Redesign Launch - Stage 2 in progress

[Ethreon]

In response to post #55257103. #55257298, #55258328, #55258513, #55258928, #55259153, #55259388, #55259853, #55305193, #55330208, #55334878, #55338158, #55338403, #55338453, #55339968, #55342353, #55357393, #55364788, #55364973, #55368353 are all replies on the same post.

Darth Sidious wrote: I hope you will give us the option to keep the old design, I find it much more readable and more pleasant to use.

EHPDJFrANKy wrote: I think just the same. It would be really much appreciated.

Haladoon wrote: Same here. The new design is too damn huge. I also am not a fan of the new navigation, but it's just something I'll try to get use to as a modder and user. I know they are working hard on it. Even though, I personally don't think it's necessary from a visual perspective.

gentester wrote: I hope so as well. I really dislike the new design I did give it a fair go I think but reverted pretty quickly, it just doesn't feel as user friendly and welcoming. Sometimes 'New' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'Better'

TheOblivionCrew1 wrote: This happened the last time they did an update, when the current design(2012-2017 era, if I recall correctly when it was implemented) was the "new" design. We said the same thing then, didn't change the course of action unfortunately. On the whole it was rather strange, because the original layouts of the Nexus felt very PC friendly. The new designs got shifted for "multiple/universal" platforms, meaning mobile, which doesn't make any sense because there's no community for modding on any platforms other than PC(and the consoles have been hamstrung by Bethesda controlling the content and site for it, so I don't factor them in).

Maybe it's just a result of amateur web-building, and site layout design(maybe no one is a visual artist or professional in user-friendly design, which I can understand), but after some years of doing this I really question why they keep shooting for redesigns that don't seem to improve usability, all against frequent calls by their users to go back to the old layouts.

VictorDragonslayer wrote: The new design is good for viewing pictures, but awful for reading mod description and comments - they are too wide. Is it text length, overall gamma or whatever, but my eyes feel uncomfortable when I read something on the new design. It's still better than "Mom, I learned JS!" Bethesda.net, which is hard to navigate, but hiding changelog under "Logs" tab was a mistake - very few people will find it.

KamranMackey wrote: They probably won't. And IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the new design. I find it to be a lot more modern and easier to look at than the old design. The old design was alright, but I think the new one is so much better.

VictorDragonslayer wrote:

easier to look at

To look at pictures - yes, but, as I said, reading texts became harder, IMO. If people complain about readability, then it means that:
1) they are crybabies and should be disregarded;
2) font size/colour may not suit all users, so you may try to give several options to choose from.
Sadly, developers considered only the first option.

pacfish wrote: This was already answered by staff, moderators, admins (Dark), already. They will not be keeping the old design as the cost to maintain both versions of the site is "too costly"

The other problem with that is formatting issues for content creators between old and new site.

Darth Sidious wrote: Too costly? Why and how much? I dislike the new design so much I would pay to keep the old design.

pacfish wrote: You missed the other problem I listed. Things formatted for the new site don't translate well back to the old site and neither does translating old content to the new.

But in terms of cost, imagine performing all the changes twice. Which means twice the work and I do mean twice the work. Fixing a bug one one system only to have to turn around and fix it on another. HTML / JS don't have inheritance. There are ways to setup dynamic css code to try and manipulate the data being displayed but that has to be run on your end. It does exist and content creators have already released at least one version of this and posted a link in this forum.

It would be nice if nexusmods actually just made a mobile version of the site. Facebook has this. And while I know facebook has a lot larger market share and can afford to pay for a lot more features, facebook even has an app that just manipulates the data being requested to present the information on the screen differently (again user side) but it's not hard to make something like this. And to give you an idea about what this can be compared to, it's basically a fomod installer or a robot/spider crawling the webpages for information. Find this tag, put content in this location. Formatting of a description that a content creator posts would need new and stricter guidelines to make this change better but I think that's reasonable and can be solved with thumbnails.

Since I don't think Dark has any intention of having an app and instead intends on making a higher resource cost website (1 page on the new site is considerably larger than the old site [data caps//internet speed] and takes more memory to run) I don't see a possible solution. But I think an App + some UI tweaks would have been better than this dramatic overhaul. Even the last change wasn't this big of a difference.

slippyguy wrote: Ever notice how no other website has ever kept a former layout for any longer than a short transitional period? That's why they won't keep it.

Darth Sidious wrote: I read the other issue as well, but since I am not familiar with the details I didnt comment on it, however I dont know why ever redesign of a major website/portal I seen lately includes HUGE elements on the screen, less readability than the old design and similar gimmicks. What happened to the clean, readable and efficient design? I guess that is not "modern" enough any more.

Take Youtube redesign for example, it made things bigger which means less content on the screen and less readability, same goes for menus on Youtube that suddenly arent clean and easily readable by a casual glance, new Youtube merely takes up more screen space, it isnt prettier and it doesnt add any new special functionality, thank God that Youtube can be restored to the old version. Why tech companies behind certain websites continually reinvent the wheel with their redesigns is beyond me, seems the only purpose of some redesigns is to make it new for the sake of the new and that developers can earn their paychecks.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Youtube still has old design available for those who want it and it has been around for quite a while now which hopefully means the old design is here to stay as an option. I agree that for most websites the old design is discarded and new one literally forced upon their users, even though the old design was clean, looking good and perfectly functional, that often happens to websites of various news agencies.

Exoclyps wrote: New one is just too huge. I had to set browser to 60% size to be able to use the site.

slippyguy wrote: The new YouTube design is WIP, it will become mandatory when they decide its ready, just like every other design in the past 11 or so years. Nobody wants to support two different layouts.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Microsoft backed out on the Metro UI after severe user backlash, first in 8.1 they introduced the option of getting the normal desktop and in 10 they returned "classic" start menu that can be expanded to Metro-like UI if the user wants to. And we are talking about a whole operating system, not just one website.

While most websites like to force new designs on their users the example of Windows shows users can influence decisions if they really want to, but when it comes to websites most people will just be grumpy for a while and continue using the services of the website effectively falling in line with a sigh "thats life", sharp decline in the number of users and supporters of a website would force the owners of a website to reconsider their decisions, but that rarely happens as most people are not willing to sacrifice something (using services of a website) to achieve their goals. Some are, but not enough of them to make a difference.

That is why small websites or services that dont have hundreds of thousands or millions of users are lot more careful about changing things, big websites can afford to annoy a portion of their users because their user base is large enough plus they know most of those that are not satisfied will still fall in line and continue using their website or their services because there is little to no alternative to what they provide.

lithiumfox wrote: As I proceed to respond to you on my phone....

slippyguy wrote: The fullscreen start menu is to provide an experience tailored for tablet users, and thus worth the extra work of supporting two different layouts. The Metro UI also spans much further than the start menu, and is still mandatory, by the way.

Supporting two entire website layouts (effectively doubling the work of maintenance and updates) purely for cosmetic reasons is just nonsense.

Darth Sidious wrote: Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons plus a giant like Google can maintain two layouts with extreme ease, that is nothing for a giant like that, they are maintaining far more complicated things than one website layout. And for example they are maintaining two layouts for their search engine, the usual one and the one when you turn off javascript. And that is not the only example of some website maintaining two layouts, most dont care for user feedback, but some do.

The fact Metro UI is still present does not invalidate my comment at all, they defaulted to classic start menu after users raged against new interface, users got what they wanted and that is the point I was making with that example.

- there is an older article (and several before it) detailing just how much costs for maintaining the website are. Feel free to peruse it and then come back to tell us you're willing to pay.
- isn't it wonderful how GIANTS like MS or Google can afford to maintain 2 versions of their websites? Wonder why a non-giant can do that..
- half the users? do you draw your statistics from the same place as all the other internet statistics aka your own buttocks?

[SummonTheDaedra]

In response to post #55257103. #55257298, #55258328, #55258513, #55258928, #55259153, #55259388, #55259853, #55305193, #55330208, #55334878, #55338158, #55338403, #55338453, #55339968, #55342353, #55357393, #55364788, #55364973, #55368353, #55368878 are all replies on the same post.

