for the day in a different color like it used to be. That way you can distinguish from others.
2 May 2007
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansasmom (Anonymous) says…
I liked the old format better. LJWorld is my home pages, but I might change it now. It's not easy to read. Too much space. Main picture is too big. I can't find comments after the articles. The late breaking news needs to be in a different color or shaded so we can pick it out instantly.
2 May 2007
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@can8iv66049: Breaking news, like the story right now about the “unspecified violence threat,” is display in a bright red bar at the top o every page. Is it still not distinguishable enough, in your opinion?
2 May 2007
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
The red breaking news arrow at the top of the page is very visible and near impossible to miss, I like it. The headline only without the tease paragraph is cleaner, echo's back to the old format, and is more familiar. I like it as well.
2 May 2007
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Suggestion. This thread is really long, takes a long time to load, and is probably hard on the servers and cache. Time to put this one in the archive and open a new one?
2 May 2007
at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Sigmund: I was thinking about that. Expect something along those lines soon.
david.
2 May 2007
at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
There are some flaws.
Type is too large; less fits on the page.
Why are births and obits on the front page taking up a whole bunch of space?
When you click on an item under TOP ADS you get the ad, but no crumb trail above letting you view the classified section the ad appeared in.
2 May 2007
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…
There doesn't seem to be any way to unregister your username/password if you want to, or re-register with the same email address. I guess once you sign up you are forced to be signed up for life.
Why is there a little icon of a person next to each name, unless it's possible to upload a photo? That's useless.
2 May 2007
at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@blackwalnut:
1. Births and obits are not listed on the homepage. Can you clarify what you mean?
2.There are many improvements still coming on the classified section. Thanks for pointing this out — we'll get to it ASAP.
3. Please contact us if you wish to unregister.
4. No, you can't create multiple accounts with the same e-mail address. This is for security and accountability. This is not new with the redesign — this is the way our site has always worked.
@blackwanut and 4th_grade_education: As has been said before in this thread, we are planning to let you upload a photo. That feature hasn't been rolled out yet, but it will be. Yes, the icons are a bit useless right now, but we decided to keep them there for now, as the feature should be ready soon.
2 May 2007
at 7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
When clicking on a user's icon/avatar, are we to be transported to their profile or to the top of the page? Currently it brings us to the top of the page. I don't know if that is by design or if it's an “oops!”. Most websites have the avatar wisk a person away to the user's profile.
2 May 2007
at 7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
javery (Anonymous) says…
LJWorld really needs to rethink how comments look. I have a nice large monitor, but only 2-5 comments show up at a time. The spacing between lines in comments is way to large, and they really need to adjust things to permit for wider monitors. The space used is less than half the width of my monitor, and in comments 1/4 of the used area is for the time stamp/avatar. So the text of the comments is only taking up about 1/4 of my screen in width, with huge spacing between lines.
2 May 2007
at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Jeff
Earlier we had this discussion:
On occasion I have made a comment on a story on LJWorld having to do with athletics at KU. However when I attempt to go to the story from the link on my “user comments” page, I am transported to a similiar or perhaps the same story on kusports.com. Or whatever it is.
I have never posted a comment on that web site and it is real irritating to be transported there instead of the actual article that I commented on which is on LJWorld. I know of at least one time that another user has mentioned this issue.
To which you replied:
@classclown: That would be the exact same story, in the KUSports.com look and feel. With the same comments, and everything. This isn't exactly a bug (it's how our system is set up to work), but I do see how it's confusing and not ideal, so I'll talk to our programmers about changing it. Not sure how feasible it will be (I'm just a designer!), but I'll see what I can do.
To illustrate my point, I made a comment on the following story on LJW http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/may… where you will notice my comment.
If you go to my “user comments” page and click on the link under my comment on the story, it will take you to the following kusports page http://www2.kusports.com/news/2007/ma…
I realize the story is the same, however the comments are not. Nor will you find my comment there. If I or someone else wanted to use that link to see any responses to my comment, they will be taken to the wrong place. Meaning that I or whoever would need to search and try to find the relevant story through the old stories or archives or whatever to find the actual story that I commented on.
I don't have anything against kusports.com, but I don't use that site, I don't post to that site, and I don't like the idea that when I try to get to an article that I posted to on ljworld.com, I am forced onto another site that I have nothing to do with.
By the logic used here, if I were to post on a story by the Associated Press or Chicago Tribune on this site, then my user comment link would take me to the story on the AP or Chicago Tribune sites. I sincerely hope this gets rectified. Let those who prefer to use kusports have kusports, and those that prefer ljworld have ljworld.
Thanks
2 May 2007
at 8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@classclown: that's a bug, and I'll fix it now. In the long term plan, clicking the avatar will actually bring up a menu where you can do things like view a user's profile, add that user as a friend, view other comments by that user, and so forth. But, until we get that going, it should definitely go to their profile. Thanks for noticing it.
