Valley PR Blog

Guest Post: Forty analyzes AZCentral’s redesign

By ValleyPRblog on April 4th, 2008 In Marketing

The following is a guest post from James Archer, operations director for Chandler-based web marketing firm Forty, responding to the redesign of AZCentral this week.

Whether you’re a regular reader or not, it’s impossible to deny that AZ Central is a fundamental part of the Arizona web community. As such, any major changes they make are going to fall under harsh scrutiny. This tendency is compounded by traditional news media’s long and goofy history of missteps online.

So, while I’m itching to tear into this and point out everything that was done wrong — or at least not as right as it could have been — it would only be fair to first talk about what they did well.

THE GOOD

As describe in their announcement much of the restructure of the site was based on observed usage patterns. Some great content on the site was either buried or difficult to use, and they took steps to bring that content closer to the top.

Overall, the home page is better organized that the prior version.

Less clutter, more obvious (and useful) sections, and better visual clues help readers process the page with less cognitive effort.

The article pages themselves are quite clean and easy to read.

They’ve managed to embrace Web 2.0 in a restrained and logical way, with more prominent use of user comments (a risky endeavor, so props to them for going for it) and a clean, lightweight implementation of bookmarking functionality.

The footer at the bottom is a nice touch, answering to some extent the question of “now what?” once you’ve finished reading something.

The site is broken in several places, but I don’t really hold that against them. A web project of this scale is a tremendous undertaking, and it’s often wiser to get something out there for the public to look at and use rather than to keep it in hiding for weeks (or months) to undergo robust testing.

Generally speaking, the team involved in this project did a good job of keeping it from going too far out of control. It’s a safe play overall, but they I do give them credit for dodging a lot of embarrassing traps that other news sites have fallen into recently.

However, there are a few problems that jump out…

THE BAD

From a branding perspective, it’s a train wreck. It’s about as generic as a news site can possibly get. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear it was simply an off-the-shelf template. In an era where major news sites (BBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) are finally getting brave enough to break away from the “regular news site” archetype, it’s disappointing to see “Arizona’s Home Page” run headfirst into that cliche.

Probably the biggest design failure of the new site is simply that it has completely ignored Arizona in its visual design. Swap out the logo, and this could be a news site from Vermont, or New York, or Washington. The color usage is a bit more restrained and mature than the old site, which enhances its visual appeal — but it seems that nobody stopped to ask, “Why blue? What does that have to do with Arizona?”

I count more than a dozen ads on the home page, which I believe is a major increase over the old site’s ad count. While there’s understandably a strong push to drive ad revenue, the clutter and distraction of this many promotional attention-grabbers on the home page dissuades readers from continuing to explore the site, thereby reducing ad views (and, therefore, revenue) for the site as a whole.

The experience of browsing across multiple sections is almost painful.

The tempting concept of giving each section its own color scheme not only further confuses the site brand issue, it also makes the reader re-learn each page. Inexperienced web users (of which AZ Central has many) will have to take a moment to re-orient themselves and figure out whether they’re even on the same site.

It doesn’t help that the banner ads change on some page, moving around the main navigation so that you have to search for it again in order to get to the next section. The fact that many sections still use the old site design makes the situation even worse, since the main menu options vary from page to page.

The Flash-based “sIFR” section headlines are slow to load, and serve no real purpose, since they’re section headings that won’t change over time. A static image would load faster, require fewer browser resources, and serve exactly the same purpose.

ArizonaMoms.com is a great site, but shouldn’t be promoted in the middle of the main menu of AZ Central. It looks like it’ll be yet another section of the site, but then it takes you to a totally separate website, removing the main menu entirely, and giving you no clear way to get back to where you just were. That’s going to frustrate more people than it helps.

AZ Central is uniquely positioned to provide great blog content, yet they unfortunately have buried them down at the bottom of the home page, away from the view of the vast majority of readers. They could be the dominant force in the Arizona blog scene, but with this redesign, they seem to have dropped the ball there again.

Both the Arizona Republic and 12 News brands get lost in the shuffle. This can be good in some ways (one dominant brand requires less thinking on the part of the user), but it can also be a bit confusing to users trying to figure out who’s behind the site. It’s not clear that this is a partnership between those two entities.