Darth Sidious wrote: I hope you will give us the option to keep the old design, I find it much more readable and more pleasant to use.

EHPDJFrANKy wrote: I think just the same. It would be really much appreciated.

Haladoon wrote: Same here. The new design is too damn huge. I also am not a fan of the new navigation, but it's just something I'll try to get use to as a modder and user. I know they are working hard on it. Even though, I personally don't think it's necessary from a visual perspective.

gentester wrote: I hope so as well. I really dislike the new design I did give it a fair go I think but reverted pretty quickly, it just doesn't feel as user friendly and welcoming. Sometimes 'New' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'Better'

TheOblivionCrew1 wrote: This happened the last time they did an update, when the current design(2012-2017 era, if I recall correctly when it was implemented) was the "new" design. We said the same thing then, didn't change the course of action unfortunately. On the whole it was rather strange, because the original layouts of the Nexus felt very PC friendly. The new designs got shifted for "multiple/universal" platforms, meaning mobile, which doesn't make any sense because there's no community for modding on any platforms other than PC(and the consoles have been hamstrung by Bethesda controlling the content and site for it, so I don't factor them in).

Maybe it's just a result of amateur web-building, and site layout design(maybe no one is a visual artist or professional in user-friendly design, which I can understand), but after some years of doing this I really question why they keep shooting for redesigns that don't seem to improve usability, all against frequent calls by their users to go back to the old layouts.

VictorDragonslayer wrote: The new design is good for viewing pictures, but awful for reading mod description and comments - they are too wide. Is it text length, overall gamma or whatever, but my eyes feel uncomfortable when I read something on the new design. It's still better than "Mom, I learned JS!" Bethesda.net, which is hard to navigate, but hiding changelog under "Logs" tab was a mistake - very few people will find it.

KamranMackey wrote: They probably won't. And IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the new design. I find it to be a lot more modern and easier to look at than the old design. The old design was alright, but I think the new one is so much better.

VictorDragonslayer wrote:

easier to look at

To look at pictures - yes, but, as I said, reading texts became harder, IMO. If people complain about readability, then it means that:
1) they are crybabies and should be disregarded;
2) font size/colour may not suit all users, so you may try to give several options to choose from.
Sadly, developers considered only the first option.

pacfish wrote: This was already answered by staff, moderators, admins (Dark), already. They will not be keeping the old design as the cost to maintain both versions of the site is "too costly"

The other problem with that is formatting issues for content creators between old and new site.

Darth Sidious wrote: Too costly? Why and how much? I dislike the new design so much I would pay to keep the old design.

pacfish wrote: You missed the other problem I listed. Things formatted for the new site don't translate well back to the old site and neither does translating old content to the new.

But in terms of cost, imagine performing all the changes twice. Which means twice the work and I do mean twice the work. Fixing a bug one one system only to have to turn around and fix it on another. HTML / JS don't have inheritance. There are ways to setup dynamic css code to try and manipulate the data being displayed but that has to be run on your end. It does exist and content creators have already released at least one version of this and posted a link in this forum.

It would be nice if nexusmods actually just made a mobile version of the site. Facebook has this. And while I know facebook has a lot larger market share and can afford to pay for a lot more features, facebook even has an app that just manipulates the data being requested to present the information on the screen differently (again user side) but it's not hard to make something like this. And to give you an idea about what this can be compared to, it's basically a fomod installer or a robot/spider crawling the webpages for information. Find this tag, put content in this location. Formatting of a description that a content creator posts would need new and stricter guidelines to make this change better but I think that's reasonable and can be solved with thumbnails.

Since I don't think Dark has any intention of having an app and instead intends on making a higher resource cost website (1 page on the new site is considerably larger than the old site [data caps//internet speed] and takes more memory to run) I don't see a possible solution. But I think an App + some UI tweaks would have been better than this dramatic overhaul. Even the last change wasn't this big of a difference.

slippyguy wrote: Ever notice how no other website has ever kept a former layout for any longer than a short transitional period? That's why they won't keep it.

Darth Sidious wrote: I read the other issue as well, but since I am not familiar with the details I didnt comment on it, however I dont know why ever redesign of a major website/portal I seen lately includes HUGE elements on the screen, less readability than the old design and similar gimmicks. What happened to the clean, readable and efficient design? I guess that is not "modern" enough any more.

Take Youtube redesign for example, it made things bigger which means less content on the screen and less readability, same goes for menus on Youtube that suddenly arent clean and easily readable by a casual glance, new Youtube merely takes up more screen space, it isnt prettier and it doesnt add any new special functionality, thank God that Youtube can be restored to the old version. Why tech companies behind certain websites continually reinvent the wheel with their redesigns is beyond me, seems the only purpose of some redesigns is to make it new for the sake of the new and that developers can earn their paychecks.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Youtube still has old design available for those who want it and it has been around for quite a while now which hopefully means the old design is here to stay as an option. I agree that for most websites the old design is discarded and new one literally forced upon their users, even though the old design was clean, looking good and perfectly functional, that often happens to websites of various news agencies.

Exoclyps wrote: New one is just too huge. I had to set browser to 60% size to be able to use the site.

slippyguy wrote: The new YouTube design is WIP, it will become mandatory when they decide its ready, just like every other design in the past 11 or so years. Nobody wants to support two different layouts.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Microsoft backed out on the Metro UI after severe user backlash, first in 8.1 they introduced the option of getting the normal desktop and in 10 they returned "classic" start menu that can be expanded to Metro-like UI if the user wants to. And we are talking about a whole operating system, not just one website.

While most websites like to force new designs on their users the example of Windows shows users can influence decisions if they really want to, but when it comes to websites most people will just be grumpy for a while and continue using the services of the website effectively falling in line with a sigh "thats life", sharp decline in the number of users and supporters of a website would force the owners of a website to reconsider their decisions, but that rarely happens as most people are not willing to sacrifice something (using services of a website) to achieve their goals. Some are, but not enough of them to make a difference.

That is why small websites or services that dont have hundreds of thousands or millions of users are lot more careful about changing things, big websites can afford to annoy a portion of their users because their user base is large enough plus they know most of those that are not satisfied will still fall in line and continue using their website or their services because there is little to no alternative to what they provide.

lithiumfox wrote: As I proceed to respond to you on my phone....

slippyguy wrote: The fullscreen start menu is to provide an experience tailored for tablet users, and thus worth the extra work of supporting two different layouts. The Metro UI also spans much further than the start menu, and is still mandatory, by the way.

Supporting two entire website layouts (effectively doubling the work of maintenance and updates) purely for cosmetic reasons is just nonsense.

Darth Sidious wrote: Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons plus a giant like Google can maintain two layouts with extreme ease, that is nothing for a giant like that, they are maintaining far more complicated things than one website layout. And for example they are maintaining two layouts for their search engine, the usual one and the one when you turn off javascript. And that is not the only example of some website maintaining two layouts, most dont care for user feedback, but some do.

The fact Metro UI is still present does not invalidate my comment at all, they defaulted to classic start menu after users raged against new interface, users got what they wanted and that is the point I was making with that example.

Ethreon wrote: - there is an older article (and several before it) detailing just how much costs for maintaining the website are. Feel free to peruse it and then come back to tell us you're willing to pay.
- isn't it wonderful how GIANTS like MS or Google can afford to maintain 2 versions of their websites? Wonder why a non-giant can do that..
- half the users? do you draw your statistics from the same place as all the other internet statistics aka your own buttocks?

There is plenty of people who dont like the new design in the comments, I dont have the statistics but reading comments on this article shows a lot of people dont like it. A poll on the Nexus "which design do you like-old one or the new one?" would give some real numbers and percentages with votes from actual users, no buttocks involved. But the real question is would a poll change anything even if majority of users voted for the old design? Probably not.

As for the amount of money needed to maintain two layouts I dont know how much it is, but Nexus has so many users, perhaps a portion of them would be willing to pay some amount of money per year to keep the old design, perhaps not, but if nobody asks them we will never know.