@javery: Thanks for the input. The increased leading (or, “spacing between lines”) and decreased measure (or, line length) are key components to this new design's much enhanced readability. I understand that everyone has personal preferences — but by and large, studies show that people read text on screen much better and much more comfortably when it has appropriate leading and measure. As with all reader input, we'll definitely keep yours in mind, but I suspect it will take a lot of evidence to the contrary to sway us designers away from the loads of information out there to suggest the appropriate line height increases readability.
Of course, it also increases the amount of scrolling, but we feel that readability is more important than having short pages.
If you're interested in more information about how line length and leading affect both reading speed and comprehension, here are a couple of great studies:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/us…
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/us…
2 May 2007
at 9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@classclown: I misspoke when I said it would have the same comments. My apologies. That doesn't change what I said, though: I will look into how we can always direct you to the same version of the story that you previously commented on. Thanks again for your input and the example you've provided.
2 May 2007
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@classclown: I've fixed the problem with the link in your comments page going to the right site. Turns out, it was a simpler fix than I thought — no programmers needed! :)
3 May 2007
at 8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
Regarding the one complaining about long load times for his PDA. I noticed that within the last couple of days there are periods of pauses with FireFox browser. I thought maybe it was some other programs loaded on the computer, but a fresh reboot and only LJW loaded, it still kind of locks everything up while loading a page for several seconds. It didn't happen before and I have only noticed it happens with one other site. Was new scripting installed or CSS formatting (I'd have a hard time thinking CSS would cause a problem) in the last few days that wasn't before?
3 May 2007
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
I was reading along about ten or fifteen minutes ago (note time sig) in the archive for today…I get to the peony story, which says “4p.m.” above it. is this greenlandic time, or coordinated universal time (zulu)? thought I'd entered a time warp.
`
3 May 2007
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@gnome: Perhaps we need to make it more clear what that time is. That time is actually the time at which the story was featured on our homepage as the lead story.
And, yes — it shouldn't be displaying yet, since it's not 4:00 yet. Whoops! We'll fix it. :)
4 May 2007
at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@hawkperchedatriverfront: I already answered your question about the calendar once, but I'll answer it here again, in case you missed it: You CAN click a day of the month and get to the stories (and not just stories, but ALL content) for that day. That's the point of the calendar. That's how it works. If it isn't working for you, please let me know what browser (name and version) and operating system (name and version) you are using, and I'll try to troubleshoot it.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to when you say “posts.” Do you mean stories? Comments? Please be a bit more specific and I'll see if there's anything I can do. Thanks for your input.
4 May 2007
at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
inatux (Anonymous) says…
Walked past a newspaper machine and saw the headline “Full Tank, Empty Wallet” or something like that.
Thought, “Hmm… I'd like to read that.”
Went to LJWorld.com. Front page story in print, no where to be found on home page.
Went to search, typed “full tank, empty wallet.” No results found.
Searched for “full tank”, plenty of results, didn't have what I was looking for.
Came to this page to complain.
Leaving web site.
4 May 2007
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
inatux: the short answer to your question is that finding things in today's print edition is the reason why we have the new “today's news” page, which includes everything we publish on a given day (and lists page numbers from the print edition alongside stories). To navigate to it, simply click the “Today's News” link at the top of any page, or go directly here:http://www2.ljworld.com/news/today/The slightly longer answer is that there are a handful of things on this site which are extremely resource-intensive, and search is unfortunately one of them. We've made a trade-off to deal with that: our search system's index updates very late at night, and not during the day when the site is getting a lot of traffic. Usually that isn't a problem, because our daily publication cycle has most of the coming day's stories in the online system around midnight, and so the search indexer running in the wee small hours of the morning picks them up.If there's a delay in that, though, or if lots of stories are posted later during the day, the search system won't pick them up; again, running it during the day, when the site is getting a lot of traffic, could cause major problems. We are looking into alternatives which don't have this drawback, but pretty much everything we do involves a trade-off of some sort :)—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
4 May 2007
at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
please attach the classifieds archives along with the daily news archives. i cannot get an answer from the classifieds rep why that functionality was removed and she doesn't seem to have an inkling why that would matter to an employer (or job seeker).
4 May 2007
at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@justsomewench: I *think* the classified archives were removed because classified posters didn't want people stumbling across an old ad and calling them well after the ad had expired. However, that change happened some time ago (well before the redesign) and I wasn't directly involved, so don't quote me on that.
I will find out if there's a way we can link to archived version of ads from the daily archive pages, but I do believe the folks who removed those views had a good reason for doing so (even if I'm not positive as to what that reason was), so I kind of doubt it'll be possible.
Thanks for the suggestion, though — I will look into it.
4 May 2007
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pelliott (Anonymous) says…
I think one of the catagories should be science or the environment, say like business, faith, weather.
I would like a small picture , I think they are called thumbnails of any picture that goes with a story next to the story.