Without question, though, my biggest and most painful disappointment is the continued use of the abominable “a few simple questions” survey that comes up when you try to read an article, demanding that you enter personal information before continuing. Yes, it’s nice to know your readers’ sex, age, and location — but is it worth the bounce rate? Every time I see that page, I shake my head and hit the browser’s Back button. (I wonder how many more ad views I would have generated for them over the years if I’d actually been allowed to see the article I was trying to get to.)

FINAL THOUGHTS

There are some major issues with the new site, with regard to both strategy and visual design, but overall the team did a respectable job of improving the site. It’s a major leap forward from the old site, and their efforts shouldn’t be dismissed. I’d love to meet them and congratulate them personally on accomplishing as much as they did.

That said, this redesign misses out on some great opportunities, and leaves AZ Central vulnerable to competition from other sites that can take advantage of those market openings. They have the puzzle pieces, but they don’t yet see how to combine them in industry-changing ways.

Overall grade: B-

Guest Post: Forty analyzes AZCentral’s redesign

Share This

Hide Sites

Comments

I am often frustrated by the sometimes frequent redesigns of online media sites, particularly when they screw with the navigation.

Usually, we’ve all just finally learned where items are, and then, they’re moved as part of a “usability” study. Consumers hate nothing more than a learning curve, imo.

“Redesigns” always seem to come with 2x as many ads….which results in less visual branding of the site, because too much site design + advertising results in a myspace looking page: overwhelming.

Rather than a massive redesign which I agree, as above and with Dan, lacks any real sense of branding, I’d have preferred they simply deal with the existing site and attempt to improve those areas that people were complaining about… no need to start over. Now we simply have a new set of issues.

Great review by the way and fair to boot.
Initial thoughts:
“why blue?” – isn’t blue the ultimate “safe” color in web design – when in doubt, use blue!

Also, the forcing you to input information when trying to read an article – completely ridiculous. That only speaks of how old-school thinking the suits are being and not putting the user experience first when planning this out. I was hoping to see that page disappear with the redesign and yet it remains.
There is however a “secret” about that page. There’s a hidden link in the upper right corner you can click on to bypass that page. Thx to a twitter run-in with Adam in response to my aggravated rant about that page.

I like the direction of the new site, and have actually created an account http://is.gd/468
Again, it’s a step in the right direction from where the site used to be, but I’d like to see some of the branding issues and the overwhelming use of ads to be attended to.

The blue color is aesthetically pleasing, but I agree that the site has no distinctive regional flavor. I also detest the “simple questions” screen and sometimes enter bogus information just to vent my frustration.

The biggest problem with AZ Central, however, is not in its design, but in its tone, particularly when it comes to reader comments. For too long, AZ Central has let the inmates run the asylum, with most article comments being dominated by the loudest and most ignorant voices. It’s very hard to change an online forum’s tone once it has been allowed to degrade. I think that AZ Central should have actually shut off all reader commenting, deleted the archive of existing comments, and then brought back commenting capability several weeks later with more aggressive moderation. I’ve seen several cases in which a flamey, unproductive online forum could be saved only with a complete reboot.

David,

I disagree about shutting off reader commenting. They had a choice between engaging and retreating, and they opted to stand their ground and try to make something of the community, rather than simply abandoning it.

I’m sure that AZ Central is well aware of the tone of the comments on their site (which is comparable to the tone on any large-scale site with a broad audience). Getting in and fixing that situation is going to take a lot of work and a heck of a lot of insight, but at least they’re willing to tackle the problem.

If they put the right measures in place (e.g., engaging high-quality users to serve as subtle role models for others), they can turn that tone around within a year. That’s not a bad alternative, especially when the alternative is to give up on the community and walk away.

Good point David. I’ve always been caught off guard and embarrassed as an Arizonan by a lot the reader comments. Like James said, it’s a risky endeavor to allow prominent comments.