[slippyguy]

In response to post #55257103. #55257298, #55258328, #55258513, #55258928, #55259153, #55259388, #55259853, #55305193, #55330208, #55334878, #55338158, #55338403, #55338453, #55339968, #55342353, #55357393, #55364788, #55364973, #55368353, #55368878, #55369378 are all replies on the same post.

Darth Sidious wrote: I hope you will give us the option to keep the old design, I find it much more readable and more pleasant to use.

EHPDJFrANKy wrote: I think just the same. It would be really much appreciated.

Haladoon wrote: Same here. The new design is too damn huge. I also am not a fan of the new navigation, but it's just something I'll try to get use to as a modder and user. I know they are working hard on it. Even though, I personally don't think it's necessary from a visual perspective.

gentester wrote: I hope so as well. I really dislike the new design I did give it a fair go I think but reverted pretty quickly, it just doesn't feel as user friendly and welcoming. Sometimes 'New' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'Better'

TheOblivionCrew1 wrote: This happened the last time they did an update, when the current design(2012-2017 era, if I recall correctly when it was implemented) was the "new" design. We said the same thing then, didn't change the course of action unfortunately. On the whole it was rather strange, because the original layouts of the Nexus felt very PC friendly. The new designs got shifted for "multiple/universal" platforms, meaning mobile, which doesn't make any sense because there's no community for modding on any platforms other than PC(and the consoles have been hamstrung by Bethesda controlling the content and site for it, so I don't factor them in).

Maybe it's just a result of amateur web-building, and site layout design(maybe no one is a visual artist or professional in user-friendly design, which I can understand), but after some years of doing this I really question why they keep shooting for redesigns that don't seem to improve usability, all against frequent calls by their users to go back to the old layouts.

VictorDragonslayer wrote: The new design is good for viewing pictures, but awful for reading mod description and comments - they are too wide. Is it text length, overall gamma or whatever, but my eyes feel uncomfortable when I read something on the new design. It's still better than "Mom, I learned JS!" Bethesda.net, which is hard to navigate, but hiding changelog under "Logs" tab was a mistake - very few people will find it.

KamranMackey wrote: They probably won't. And IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the new design. I find it to be a lot more modern and easier to look at than the old design. The old design was alright, but I think the new one is so much better.

VictorDragonslayer wrote:

easier to look at

To look at pictures - yes, but, as I said, reading texts became harder, IMO. If people complain about readability, then it means that:
1) they are crybabies and should be disregarded;
2) font size/colour may not suit all users, so you may try to give several options to choose from.
Sadly, developers considered only the first option.

pacfish wrote: This was already answered by staff, moderators, admins (Dark), already. They will not be keeping the old design as the cost to maintain both versions of the site is "too costly"

The other problem with that is formatting issues for content creators between old and new site.

Darth Sidious wrote: Too costly? Why and how much? I dislike the new design so much I would pay to keep the old design.

pacfish wrote: You missed the other problem I listed. Things formatted for the new site don't translate well back to the old site and neither does translating old content to the new.

But in terms of cost, imagine performing all the changes twice. Which means twice the work and I do mean twice the work. Fixing a bug one one system only to have to turn around and fix it on another. HTML / JS don't have inheritance. There are ways to setup dynamic css code to try and manipulate the data being displayed but that has to be run on your end. It does exist and content creators have already released at least one version of this and posted a link in this forum.

It would be nice if nexusmods actually just made a mobile version of the site. Facebook has this. And while I know facebook has a lot larger market share and can afford to pay for a lot more features, facebook even has an app that just manipulates the data being requested to present the information on the screen differently (again user side) but it's not hard to make something like this. And to give you an idea about what this can be compared to, it's basically a fomod installer or a robot/spider crawling the webpages for information. Find this tag, put content in this location. Formatting of a description that a content creator posts would need new and stricter guidelines to make this change better but I think that's reasonable and can be solved with thumbnails.

Since I don't think Dark has any intention of having an app and instead intends on making a higher resource cost website (1 page on the new site is considerably larger than the old site [data caps//internet speed] and takes more memory to run) I don't see a possible solution. But I think an App + some UI tweaks would have been better than this dramatic overhaul. Even the last change wasn't this big of a difference.

slippyguy wrote: Ever notice how no other website has ever kept a former layout for any longer than a short transitional period? That's why they won't keep it.

Darth Sidious wrote: I read the other issue as well, but since I am not familiar with the details I didnt comment on it, however I dont know why ever redesign of a major website/portal I seen lately includes HUGE elements on the screen, less readability than the old design and similar gimmicks. What happened to the clean, readable and efficient design? I guess that is not "modern" enough any more.

Take Youtube redesign for example, it made things bigger which means less content on the screen and less readability, same goes for menus on Youtube that suddenly arent clean and easily readable by a casual glance, new Youtube merely takes up more screen space, it isnt prettier and it doesnt add any new special functionality, thank God that Youtube can be restored to the old version. Why tech companies behind certain websites continually reinvent the wheel with their redesigns is beyond me, seems the only purpose of some redesigns is to make it new for the sake of the new and that developers can earn their paychecks.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Youtube still has old design available for those who want it and it has been around for quite a while now which hopefully means the old design is here to stay as an option. I agree that for most websites the old design is discarded and new one literally forced upon their users, even though the old design was clean, looking good and perfectly functional, that often happens to websites of various news agencies.

Exoclyps wrote: New one is just too huge. I had to set browser to 60% size to be able to use the site.

slippyguy wrote: The new YouTube design is WIP, it will become mandatory when they decide its ready, just like every other design in the past 11 or so years. Nobody wants to support two different layouts.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Microsoft backed out on the Metro UI after severe user backlash, first in 8.1 they introduced the option of getting the normal desktop and in 10 they returned "classic" start menu that can be expanded to Metro-like UI if the user wants to. And we are talking about a whole operating system, not just one website.

While most websites like to force new designs on their users the example of Windows shows users can influence decisions if they really want to, but when it comes to websites most people will just be grumpy for a while and continue using the services of the website effectively falling in line with a sigh "thats life", sharp decline in the number of users and supporters of a website would force the owners of a website to reconsider their decisions, but that rarely happens as most people are not willing to sacrifice something (using services of a website) to achieve their goals. Some are, but not enough of them to make a difference.

That is why small websites or services that dont have hundreds of thousands or millions of users are lot more careful about changing things, big websites can afford to annoy a portion of their users because their user base is large enough plus they know most of those that are not satisfied will still fall in line and continue using their website or their services because there is little to no alternative to what they provide.

lithiumfox wrote: As I proceed to respond to you on my phone....

slippyguy wrote: The fullscreen start menu is to provide an experience tailored for tablet users, and thus worth the extra work of supporting two different layouts. The Metro UI also spans much further than the start menu, and is still mandatory, by the way.

Supporting two entire website layouts (effectively doubling the work of maintenance and updates) purely for cosmetic reasons is just nonsense.

Darth Sidious wrote: Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons plus a giant like Google can maintain two layouts with extreme ease, that is nothing for a giant like that, they are maintaining far more complicated things than one website layout. And for example they are maintaining two layouts for their search engine, the usual one and the one when you turn off javascript. And that is not the only example of some website maintaining two layouts, most dont care for user feedback, but some do.

The fact Metro UI is still present does not invalidate my comment at all, they defaulted to classic start menu after users raged against new interface, users got what they wanted and that is the point I was making with that example.

Ethreon wrote: - there is an older article (and several before it) detailing just how much costs for maintaining the website are. Feel free to peruse it and then come back to tell us you're willing to pay.
- isn't it wonderful how GIANTS like MS or Google can afford to maintain 2 versions of their websites? Wonder why a non-giant can do that..
- half the users? do you draw your statistics from the same place as all the other internet statistics aka your own buttocks?

Darth Sidious wrote: There is plenty of people who dont like the new design in the comments, I dont have the statistics but reading comments on this article shows a lot of people dont like it. A poll on the Nexus "which design do you like-old one or the new one?" would give some real numbers and percentages with votes from actual users, no buttocks involved. But the real question is would a poll change anything even if majority of users voted for the old design? Probably not.

