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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.