What surprises me, however, is the large community that exists at AZcentral, despite the commentators tone. I believe that shows that even on the web, people still crave local and relevant info, even if they disagree with much of the content supplied by the site. As a designer, how do you make your designs connect and interact with them in a way that encourages positive conversation, white not at the expense of openness and free speech? Now that’s my kind of design challenge! =)

(PS – perhaps the answer starts with helping the readers find unity, as a way to cultivate a healthy respect for one another and AZcentral writers)

good assessment. it would have been nice if the redesign better represented the area. the redesign loses all readability on me.

i’ll attempt to solve the problem in 1 line of CSS:

* { padding:0.5em; line-height:1.5em; }

forgive me if it sounds arrogant, but it seems a little like web2.0 designed by a web1.0 guy.

while I am humored at times by the comments..it is horrifying to send a link to a person of interest (client, friend, family member) about a story and then have them take more attention to the comments below then the actual content or message of the article?!

I was featured in a “My Phoenix” profile a year ago and talked about my favorite things in the Valley. My boyfriend thought it was cute and forwarded it on to his parents (who had not met me yet). He thought it would be a fun way to show them my interests and commentary on the Valley. Well, by the time they saw it, about 30 haters had commented on everything I posted…including debates about my age and how it was (or wasn’t) accurate by my photo.

anyway…i dont know if i am just lame or not…but from my ignorant-graphic eye…i think the new look is nice and pleasing…from the most basic and broad outlook.

After being on the site for a bit and searching for the very nice Michelle Murrietta (AzCentral Digital Media & Sales Executive) that was in our office this morning…

I realized that the site doesn’t search through profiles. Search for your name if you have a profile or search for mine (Chuck Reynolds). Not only does it not come up with any results but it shows the OLD azcentral design on the results page… Guess they’re still working on that part.

Great review, James. I guess we could all be critics, but you made some interesting objective points. The distraction element is very true. Way too much advertising distraction.

I don’t quite agree on the branding part, and here’s why. When you think like a client (and we all do for our brands) we have the usual short list we protect: Color, consistency (in their case Channel 12 and Arizona Republic) etc. But I have now begun to suspect that the audience is not so hung up on these details as we imagine. I know, I know, this is heresy, but the end users are seldom walk away from brands because one piece of packaging didn’t reflect the branding of the mothership.

Having said that users walk up to products and experiences that reflect what they are looking for, and that’s where AZCentral is very different from a lot of others newspaper online experiences. To me it says “media portal’ (MSN, Yahoo etc) not “news site” (TimesOnline, NYT, LA Times) if you see my point. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. Maybe they know what the audience is after, and designed it as such. I see a lot of kinks, and I am sure they are fixing them. I don’t have a problem if this means they are in a ‘perpetual beta’ situation.

[...] a discussion around whether the new site reflects the newspaper brand. It doesn’t, and I wondered if that was accident or intentional heresy. Take a look at AZCentral. If you’re in Arizona, [...]

I agree with Archer’s commentary on the “a few simple questions” survey. Not only does it put a barrier between readers and content, but it must also skew the data that AZCentral collects. I usually fill out the form, albeit with a few verbal bullets thrown in, and consequently every time I do so on their end it must look like a new reader from my zip code. Maybe they are connecting IP addresses to specific zip codes but if so why continue asking for the information?

I’m not too thrown off by the mix of old layout and new layout as I’m sure that was more of a pragmatic decision. Sites of this scale can take a long time to launch and I’m guessing that the remaining areas will match the new style in the near future.

I’m not opposed to the blue background. They could have used a very cliched background, such as a sunset image or an “arizona” palette, but since the audience is primarily Phoenix based (I assume), I think it’s more important for the publication to craft its own identity rather than trying to leverage it Arizona heritage. Whether their choice of blue can accomplish this is up for debate but I don’t think it will affect readership as much as some of the other issues brought up. I do agree that the background should remain consistent from section to section.

News publications historically have a difficult time branding themselves visually. Their primary mission is to provide readers with solid, accurate reporting. Let’s hope that AZCentral.com’s redesign improves on it’s greater mission to deliver great, relevant news to our community.

Overall, I’m less enthusiastic about this redesign than most. From an information hierarchy and user convenience standpoint, it’s a mess.