As for the amount of money needed to maintain two layouts I dont know how much it is, but Nexus has so many users, perhaps a portion of them would be willing to pay some amount of money per year to keep the old design, perhaps not, but if nobody asks them we will never know.

Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons

The complaints are almost exclusively about cosmetics. Anybody that cares about actual issues is on the Github reporting them to the devs right now. Edited November 20, 2017 by slippyguy

[Ethreon]

In response to post #55257103. #55257298, #55258328, #55258513, #55258928, #55259153, #55259388, #55259853, #55305193, #55330208, #55334878, #55338158, #55338403, #55338453, #55339968, #55342353, #55357393, #55364788, #55364973, #55368353, #55368878, #55369378, #55369603 are all replies on the same post.

Darth Sidious wrote: I hope you will give us the option to keep the old design, I find it much more readable and more pleasant to use.

EHPDJFrANKy wrote: I think just the same. It would be really much appreciated.

Haladoon wrote: Same here. The new design is too damn huge. I also am not a fan of the new navigation, but it's just something I'll try to get use to as a modder and user. I know they are working hard on it. Even though, I personally don't think it's necessary from a visual perspective.

gentester wrote: I hope so as well. I really dislike the new design I did give it a fair go I think but reverted pretty quickly, it just doesn't feel as user friendly and welcoming. Sometimes 'New' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'Better'

TheOblivionCrew1 wrote: This happened the last time they did an update, when the current design(2012-2017 era, if I recall correctly when it was implemented) was the "new" design. We said the same thing then, didn't change the course of action unfortunately. On the whole it was rather strange, because the original layouts of the Nexus felt very PC friendly. The new designs got shifted for "multiple/universal" platforms, meaning mobile, which doesn't make any sense because there's no community for modding on any platforms other than PC(and the consoles have been hamstrung by Bethesda controlling the content and site for it, so I don't factor them in).

Maybe it's just a result of amateur web-building, and site layout design(maybe no one is a visual artist or professional in user-friendly design, which I can understand), but after some years of doing this I really question why they keep shooting for redesigns that don't seem to improve usability, all against frequent calls by their users to go back to the old layouts.

VictorDragonslayer wrote: The new design is good for viewing pictures, but awful for reading mod description and comments - they are too wide. Is it text length, overall gamma or whatever, but my eyes feel uncomfortable when I read something on the new design. It's still better than "Mom, I learned JS!" Bethesda.net, which is hard to navigate, but hiding changelog under "Logs" tab was a mistake - very few people will find it.

KamranMackey wrote: They probably won't. And IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the new design. I find it to be a lot more modern and easier to look at than the old design. The old design was alright, but I think the new one is so much better.

VictorDragonslayer wrote:

easier to look at

To look at pictures - yes, but, as I said, reading texts became harder, IMO. If people complain about readability, then it means that:
1) they are crybabies and should be disregarded;
2) font size/colour may not suit all users, so you may try to give several options to choose from.
Sadly, developers considered only the first option.

pacfish wrote: This was already answered by staff, moderators, admins (Dark), already. They will not be keeping the old design as the cost to maintain both versions of the site is "too costly"

The other problem with that is formatting issues for content creators between old and new site.

Darth Sidious wrote: Too costly? Why and how much? I dislike the new design so much I would pay to keep the old design.

pacfish wrote: You missed the other problem I listed. Things formatted for the new site don't translate well back to the old site and neither does translating old content to the new.

But in terms of cost, imagine performing all the changes twice. Which means twice the work and I do mean twice the work. Fixing a bug one one system only to have to turn around and fix it on another. HTML / JS don't have inheritance. There are ways to setup dynamic css code to try and manipulate the data being displayed but that has to be run on your end. It does exist and content creators have already released at least one version of this and posted a link in this forum.

It would be nice if nexusmods actually just made a mobile version of the site. Facebook has this. And while I know facebook has a lot larger market share and can afford to pay for a lot more features, facebook even has an app that just manipulates the data being requested to present the information on the screen differently (again user side) but it's not hard to make something like this. And to give you an idea about what this can be compared to, it's basically a fomod installer or a robot/spider crawling the webpages for information. Find this tag, put content in this location. Formatting of a description that a content creator posts would need new and stricter guidelines to make this change better but I think that's reasonable and can be solved with thumbnails.

Since I don't think Dark has any intention of having an app and instead intends on making a higher resource cost website (1 page on the new site is considerably larger than the old site [data caps//internet speed] and takes more memory to run) I don't see a possible solution. But I think an App + some UI tweaks would have been better than this dramatic overhaul. Even the last change wasn't this big of a difference.

slippyguy wrote: Ever notice how no other website has ever kept a former layout for any longer than a short transitional period? That's why they won't keep it.

Darth Sidious wrote: I read the other issue as well, but since I am not familiar with the details I didnt comment on it, however I dont know why ever redesign of a major website/portal I seen lately includes HUGE elements on the screen, less readability than the old design and similar gimmicks. What happened to the clean, readable and efficient design? I guess that is not "modern" enough any more.

Take Youtube redesign for example, it made things bigger which means less content on the screen and less readability, same goes for menus on Youtube that suddenly arent clean and easily readable by a casual glance, new Youtube merely takes up more screen space, it isnt prettier and it doesnt add any new special functionality, thank God that Youtube can be restored to the old version. Why tech companies behind certain websites continually reinvent the wheel with their redesigns is beyond me, seems the only purpose of some redesigns is to make it new for the sake of the new and that developers can earn their paychecks.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Youtube still has old design available for those who want it and it has been around for quite a while now which hopefully means the old design is here to stay as an option. I agree that for most websites the old design is discarded and new one literally forced upon their users, even though the old design was clean, looking good and perfectly functional, that often happens to websites of various news agencies.

Exoclyps wrote: New one is just too huge. I had to set browser to 60% size to be able to use the site.

slippyguy wrote: The new YouTube design is WIP, it will become mandatory when they decide its ready, just like every other design in the past 11 or so years. Nobody wants to support two different layouts.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Microsoft backed out on the Metro UI after severe user backlash, first in 8.1 they introduced the option of getting the normal desktop and in 10 they returned "classic" start menu that can be expanded to Metro-like UI if the user wants to. And we are talking about a whole operating system, not just one website.

While most websites like to force new designs on their users the example of Windows shows users can influence decisions if they really want to, but when it comes to websites most people will just be grumpy for a while and continue using the services of the website effectively falling in line with a sigh "thats life", sharp decline in the number of users and supporters of a website would force the owners of a website to reconsider their decisions, but that rarely happens as most people are not willing to sacrifice something (using services of a website) to achieve their goals. Some are, but not enough of them to make a difference.

That is why small websites or services that dont have hundreds of thousands or millions of users are lot more careful about changing things, big websites can afford to annoy a portion of their users because their user base is large enough plus they know most of those that are not satisfied will still fall in line and continue using their website or their services because there is little to no alternative to what they provide.

lithiumfox wrote: As I proceed to respond to you on my phone....

slippyguy wrote: The fullscreen start menu is to provide an experience tailored for tablet users, and thus worth the extra work of supporting two different layouts. The Metro UI also spans much further than the start menu, and is still mandatory, by the way.

Supporting two entire website layouts (effectively doubling the work of maintenance and updates) purely for cosmetic reasons is just nonsense.

Darth Sidious wrote: Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons plus a giant like Google can maintain two layouts with extreme ease, that is nothing for a giant like that, they are maintaining far more complicated things than one website layout. And for example they are maintaining two layouts for their search engine, the usual one and the one when you turn off javascript. And that is not the only example of some website maintaining two layouts, most dont care for user feedback, but some do.

The fact Metro UI is still present does not invalidate my comment at all, they defaulted to classic start menu after users raged against new interface, users got what they wanted and that is the point I was making with that example.

