Richard Hobbes
09-11-2003, 09:34 AM
Lara, Chris, and VGR Management;
This was a reply I wrote to a post by Suicides-by-Steve. The issues in here seem important enough that I want to make sure you see them. Thus, I've posted this in its own thread. Please keep in mind that I now understand (from Chris' messages) that VGR did canvas users before making the changes you have. Despite this, there seems to be a communication gap somewhere because many of the problems are things that users would have detected. Did you test the new/merged site with focus groups of users before going live? Did you show screen/page mock-ups so that users could give feedback? I don't know if you did these things or not, but as I said, there seems to be a huge communication gap somewhere in the process. With the preface out of the way, my further comments and suggestions are included below.
Regarding Steve's comments on the new/merged videogamereview.com and pcgamereview.com sites:
--- I dislike it intensely. Reviews sorted by Developers include
--- console games and platforms, and well as by PC-type! So
--- searching for a GOD game brings up 7 or 8 GOD's with no
--- explanation beside them! I had to click on each one, and
--- saw GOD-Dreamcast, GOD-PC SIMULATION... uh no thanks.
This is a huge problem. The navigation of the new site is so bad that I'm almost at the point of not using it until it is fixed.
Key issue #1: I can no longer find the games I'm looking for without incredible difficulty. PC games and console games are an entirely different genre so putting them together makes no sense. When I'm searching for Football games on PC, I do not want to see console games because they are of no consequence to my search. Ditto for console games and specific platforms. If I'm searching for NBA Street 2 on PS2, I don't want to see all the versions on Xbox, GameCube, etc. It really seems that the new site design was created without any regard for usability. It may look pretty, but it is so difficult to find what you're looking for that it is better to go to another web site.
--- There's no index feature I could find intuitively to anchor
--- me directly to the "S" titles for instance (WHY!? this is so
--- easy to do)
This is the key thing that makes me think the new site design was not created with gaming users in mind. Alphabetical listings by platform is the standard way that all gaming sites use for navigation. You need to be able to filter by platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube, PS2, GBA, etc.) and then get alphabetical listings of games within that platform. Go to *any* gaming site (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) and this is the navigation mechanism. These other sites also provide a search feature, but the search feature is used only a small part of the time. The search feature is critical, but it does not replace platform/alphabetical listings. By removing the platform/alphabetical listings, VGR has taken away the key navigation mechanism that gamers use and replaced it with nothing. Thumbs down folks. A big thumbs down.
--- and when you have to click next, next, next, next
--- skipping 50 titles in order to surf to the "S" section
--- it is time consuming, and frustrating...
Yes. This problem goes hand-in-hand with the platform/alphabetical listings. When you had platform/alphabetical listings, there was no need to page the results.
Key issue #2: Users hate having to flip between pages of results. Browsers scroll down for a reason - so that you can have many results on a single page.
Key issue #3: When designing a web interface you must be careful not to interfere with the user's browser. When results are placed across multiple pages you not only force users to flip pages, but you also (effectively) disable the browser's Find feature. (i.e. the Find feature can no longer be used to find a specific result because the result may be on a different page).
Key issue #4: When overhauling something as large as PCGameReview.com and VideoGameReview.com, conduct a best practices study. Canvass your users to find out what they like and dislike about the site. Go to other web sites and see what successful techniques, navigation, etc. they use. Do not rely on "silver bullets". A silver bullet is when a software manufacturer or manager says "this software XXXX" or "this technique XXXX" will solve all your problems. Rarely can a single tool or technique solve all problems. Likewise, if your project's success is dependant on one tool, what happens if the tool fails? You need to identify risks and provide alternatives.
--- Amalgamating the two sites is a bad idea in
--- retrospect, since I for one don't have a bunch
--- of time to surf through the crap that's laden
--- upon some of those platforms... nor do I care
--- to see the ads, and other trash targeting today's
--- youth, like Mario, the girls from the Xbox volleyball,
--- or Crash.
Yes, there does seem to be a huge problem with focus. The other problem I see is that now that the site is restricted to appearing on only half my screen (here I'm referring to the large column of white space that the new site now leaves on the right hand side of my monitor), the advertising really dominates the content you see. The advertising is so big in relationship to the actual content that it makes the actual content difficult to see and read. As I said above, I'm at the point where I'd rather use another web site than use the new videogamereview.com - the site is that frustrating to use.
-- I see the Vote of the week is asking about
--- Playstation or something like that... Really,
--- who cares?