Take a look at http://www.azcentral.com/sports/
The most prominent item immediately visible is the “Sports” designation top left, which is wholly unnecessary. We already know we are in the sports section, as we clicked “sports” to go there. Today, there are three top level stories: Eric Byrnes, Nash, Hansbrough from North Carolina. Inexplicably, the Byrnes story is in the left column. The other two are in the middle column. A scrolling headlines box runs adjacent to the two main stories, making the user think “which of these content components is more prominent, the stories or the headlines box.” Further down the page (and on many of the new section indices) is a horizontal scrolling photo tool. This breaks up the page like a black belt on a fat guy. Completely interrupts the users’ eye scanning down the page.

In the right column are several square boxes. One is an ad, one is a video, one is yet another scrolling photo element shoehorned to fit into one column. Then a blog, then a poll, then member profiles, then text ads. Whew!

Literally, I count 9 totally distinct types of content in the right column of this page. Each element is about the same size, which has major hiearchy problems, and to exacerbate them, the content components are unrelated to each other. It’s not several takes on the same issue, they are totally different, mixing ads with content, video with blogs, calendars with polls.

I agree with Archer on the branding, it really gets lost. I don’t mind the blue so much, as it really makes the content space “pop” visually. Good use of white space overall, making individual items easier to read than previously.

But the overall layout on the home and main section pages (in particular) is terrible. It’s like a Tetris game gone horribly wrong, with designers being required to place certain elements on the page regardless, and modifying shapes and sizes to fit them all in. Very little adherence to any sort of grid or consistency.

Even on the home page, the majority of content items are of approximate equal visual weight. Type size, physical size, color. It all blends together. The point of having a front page is to tell the reader “this is what we think is important”. With no visual cues doing so, the new site is putting the onus on the reader to sift through a confusing pile of content and draw their own conclusions. The good news is that the variety of ways to access that content (photos, comments, video, blogs, et al) has increased geometrically, but I fear the typical user will be highly confused and agitated.

As someone that launched 3 major redesigns of a major content site when I ran azfamily.com, I know first-hand how tough it is, and I didn’t even have to deal with the multi-media and Web 2.0 issues then. But from a user perspective, I’m disheartened.

Alternatively, from an advertising standpoint, I love it. They’ve mostly (maybe entirely) killed those tabbed flyouts that had diminished almost entirely in effectiveness. The new design very much emphasizes the leaderboards at top, and I’d suggest buying them initially, as users will pause at the top longer than before as they sort out the main nav.

Below, the new tile ads in the left column of the home page provide some more ad real estate, but their stacked nature still forces them to fight against each other, making them a bad buy in my mind.

I really like the new right column rectangles throughout the site, although the overall increase in photos and square-ish graphics site-wide is going to cause some banner blindness. As with the old site, the smart money is still on the in-content rectangles, but you need to be at the story level to find/purchase them.

It will be interesting to see if they insert ads into the incessant “belly band” scrolling photo components that exist in many places. Seems like great inventory to me. No ads yet that I could find.

If you’re an AZC advertiser (as we are for many clients) note that every content site redesign I’ve ever launched has resulted in an initial decline in traffic due to user frustration and confusion, followed by an eventual increase. This could be the redesign that disproves that rule, but I doubt it. Also, user flow will change considerably, so my advice is to broaden your buy considerably for the next 90 days, moving your ads around the site, tracking performance by section and page level (home, section index, story) carefully. New winners will emerge. If you can figure out what they are before AZC does, lock yourself or your clients in to longer term advantageous pricing on those ad units/positions.

[...] agree with James Archer on Valley PR Blog regarding the new branding, it really gets lost. I don’t mind the blue so much, as it really [...]

Add your Comment

Want Your Picture Icon? Go to gravatar.com and set a picture up to your email address for free. It also works on thousands of other websites, too!

Guest Post: Forty analyzes AZCentral’s redesign

Comments

Add your Comment

Categories

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Online News

Tweetroll

Design & Strategy

Valley PR Blog

Guest Post: Forty analyzes AZCentral’s redesign

Comments

Add your Comment

Categories

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Online News

Tweetroll

Valley PR Blog in the top 500

Design & Strategy