Ethreon wrote: - there is an older article (and several before it) detailing just how much costs for maintaining the website are. Feel free to peruse it and then come back to tell us you're willing to pay.
- isn't it wonderful how GIANTS like MS or Google can afford to maintain 2 versions of their websites? Wonder why a non-giant can do that..
- half the users? do you draw your statistics from the same place as all the other internet statistics aka your own buttocks?

Darth Sidious wrote: There is plenty of people who dont like the new design in the comments, I dont have the statistics but reading comments on this article shows a lot of people dont like it. A poll on the Nexus "which design do you like-old one or the new one?" would give some real numbers and percentages with votes from actual users, no buttocks involved. But the real question is would a poll change anything even if majority of users voted for the old design? Probably not.

As for the amount of money needed to maintain two layouts I dont know how much it is, but Nexus has so many users, perhaps a portion of them would be willing to pay some amount of money per year to keep the old design, perhaps not, but if nobody asks them we will never know.

slippyguy wrote:

Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons

The complaints are almost exclusively about cosmetics. Anybody that cares about actual issues is on the Github reporting them to the devs right now.

So basically you got your opinions and you try to pass them as valid facts. Got it.

[Arienas]

In response to post #55257103. #55257298, #55258328, #55258513, #55258928, #55259153, #55259388, #55259853, #55305193, #55330208, #55334878, #55338158, #55338403, #55338453, #55339968, #55342353, #55357393, #55364788, #55364973, #55368353, #55368878, #55369378, #55369603, #55369828 are all replies on the same post.

Darth Sidious wrote: I hope you will give us the option to keep the old design, I find it much more readable and more pleasant to use.

EHPDJFrANKy wrote: I think just the same. It would be really much appreciated.

Haladoon wrote: Same here. The new design is too damn huge. I also am not a fan of the new navigation, but it's just something I'll try to get use to as a modder and user. I know they are working hard on it. Even though, I personally don't think it's necessary from a visual perspective.

gentester wrote: I hope so as well. I really dislike the new design I did give it a fair go I think but reverted pretty quickly, it just doesn't feel as user friendly and welcoming. Sometimes 'New' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'Better'

TheOblivionCrew1 wrote: This happened the last time they did an update, when the current design(2012-2017 era, if I recall correctly when it was implemented) was the "new" design. We said the same thing then, didn't change the course of action unfortunately. On the whole it was rather strange, because the original layouts of the Nexus felt very PC friendly. The new designs got shifted for "multiple/universal" platforms, meaning mobile, which doesn't make any sense because there's no community for modding on any platforms other than PC(and the consoles have been hamstrung by Bethesda controlling the content and site for it, so I don't factor them in).

Maybe it's just a result of amateur web-building, and site layout design(maybe no one is a visual artist or professional in user-friendly design, which I can understand), but after some years of doing this I really question why they keep shooting for redesigns that don't seem to improve usability, all against frequent calls by their users to go back to the old layouts.

VictorDragonslayer wrote: The new design is good for viewing pictures, but awful for reading mod description and comments - they are too wide. Is it text length, overall gamma or whatever, but my eyes feel uncomfortable when I read something on the new design. It's still better than "Mom, I learned JS!" Bethesda.net, which is hard to navigate, but hiding changelog under "Logs" tab was a mistake - very few people will find it.

KamranMackey wrote: They probably won't. And IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the new design. I find it to be a lot more modern and easier to look at than the old design. The old design was alright, but I think the new one is so much better.

VictorDragonslayer wrote:

easier to look at

To look at pictures - yes, but, as I said, reading texts became harder, IMO. If people complain about readability, then it means that:
1) they are crybabies and should be disregarded;
2) font size/colour may not suit all users, so you may try to give several options to choose from.
Sadly, developers considered only the first option.

pacfish wrote: This was already answered by staff, moderators, admins (Dark), already. They will not be keeping the old design as the cost to maintain both versions of the site is "too costly"

The other problem with that is formatting issues for content creators between old and new site.

Darth Sidious wrote: Too costly? Why and how much? I dislike the new design so much I would pay to keep the old design.

pacfish wrote: You missed the other problem I listed. Things formatted for the new site don't translate well back to the old site and neither does translating old content to the new.

But in terms of cost, imagine performing all the changes twice. Which means twice the work and I do mean twice the work. Fixing a bug one one system only to have to turn around and fix it on another. HTML / JS don't have inheritance. There are ways to setup dynamic css code to try and manipulate the data being displayed but that has to be run on your end. It does exist and content creators have already released at least one version of this and posted a link in this forum.

It would be nice if nexusmods actually just made a mobile version of the site. Facebook has this. And while I know facebook has a lot larger market share and can afford to pay for a lot more features, facebook even has an app that just manipulates the data being requested to present the information on the screen differently (again user side) but it's not hard to make something like this. And to give you an idea about what this can be compared to, it's basically a fomod installer or a robot/spider crawling the webpages for information. Find this tag, put content in this location. Formatting of a description that a content creator posts would need new and stricter guidelines to make this change better but I think that's reasonable and can be solved with thumbnails.

Since I don't think Dark has any intention of having an app and instead intends on making a higher resource cost website (1 page on the new site is considerably larger than the old site [data caps//internet speed] and takes more memory to run) I don't see a possible solution. But I think an App + some UI tweaks would have been better than this dramatic overhaul. Even the last change wasn't this big of a difference.

slippyguy wrote: Ever notice how no other website has ever kept a former layout for any longer than a short transitional period? That's why they won't keep it.

Darth Sidious wrote: I read the other issue as well, but since I am not familiar with the details I didnt comment on it, however I dont know why ever redesign of a major website/portal I seen lately includes HUGE elements on the screen, less readability than the old design and similar gimmicks. What happened to the clean, readable and efficient design? I guess that is not "modern" enough any more.

Take Youtube redesign for example, it made things bigger which means less content on the screen and less readability, same goes for menus on Youtube that suddenly arent clean and easily readable by a casual glance, new Youtube merely takes up more screen space, it isnt prettier and it doesnt add any new special functionality, thank God that Youtube can be restored to the old version. Why tech companies behind certain websites continually reinvent the wheel with their redesigns is beyond me, seems the only purpose of some redesigns is to make it new for the sake of the new and that developers can earn their paychecks.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Youtube still has old design available for those who want it and it has been around for quite a while now which hopefully means the old design is here to stay as an option. I agree that for most websites the old design is discarded and new one literally forced upon their users, even though the old design was clean, looking good and perfectly functional, that often happens to websites of various news agencies.

Exoclyps wrote: New one is just too huge. I had to set browser to 60% size to be able to use the site.

slippyguy wrote: The new YouTube design is WIP, it will become mandatory when they decide its ready, just like every other design in the past 11 or so years. Nobody wants to support two different layouts.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Microsoft backed out on the Metro UI after severe user backlash, first in 8.1 they introduced the option of getting the normal desktop and in 10 they returned "classic" start menu that can be expanded to Metro-like UI if the user wants to. And we are talking about a whole operating system, not just one website.

While most websites like to force new designs on their users the example of Windows shows users can influence decisions if they really want to, but when it comes to websites most people will just be grumpy for a while and continue using the services of the website effectively falling in line with a sigh "thats life", sharp decline in the number of users and supporters of a website would force the owners of a website to reconsider their decisions, but that rarely happens as most people are not willing to sacrifice something (using services of a website) to achieve their goals. Some are, but not enough of them to make a difference.

That is why small websites or services that dont have hundreds of thousands or millions of users are lot more careful about changing things, big websites can afford to annoy a portion of their users because their user base is large enough plus they know most of those that are not satisfied will still fall in line and continue using their website or their services because there is little to no alternative to what they provide.

lithiumfox wrote: As I proceed to respond to you on my phone....

slippyguy wrote: The fullscreen start menu is to provide an experience tailored for tablet users, and thus worth the extra work of supporting two different layouts. The Metro UI also spans much further than the start menu, and is still mandatory, by the way.

Supporting two entire website layouts (effectively doubling the work of maintenance and updates) purely for cosmetic reasons is just nonsense.