Another focus problem like the one above. Whomever designed the new site did not take into consideration the needs of video gamers.
--- I feel sad... and the future is looking
--- kinda grim actually... Even the fact
--- that I'm posting at Video Game Review
--- sounds nerdy. I have posted a poll
--- of my own in fact, I'm so concerned!
Earlier on I wrote a post on the old VideoGameReview.com forums about the importance of involving uses in software projects. My point was that even though your new system may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, if you don't get user acceptance , then your system will fail. I've been managing software projects for many years and what I'm seeing at VGR has some of the same critical mistakes that I've seen cause other projects to fail. I'm not saying that things are beyond hope, but someone at VGR needs to take this project by the horns and realize that some bad mistakes have been made that need correcting.
Key issue #5: This comes straight out the project management textbook "Rapid Development" by Microsoft engineer Steve McConnell. If you have a project that is near critical failure, doing more of the same will not fix your project. To fix radical problems, you need to take radical steps. What this means is that if your project is in critical trouble, doing more of the same things that got you into critical trouble will not save your project. You need to brainstorm and try radical ideas that seem feasible.
For example, let's say your project is critically behind schedule. Most project mangers would say "keep working, get the programmers to work more overtime." But if you've reached a critical failure point, this won't save your project. One solution might be this: "tell the programmers to stop working for a few days, we're going to hold an executive meeting to sort this out". Say what? Stop the programmers from working when you are behind schedule? This seems crazy, but is it? If your project is going to fail, what is the point of having all your programmers work? Perhaps scope can be changed, budget can be adjusted, another solution found, or some other solution that has not been thought of yet can be attempted. In the case of VGR, I suggest the following: put the old sites back. While this might sound crazy, if the new (merged) site is not well thought out, this seems better than having all your users go to other sites. I'm not saying scrap the new site entirely, just that some brainstorming needs to occur and that in order to get the time to so do this, putting the old sites back seems like a logical temporary fix.
Key issue #6: Whatever VGR does to fix the problems with the new site and bulletin boards, my advice is "get your users involved in the process". Your systems will not be successful without user buy-in and acceptance. For example, if you are considering changing key features like site navigation, find out how your users navigate the site and what features are important to them. Don't just change things like this without knowing the needs and desires of your user community.
Thanks for taking the time to read through all this feedback.
RH.
This was a reply I wrote to a post by Suicides-by-Steve. The issues in here seem important enough that I want to make sure you see them. Thus, I've posted this in its own thread. Please keep in mind that I now understand (from Chris' messages) that VGR did canvas users before making the changes you have. Despite this, there seems to be a communication gap somewhere because many of the problems are things that users would have detected. Did you test the new/merged site with focus groups of users before going live? Did you show screen/page mock-ups so that users could give feedback? I don't know if you did these things or not, but as I said, there seems to be a huge communication gap somewhere in the process. With the preface out of the way, my further comments and suggestions are included below.
Regarding Steve's comments on the new/merged videogamereview.com and pcgamereview.com sites:
--- I dislike it intensely. Reviews sorted by Developers include
--- console games and platforms, and well as by PC-type! So
--- searching for a GOD game brings up 7 or 8 GOD's with no
--- explanation beside them! I had to click on each one, and
--- saw GOD-Dreamcast, GOD-PC SIMULATION... uh no thanks.
This is a huge problem. The navigation of the new site is so bad that I'm almost at the point of not using it until it is fixed.
Key issue #1: I can no longer find the games I'm looking for without incredible difficulty. PC games and console games are an entirely different genre so putting them together makes no sense. When I'm searching for Football games on PC, I do not want to see console games because they are of no consequence to my search. Ditto for console games and specific platforms. If I'm searching for NBA Street 2 on PS2, I don't want to see all the versions on Xbox, GameCube, etc. It really seems that the new site design was created without any regard for usability. It may look pretty, but it is so difficult to find what you're looking for that it is better to go to another web site.
--- There's no index feature I could find intuitively to anchor
--- me directly to the "S" titles for instance (WHY!? this is so
--- easy to do)
This is the key thing that makes me think the new site design was not created with gaming users in mind. Alphabetical listings by platform is the standard way that all gaming sites use for navigation. You need to be able to filter by platform (PC, PS2, Xbox, GameCube, PS2, GBA, etc.) and then get alphabetical listings of games within that platform. Go to *any* gaming site (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) and this is the navigation mechanism. These other sites also provide a search feature, but the search feature is used only a small part of the time. The search feature is critical, but it does not replace platform/alphabetical listings. By removing the platform/alphabetical listings, VGR has taken away the key navigation mechanism that gamers use and replaced it with nothing. Thumbs down folks. A big thumbs down.