4 May 2007
at 4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
frwent (Anonymous) says…
ubersostrum:
I'd like to trade off this blinding, shreaking titanium white page for something a little more soothing like your old format. This really stinks.
4 May 2007
at 8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aha (Anonymous) says…
Is it possible to separate the ads in Classifieds by either a dividing line (as is in the Comment's section), or by having every other ad an off color? As it is now, they all run together … it's very annoying (especially in Rentals and Employment) an hard to tell to tell where one ad ends and the other begins.
4 May 2007
at 10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
HEY!
The “Back” button works now like it should!
GREAT!; as in “Tony the Tiger” grrreeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
whoopee!
Thanks.
Marion.
4 May 2007
at 11:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@aha: The design of the classifieds section didn't get much attention in this redesign. I agree with your assessment, though, and we'll get to it. It defintiely could use some enhancement.
@Marion: Indeed! That was James (ubernostrum) who made that function as you requested. :)
5 May 2007
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
not exactly your redesign…
isn't it time to add a new section:
150 years ago today?
I would like to read “150 years ago today in lawrence)
thanks you're making progress. the problems in form fields which I wrote you privately about are still going on…can't read what I type.
/gnome
5 May 2007
at 11:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well, James is due for a pint of two of The Nectar!
That is really cool and it works well from my end!
I can only imagine the difficulties in re-setting such a site as the LJW so do not worry about the detractors!
l'chaim!
Thanks.
Marion.
7 May 2007
at 11:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Ahem. This thread is REALLY long. Cough.
1. Your ad server appears to be choking causing pages to hang when loading (11PM ish Monday).
2. Wouldn't it be cool if I could edit my posts? I could correct misspelling or do rewrites on comments could have been clearer. You could put an “last edited on” notation when poster do edit.
3. Any hope for the weather week panorama?
4. Wouldn't it be neat if I could set a threshold level on what posts I see? Like show only posters who have been registered longer than 60 days and have contributed over 100 posts, or put a ban on posters that the reader, because of experience, don't bother reading anyway?
5. Could you break up the format of the homepage. I really liked the landscape format photographs, it is just more visually interesting than portrait format. Maybe just once in a while?
6. I like the high percentage of CAPS in comment get automagically lowercased.
8 May 2007
at 12:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
@Sigmund:
This thread is getting long, but it's also dying down. Can't imagine this discussion will go on much longer. Once we get our “behind the scenes” blog up and running you'll be able to have an ongoing discussion wit the design and development team with the need for this thread.
1. Yeah, we're working on that.
2. This is a tricky subject. We've discussed it many times, and I think we've got an idea for a good solution — but we've not written any code on it yet. Someday, probably.
3. There will certainly be a new weather page in the near future. Whether or not that includes a panorama of Lawrence or the KU campus will be up to the lead designer on the project, but the requests here for that to come back have certainly been recorded and will be considered.
4. Stay tuned. We've got a whole host of social features we'll be rolling out that will allow some of these types of things.
5. As I said before, the homepage format does allow for landscape format photos, as well as portrait. Which photos are actually used isn't up to us — it depends on the photograph, the design sense of the producer putting together the homepage, and more. I assure you, the landscape photo orientation will show itself at some point.
6. Good. So do we. :)
Thanks again for all the input!
8 May 2007
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
james (James Bennett) says…
Sigmund: some of the worst of the issues caused by the ad server slowness should now be mitigated (if not, clear your browser cache and try again).—James Bennett, web developer, LJWorld.com
11 May 2007
at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well, I like the new look and things are going swimmingly as far as I'm concerned, so kudos to the Staff!
Thanks.
Marion.
11 May 2007
at 10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Jeff, I have long been wanting to reduce the amount of paper that I use, so one of the things I do more often now is read the LJW via this web page. I think the web design is very good. The only suggestions I can make is to maybe have an option or link to bring up that reads exactly like a paper copy would. This would mean having the standard section A B C etc…
This would make it a lot easier for many to switch from paper to electronic.
Also one small comment…I have not been able to find baseball box scores on the page. Are they available?
Thanks for fielding these comments.
15 May 2007
at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
inatux (Anonymous) says…
Some links at the bottom of the web site are broken:
|
|
|
\ | /
15 May 2007
at 8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
George_Braziller (Anonymous) says…
The new design very difficult to navigate. It isn't a newspaper website, it's a blog and looks just like one. Not impressed at all. If you go to the top or bottom of the page you have no clue where to find something as simple as today's obituaries or photos. You can submit them, but can't find the ones for today.
23 May 2007
at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jcroft (Jeff Croft) says…
George: Here's a few tips for you on finding the things you're looking for:
Obits: Click the arrow next to “news” to get the drop down menu. It's in there.
Photos: Click the arrow next to “multimedia” to get the drop down menu. It's in there.
Alternatively, you can simply click on “news” at the top of the page, and you'll get to everything we've published today, which includes obits and photos.