Darth Sidious wrote: Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons plus a giant like Google can maintain two layouts with extreme ease, that is nothing for a giant like that, they are maintaining far more complicated things than one website layout. And for example they are maintaining two layouts for their search engine, the usual one and the one when you turn off javascript. And that is not the only example of some website maintaining two layouts, most dont care for user feedback, but some do.

The fact Metro UI is still present does not invalidate my comment at all, they defaulted to classic start menu after users raged against new interface, users got what they wanted and that is the point I was making with that example.

Ethreon wrote: - there is an older article (and several before it) detailing just how much costs for maintaining the website are. Feel free to peruse it and then come back to tell us you're willing to pay.
- isn't it wonderful how GIANTS like MS or Google can afford to maintain 2 versions of their websites? Wonder why a non-giant can do that..
- half the users? do you draw your statistics from the same place as all the other internet statistics aka your own buttocks?

Darth Sidious wrote: There is plenty of people who dont like the new design in the comments, I dont have the statistics but reading comments on this article shows a lot of people dont like it. A poll on the Nexus "which design do you like-old one or the new one?" would give some real numbers and percentages with votes from actual users, no buttocks involved. But the real question is would a poll change anything even if majority of users voted for the old design? Probably not.

As for the amount of money needed to maintain two layouts I dont know how much it is, but Nexus has so many users, perhaps a portion of them would be willing to pay some amount of money per year to keep the old design, perhaps not, but if nobody asks them we will never know.

slippyguy wrote:

Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons

The complaints are almost exclusively about cosmetics. Anybody that cares about actual issues is on the Github reporting them to the devs right now.

Ethreon wrote: So basically you got your opinions and you try to pass them as valid facts. Got it.

tbh, i think the complaints in the comments are the minority, the majority who are fine with it are just using the site as per normal. Think about it, nexus has way more users than this, there is only 250 comments about the design, 50% of it are against the design. Edited November 20, 2017 by Arienas

[rick0307]

Drag-and-Drop pics into Mods' images used to work. Now, D&D into public Images works (Yay! This is a seriously big improvement), but NOT into Mods' Images, anymore? Huh?

I respectfully suggest that D&D needs to work everywhere pics are accepted.

[Zzyxzz]

In response to post #55274993. #55279503, #55279608, #55282488, #55284263, #55304058, #55305113 are all replies on the same post.

Jeir wrote:

Thankfully I haven't yet been forced to use the 'new site' (probably until I clear my cache). I don't like it, and given I don't browse this site on a tiny 5inch touchscreen, everything being huge (and easy to poke with fingers) does not and will never appeal to me.

For those who keep saying 'say what you don't like and how to fix it, don't just keep complaining', we have. There have been numerous threads. But, okay, I will.

 

Not UI related:

- Let us have an option to turn off adult mods for the front page, and the front page only.

- Let us block and favourite tags. If we favourite a certain tag, then a mod with that tag will appear, no matter what other tags the mod has that we've blocked.

- Add/remove/change some tags, such as how I suggested here, although that's a little outdated now. The follower/companion tags would be nice.

 

Site-wide:

- Return the font back to 13px. The 15px font either hurts my eyes (no, really) or makes me feel like I need to stand up and move away from my screen/decrease the zoom on the page to around 80%. This is especially relevant on the 'Recent Activity'/Recent Uploads page for some reason.

- Give option for smaller images. All images are currently 2-3x bigger than needed.

- Decrease wasted space above/below text and links. The box around a link (such as in the tracking centre/recent activity/etc.) makes it 2-3x larger than needed, especially when not using touchscreen.

 

Tracking Centre:

- Give an option for no images in the tracking centre. Half the time images have nothing to do with the mod in question anyway.

- Remove the game name from the tracking centre if viewed on the site for that game.

- Remove unnecessary titles. I know I'm in the tracking centre. I don't need to be told three times that that is where I am. The small title at the top is fine.

Result: This turns into this. Now I can see 16 mods instead of 8. Sadly, because I used uBlock to remove the unwanted elements instead of a CSS plugin of some kind, it just gets restored when the page reloads.

 

Mod Page:

I 'cheated' and used an existing browser plugin.

Result: This turns into this. Everything is condensed, and people can actually see there's more below that 'about this mod' section. Only thing it needs is for the tags to go back into its own tab.

 

Please?

Dark1Nova wrote: Would you mind sharing the browser plugin used? Because if Nexus insists on using these huge images and wasted space, the only way i'm ever going to browse the site is if I have a plugin like that.

Jeir wrote: Here. It's a 'Stylish' plugin, and there are a few others available.

Dark1Nova wrote: Oh thank you, that makes it look so very much better!

zidders wrote: Thank you!

pacfish wrote: I've installed the change you made but I'm not noticing a difference comparing the site side by side.
To hide the images with ublock continuously, you can add a wildcard after the thumbnail directory you can add this to your filters in ublock
https://rd.nexusmods.com/mods/trackingcentre||staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/*/images/thumbnails/*$image
If the option doesn't become available in the final release you can change the filter to
https://nexusmods.com/mods/trackingcentre||staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/*/images/thumbnails/*$image

qwormuli wrote: YES.

True, 101% agree. I hate it, i really hate it, when everything is zoomed in. No offense, but it looks like someone doesn't know how to set up a clear website. When you have to scroll all the time and even zoom out, there is clearly something wrong with the design. The website looks ok with a 80% zoom but with 100%? I get claustrophobic.

It looks "good" but this page is really exhausting to browse and read.

[HomicidalGrouse]

In response to post #55257103. #55257298, #55258328, #55258513, #55258928, #55259153, #55259388, #55259853, #55305193, #55330208, #55334878, #55338158, #55338403, #55338453, #55339968, #55342353, #55357393, #55364788, #55364973, #55368353, #55368878, #55369378, #55369603, #55369828, #55370763 are all replies on the same post.

Darth Sidious wrote: I hope you will give us the option to keep the old design, I find it much more readable and more pleasant to use.

EHPDJFrANKy wrote: I think just the same. It would be really much appreciated.

Haladoon wrote: Same here. The new design is too damn huge. I also am not a fan of the new navigation, but it's just something I'll try to get use to as a modder and user. I know they are working hard on it. Even though, I personally don't think it's necessary from a visual perspective.

gentester wrote: I hope so as well. I really dislike the new design I did give it a fair go I think but reverted pretty quickly, it just doesn't feel as user friendly and welcoming. Sometimes 'New' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'Better'

TheOblivionCrew1 wrote: This happened the last time they did an update, when the current design(2012-2017 era, if I recall correctly when it was implemented) was the "new" design. We said the same thing then, didn't change the course of action unfortunately. On the whole it was rather strange, because the original layouts of the Nexus felt very PC friendly. The new designs got shifted for "multiple/universal" platforms, meaning mobile, which doesn't make any sense because there's no community for modding on any platforms other than PC(and the consoles have been hamstrung by Bethesda controlling the content and site for it, so I don't factor them in).

Maybe it's just a result of amateur web-building, and site layout design(maybe no one is a visual artist or professional in user-friendly design, which I can understand), but after some years of doing this I really question why they keep shooting for redesigns that don't seem to improve usability, all against frequent calls by their users to go back to the old layouts.

VictorDragonslayer wrote: The new design is good for viewing pictures, but awful for reading mod description and comments - they are too wide. Is it text length, overall gamma or whatever, but my eyes feel uncomfortable when I read something on the new design. It's still better than "Mom, I learned JS!" Bethesda.net, which is hard to navigate, but hiding changelog under "Logs" tab was a mistake - very few people will find it.

KamranMackey wrote: They probably won't. And IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the new design. I find it to be a lot more modern and easier to look at than the old design. The old design was alright, but I think the new one is so much better.

VictorDragonslayer wrote:

easier to look at

To look at pictures - yes, but, as I said, reading texts became harder, IMO. If people complain about readability, then it means that:
1) they are crybabies and should be disregarded;
2) font size/colour may not suit all users, so you may try to give several options to choose from.
Sadly, developers considered only the first option.

pacfish wrote: This was already answered by staff, moderators, admins (Dark), already. They will not be keeping the old design as the cost to maintain both versions of the site is "too costly"

The other problem with that is formatting issues for content creators between old and new site.