--- and when you have to click next, next, next, next
--- skipping 50 titles in order to surf to the "S" section
--- it is time consuming, and frustrating...
Yes. This problem goes hand-in-hand with the platform/alphabetical listings. When you had platform/alphabetical listings, there was no need to page the results.
Key issue #2: Users hate having to flip between pages of results. Browsers scroll down for a reason - so that you can have many results on a single page.
Key issue #3: When designing a web interface you must be careful not to interfere with the user's browser. When results are placed across multiple pages you not only force users to flip pages, but you also (effectively) disable the browser's Find feature. (i.e. the Find feature can no longer be used to find a specific result because the result may be on a different page).
Key issue #4: When overhauling something as large as PCGameReview.com and VideoGameReview.com, conduct a best practices study. Canvass your users to find out what they like and dislike about the site. Go to other web sites and see what successful techniques, navigation, etc. they use. Do not rely on "silver bullets". A silver bullet is when a software manufacturer or manager says "this software XXXX" or "this technique XXXX" will solve all your problems. Rarely can a single tool or technique solve all problems. Likewise, if your project's success is dependant on one tool, what happens if the tool fails? You need to identify risks and provide alternatives.
--- Amalgamating the two sites is a bad idea in
--- retrospect, since I for one don't have a bunch
--- of time to surf through the crap that's laden
--- upon some of those platforms... nor do I care
--- to see the ads, and other trash targeting today's
--- youth, like Mario, the girls from the Xbox volleyball,
--- or Crash.
Yes, there does seem to be a huge problem with focus. The other problem I see is that now that the site is restricted to appearing on only half my screen (here I'm referring to the large column of white space that the new site now leaves on the right hand side of my monitor), the advertising really dominates the content you see. The advertising is so big in relationship to the actual content that it makes the actual content difficult to see and read. As I said above, I'm at the point where I'd rather use another web site than use the new videogamereview.com - the site is that frustrating to use.
-- I see the Vote of the week is asking about
--- Playstation or something like that... Really,
--- who cares?
Another focus problem like the one above. Whomever designed the new site did not take into consideration the needs of video gamers.
--- I feel sad... and the future is looking
--- kinda grim actually... Even the fact
--- that I'm posting at Video Game Review
--- sounds nerdy. I have posted a poll
--- of my own in fact, I'm so concerned!
Earlier on I wrote a post on the old VideoGameReview.com forums about the importance of involving uses in software projects. My point was that even though your new system may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, if you don't get user acceptance , then your system will fail. I've been managing software projects for many years and what I'm seeing at VGR has some of the same critical mistakes that I've seen cause other projects to fail. I'm not saying that things are beyond hope, but someone at VGR needs to take this project by the horns and realize that some bad mistakes have been made that need correcting.
Key issue #5: This comes straight out the project management textbook "Rapid Development" by Microsoft engineer Steve McConnell. If you have a project that is near critical failure, doing more of the same will not fix your project. To fix radical problems, you need to take radical steps. What this means is that if your project is in critical trouble, doing more of the same things that got you into critical trouble will not save your project. You need to brainstorm and try radical ideas that seem feasible.
For example, let's say your project is critically behind schedule. Most project mangers would say "keep working, get the programmers to work more overtime." But if you've reached a critical failure point, this won't save your project. One solution might be this: "tell the programmers to stop working for a few days, we're going to hold an executive meeting to sort this out". Say what? Stop the programmers from working when you are behind schedule? This seems crazy, but is it? If your project is going to fail, what is the point of having all your programmers work? Perhaps scope can be changed, budget can be adjusted, another solution found, or some other solution that has not been thought of yet can be attempted. In the case of VGR, I suggest the following: put the old sites back. While this might sound crazy, if the new (merged) site is not well thought out, this seems better than having all your users go to other sites. I'm not saying scrap the new site entirely, just that some brainstorming needs to occur and that in order to get the time to so do this, putting the old sites back seems like a logical temporary fix.
Key issue #6: Whatever VGR does to fix the problems with the new site and bulletin boards, my advice is "get your users involved in the process". Your systems will not be successful without user buy-in and acceptance. For example, if you are considering changing key features like site navigation, find out how your users navigate the site and what features are important to them. Don't just change things like this without knowing the needs and desires of your user community.
Thanks for taking the time to read through all this feedback.
RH.