Darth Sidious wrote: Too costly? Why and how much? I dislike the new design so much I would pay to keep the old design.

pacfish wrote: You missed the other problem I listed. Things formatted for the new site don't translate well back to the old site and neither does translating old content to the new.

But in terms of cost, imagine performing all the changes twice. Which means twice the work and I do mean twice the work. Fixing a bug one one system only to have to turn around and fix it on another. HTML / JS don't have inheritance. There are ways to setup dynamic css code to try and manipulate the data being displayed but that has to be run on your end. It does exist and content creators have already released at least one version of this and posted a link in this forum.

It would be nice if nexusmods actually just made a mobile version of the site. Facebook has this. And while I know facebook has a lot larger market share and can afford to pay for a lot more features, facebook even has an app that just manipulates the data being requested to present the information on the screen differently (again user side) but it's not hard to make something like this. And to give you an idea about what this can be compared to, it's basically a fomod installer or a robot/spider crawling the webpages for information. Find this tag, put content in this location. Formatting of a description that a content creator posts would need new and stricter guidelines to make this change better but I think that's reasonable and can be solved with thumbnails.

Since I don't think Dark has any intention of having an app and instead intends on making a higher resource cost website (1 page on the new site is considerably larger than the old site [data caps//internet speed] and takes more memory to run) I don't see a possible solution. But I think an App + some UI tweaks would have been better than this dramatic overhaul. Even the last change wasn't this big of a difference.

slippyguy wrote: Ever notice how no other website has ever kept a former layout for any longer than a short transitional period? That's why they won't keep it.

Darth Sidious wrote: I read the other issue as well, but since I am not familiar with the details I didnt comment on it, however I dont know why ever redesign of a major website/portal I seen lately includes HUGE elements on the screen, less readability than the old design and similar gimmicks. What happened to the clean, readable and efficient design? I guess that is not "modern" enough any more.

Take Youtube redesign for example, it made things bigger which means less content on the screen and less readability, same goes for menus on Youtube that suddenly arent clean and easily readable by a casual glance, new Youtube merely takes up more screen space, it isnt prettier and it doesnt add any new special functionality, thank God that Youtube can be restored to the old version. Why tech companies behind certain websites continually reinvent the wheel with their redesigns is beyond me, seems the only purpose of some redesigns is to make it new for the sake of the new and that developers can earn their paychecks.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Youtube still has old design available for those who want it and it has been around for quite a while now which hopefully means the old design is here to stay as an option. I agree that for most websites the old design is discarded and new one literally forced upon their users, even though the old design was clean, looking good and perfectly functional, that often happens to websites of various news agencies.

Exoclyps wrote: New one is just too huge. I had to set browser to 60% size to be able to use the site.

slippyguy wrote: The new YouTube design is WIP, it will become mandatory when they decide its ready, just like every other design in the past 11 or so years. Nobody wants to support two different layouts.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Microsoft backed out on the Metro UI after severe user backlash, first in 8.1 they introduced the option of getting the normal desktop and in 10 they returned "classic" start menu that can be expanded to Metro-like UI if the user wants to. And we are talking about a whole operating system, not just one website.

While most websites like to force new designs on their users the example of Windows shows users can influence decisions if they really want to, but when it comes to websites most people will just be grumpy for a while and continue using the services of the website effectively falling in line with a sigh "thats life", sharp decline in the number of users and supporters of a website would force the owners of a website to reconsider their decisions, but that rarely happens as most people are not willing to sacrifice something (using services of a website) to achieve their goals. Some are, but not enough of them to make a difference.

That is why small websites or services that dont have hundreds of thousands or millions of users are lot more careful about changing things, big websites can afford to annoy a portion of their users because their user base is large enough plus they know most of those that are not satisfied will still fall in line and continue using their website or their services because there is little to no alternative to what they provide.

lithiumfox wrote: As I proceed to respond to you on my phone....

slippyguy wrote: The fullscreen start menu is to provide an experience tailored for tablet users, and thus worth the extra work of supporting two different layouts. The Metro UI also spans much further than the start menu, and is still mandatory, by the way.

Supporting two entire website layouts (effectively doubling the work of maintenance and updates) purely for cosmetic reasons is just nonsense.

Darth Sidious wrote: Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons plus a giant like Google can maintain two layouts with extreme ease, that is nothing for a giant like that, they are maintaining far more complicated things than one website layout. And for example they are maintaining two layouts for their search engine, the usual one and the one when you turn off javascript. And that is not the only example of some website maintaining two layouts, most dont care for user feedback, but some do.

The fact Metro UI is still present does not invalidate my comment at all, they defaulted to classic start menu after users raged against new interface, users got what they wanted and that is the point I was making with that example.

Ethreon wrote: - there is an older article (and several before it) detailing just how much costs for maintaining the website are. Feel free to peruse it and then come back to tell us you're willing to pay.
- isn't it wonderful how GIANTS like MS or Google can afford to maintain 2 versions of their websites? Wonder why a non-giant can do that..
- half the users? do you draw your statistics from the same place as all the other internet statistics aka your own buttocks?

Darth Sidious wrote: There is plenty of people who dont like the new design in the comments, I dont have the statistics but reading comments on this article shows a lot of people dont like it. A poll on the Nexus "which design do you like-old one or the new one?" would give some real numbers and percentages with votes from actual users, no buttocks involved. But the real question is would a poll change anything even if majority of users voted for the old design? Probably not.

As for the amount of money needed to maintain two layouts I dont know how much it is, but Nexus has so many users, perhaps a portion of them would be willing to pay some amount of money per year to keep the old design, perhaps not, but if nobody asks them we will never know.

slippyguy wrote:

Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons

The complaints are almost exclusively about cosmetics. Anybody that cares about actual issues is on the Github reporting them to the devs right now.

Ethreon wrote: So basically you got your opinions and you try to pass them as valid facts. Got it.

Arienas wrote: tbh, i think the complaints in the comments are the minority, the majority who are fine with it are just using the site as per normal. Think about it, nexus has way more users than this, there is only 250 comments about the design, 50% of it are against the design.

People who dislike things are always louder than those who like them or don't care. Especially on the internet.

I'd bet money the vast majority of Nexus visitors don't even bother reading these news articles, let alone commenting on it.

[FinalEntity]

Loving the new design, I understand the pain and hardships that you're going through so keep up the good work. The only thing that annoys me is the popup boxes/modals that show when an AJAX request completes (downloading a file, tracking/untracking, endorsing etc.) - I have to click to close these which just slightly interrupts my flow. A unobtrusive completion confirmation at the bottom of the screen that auto fades out would be amazing! other than that, good work guys, appreciate it.

[enokard]

In response to post #55257103. #55257298, #55258328, #55258513, #55258928, #55259153, #55259388, #55259853, #55305193, #55330208, #55334878, #55338158, #55338403, #55338453, #55339968, #55342353, #55357393, #55364788, #55364973, #55368353, #55368878, #55369378, #55369603, #55369828, #55370763, #55377168 are all replies on the same post.

Darth Sidious wrote: I hope you will give us the option to keep the old design, I find it much more readable and more pleasant to use.

EHPDJFrANKy wrote: I think just the same. It would be really much appreciated.

Haladoon wrote: Same here. The new design is too damn huge. I also am not a fan of the new navigation, but it's just something I'll try to get use to as a modder and user. I know they are working hard on it. Even though, I personally don't think it's necessary from a visual perspective.

gentester wrote: I hope so as well. I really dislike the new design I did give it a fair go I think but reverted pretty quickly, it just doesn't feel as user friendly and welcoming. Sometimes 'New' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'Better'

TheOblivionCrew1 wrote: This happened the last time they did an update, when the current design(2012-2017 era, if I recall correctly when it was implemented) was the "new" design. We said the same thing then, didn't change the course of action unfortunately. On the whole it was rather strange, because the original layouts of the Nexus felt very PC friendly. The new designs got shifted for "multiple/universal" platforms, meaning mobile, which doesn't make any sense because there's no community for modding on any platforms other than PC(and the consoles have been hamstrung by Bethesda controlling the content and site for it, so I don't factor them in).

Maybe it's just a result of amateur web-building, and site layout design(maybe no one is a visual artist or professional in user-friendly design, which I can understand), but after some years of doing this I really question why they keep shooting for redesigns that don't seem to improve usability, all against frequent calls by their users to go back to the old layouts.

VictorDragonslayer wrote: The new design is good for viewing pictures, but awful for reading mod description and comments - they are too wide. Is it text length, overall gamma or whatever, but my eyes feel uncomfortable when I read something on the new design. It's still better than "Mom, I learned JS!" Bethesda.net, which is hard to navigate, but hiding changelog under "Logs" tab was a mistake - very few people will find it.

KamranMackey wrote: They probably won't. And IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the new design. I find it to be a lot more modern and easier to look at than the old design. The old design was alright, but I think the new one is so much better.

VictorDragonslayer wrote:

easier to look at

To look at pictures - yes, but, as I said, reading texts became harder, IMO. If people complain about readability, then it means that:
1) they are crybabies and should be disregarded;
2) font size/colour may not suit all users, so you may try to give several options to choose from.
Sadly, developers considered only the first option.

pacfish wrote: This was already answered by staff, moderators, admins (Dark), already. They will not be keeping the old design as the cost to maintain both versions of the site is "too costly"

The other problem with that is formatting issues for content creators between old and new site.

Darth Sidious wrote: Too costly? Why and how much? I dislike the new design so much I would pay to keep the old design.

pacfish wrote: You missed the other problem I listed. Things formatted for the new site don't translate well back to the old site and neither does translating old content to the new.

But in terms of cost, imagine performing all the changes twice. Which means twice the work and I do mean twice the work. Fixing a bug one one system only to have to turn around and fix it on another. HTML / JS don't have inheritance. There are ways to setup dynamic css code to try and manipulate the data being displayed but that has to be run on your end. It does exist and content creators have already released at least one version of this and posted a link in this forum.

It would be nice if nexusmods actually just made a mobile version of the site. Facebook has this. And while I know facebook has a lot larger market share and can afford to pay for a lot more features, facebook even has an app that just manipulates the data being requested to present the information on the screen differently (again user side) but it's not hard to make something like this. And to give you an idea about what this can be compared to, it's basically a fomod installer or a robot/spider crawling the webpages for information. Find this tag, put content in this location. Formatting of a description that a content creator posts would need new and stricter guidelines to make this change better but I think that's reasonable and can be solved with thumbnails.

Since I don't think Dark has any intention of having an app and instead intends on making a higher resource cost website (1 page on the new site is considerably larger than the old site [data caps//internet speed] and takes more memory to run) I don't see a possible solution. But I think an App + some UI tweaks would have been better than this dramatic overhaul. Even the last change wasn't this big of a difference.

slippyguy wrote: Ever notice how no other website has ever kept a former layout for any longer than a short transitional period? That's why they won't keep it.

Darth Sidious wrote: I read the other issue as well, but since I am not familiar with the details I didnt comment on it, however I dont know why ever redesign of a major website/portal I seen lately includes HUGE elements on the screen, less readability than the old design and similar gimmicks. What happened to the clean, readable and efficient design? I guess that is not "modern" enough any more.

Take Youtube redesign for example, it made things bigger which means less content on the screen and less readability, same goes for menus on Youtube that suddenly arent clean and easily readable by a casual glance, new Youtube merely takes up more screen space, it isnt prettier and it doesnt add any new special functionality, thank God that Youtube can be restored to the old version. Why tech companies behind certain websites continually reinvent the wheel with their redesigns is beyond me, seems the only purpose of some redesigns is to make it new for the sake of the new and that developers can earn their paychecks.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Youtube still has old design available for those who want it and it has been around for quite a while now which hopefully means the old design is here to stay as an option. I agree that for most websites the old design is discarded and new one literally forced upon their users, even though the old design was clean, looking good and perfectly functional, that often happens to websites of various news agencies.

Exoclyps wrote: New one is just too huge. I had to set browser to 60% size to be able to use the site.

slippyguy wrote: The new YouTube design is WIP, it will become mandatory when they decide its ready, just like every other design in the past 11 or so years. Nobody wants to support two different layouts.

Darth Sidious wrote: @slippyguy Microsoft backed out on the Metro UI after severe user backlash, first in 8.1 they introduced the option of getting the normal desktop and in 10 they returned "classic" start menu that can be expanded to Metro-like UI if the user wants to. And we are talking about a whole operating system, not just one website.

While most websites like to force new designs on their users the example of Windows shows users can influence decisions if they really want to, but when it comes to websites most people will just be grumpy for a while and continue using the services of the website effectively falling in line with a sigh "thats life", sharp decline in the number of users and supporters of a website would force the owners of a website to reconsider their decisions, but that rarely happens as most people are not willing to sacrifice something (using services of a website) to achieve their goals. Some are, but not enough of them to make a difference.

That is why small websites or services that dont have hundreds of thousands or millions of users are lot more careful about changing things, big websites can afford to annoy a portion of their users because their user base is large enough plus they know most of those that are not satisfied will still fall in line and continue using their website or their services because there is little to no alternative to what they provide.

lithiumfox wrote: As I proceed to respond to you on my phone....

slippyguy wrote: The fullscreen start menu is to provide an experience tailored for tablet users, and thus worth the extra work of supporting two different layouts. The Metro UI also spans much further than the start menu, and is still mandatory, by the way.

Supporting two entire website layouts (effectively doubling the work of maintenance and updates) purely for cosmetic reasons is just nonsense.

Darth Sidious wrote: Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons plus a giant like Google can maintain two layouts with extreme ease, that is nothing for a giant like that, they are maintaining far more complicated things than one website layout. And for example they are maintaining two layouts for their search engine, the usual one and the one when you turn off javascript. And that is not the only example of some website maintaining two layouts, most dont care for user feedback, but some do.

The fact Metro UI is still present does not invalidate my comment at all, they defaulted to classic start menu after users raged against new interface, users got what they wanted and that is the point I was making with that example.

Ethreon wrote: - there is an older article (and several before it) detailing just how much costs for maintaining the website are. Feel free to peruse it and then come back to tell us you're willing to pay.
- isn't it wonderful how GIANTS like MS or Google can afford to maintain 2 versions of their websites? Wonder why a non-giant can do that..
- half the users? do you draw your statistics from the same place as all the other internet statistics aka your own buttocks?

Darth Sidious wrote: There is plenty of people who dont like the new design in the comments, I dont have the statistics but reading comments on this article shows a lot of people dont like it. A poll on the Nexus "which design do you like-old one or the new one?" would give some real numbers and percentages with votes from actual users, no buttocks involved. But the real question is would a poll change anything even if majority of users voted for the old design? Probably not.

As for the amount of money needed to maintain two layouts I dont know how much it is, but Nexus has so many users, perhaps a portion of them would be willing to pay some amount of money per year to keep the old design, perhaps not, but if nobody asks them we will never know.

slippyguy wrote:

Purely cosmetic reasons? Making half of your users angry at your design is hardly just cosmetic reasons

The complaints are almost exclusively about cosmetics. Anybody that cares about actual issues is on the Github reporting them to the devs right now.

Ethreon wrote: So basically you got your opinions and you try to pass them as valid facts. Got it.

Arienas wrote: tbh, i think the complaints in the comments are the minority, the majority who are fine with it are just using the site as per normal. Think about it, nexus has way more users than this, there is only 250 comments about the design, 50% of it are against the design.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: People who dislike things are always louder than those who like them or don't care. Especially on the internet.

I'd bet money the vast majority of Nexus visitors don't even bother reading these news articles, let alone commenting on it.

Same here. It would be really appreciated to give us the option for the old design. It is not so pleasant to read your new design. Sorry to say that...