New design - needs improvement

  • 69
  • Question
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Answered
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Old thread

I see that a new design is being used for title pages on IMDb, and hopefully this is just a test and not something that is going to be implemented for the long term.

 

I've circled a few of the more problematic areas of the new design.

Rather than appearing in the right-hand rail, the links to additional information now appear above the title. However, the active links (example circled in green above) now appear in light gray on a dark gray background, which is not particularly contrasting and will make it difficult for new users to find the information.

The inactive links (example circled in blue above) are even worse; they're dark gray on a slightly darker gray background. Granted, they are links to information that doesn't exist, but IMDb does want the information to eventually exist, so they shouldn't be so deeply relegated to the background.

Also, I've circled in red the series title for this television episode. The series title is in light gray on a dark gray background, and is only about half the size of the episode title, which is in white on the same dark gray background. I would recommend making the series title and episode title about equally prominent, rather than making the episode title much, much more prominent than the series title.

All told, I would prefer if this design change wasn't implemented at all, but if it is going to be implemented, I would prefer if the design would avoid the extensive use of gray on dark gray as shown above.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7221 Posts
  • 8907 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 69
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13921 Posts
  • 14500 Reply Likes
gromit82,

I suspect that that you were the beneficiary (victim?!) of a test for a new title page format. When I selected the same page, I get what has been the format for a few months. I agree the "new" format is at best problematic. I find it more difficult to read.

 
(Edited)
Photo of mukinrestak

mukinrestak

  • 3 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
That doesn't help add the useful links such as the parents guide back to the main page. If I'm researching movies for kids (or a desire for something more adult) I have to click a dropdown menu every time. That's an extra click on every single movie. That is poor design.
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1455 Posts
  • 707 Reply Likes
... That's an extra click on every single movie. That is poor design.
Poor design or not, some comparable design choices have been seen on some other major web properties, such as Google for example.  (Some time ago, Google removed a convenient sidebar of search options, and moved those options into menus that now require a couple of extra clicks.)

Personally, I wasn't a big fan of the IMDb "Quick Links" sidebar.  Quite often I wanted some of the other options that required a click to open the full sidebar, and then scrolling down.  (I would've liked to be able to customize  the Quick Links sidebar.)

I'm not a big fan of the new design either ... but FWIW, after that one click, all of the options are immediately available in a concise format, without having to scroll down to find them all.
(Edited)
Photo of uffe

uffe

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
You have changed the design today. I still have access to my lists, but I cannot add more films to them. How do I do this??
Photo of uffe

uffe

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yann learned me yesterday to use the grey "flag" with a + (to the left of the title)
BUT today there is no flag on my imdb-page
Photo of Yann

Yann

  • 458 Posts
  • 186 Reply Likes
uffe,
Are you seeing the old design again? Or is the "flag" missing from the new design?
This may be a bug....
A screenshot of what you are seeing would be helpful.
If you need help on how to take a screenshot, take a look at: http://www.take-a-screenshot.org/
Photo of Erick

Erick

  • 3 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New title page.

I do not like this new title page. The old one was much simpler and easy to use. Please change it back to the old one.
Photo of Michael David

Michael David

  • 11 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Well said Erick
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4816 Reply Likes
Thanks for the feedback. This is a limited test of a new title page design which is only being shown to some customers.  We are gathering data and feedback at the moment.  

Please add comments here if there are other issues.  The design team have been alerted to this thread.  
Photo of Carter Hayes

Carter Hayes

  • 75 Posts
  • 57 Reply Likes
The new title layout appears even when I'm not logged in. I cleared my browser's cache but it remains. Seems broader than a limited test. I'm not against the new design—I think for obvious reasons the title should stand out, and the drop-down navigation for the various sections is good. And this is a new era of portable electronic devices. However:

1) The gray-on-gray was a poor choice, in my humble opinion, and the title pages are beginning to look like a patchwork quilt or the MySpace page of a 13-year-old girl. Was it such a stretch for the designer to stick with a uniform background color throughout, and to give the title pages some continuity and flow?

2) Votes. The "from 'X' users" now appears simply as an isolated, denominator-like number in the title bar. Zero context, especially for new users.

3) Identifier (the (I), (II), (III), etc.) Similarly, it's shuffled to a new line like putting Baby in a corner in Dirty Dancing. I never was a fan of the prominent Roman numerals, anyway, but similar to the vote total I'm wondering if there's any context when it's all on its own after a vertical line.

4) Trailer. Information (this is, after all, a database) was pushed down the page in order to make room for what is essentially a cigarette pack-sized button. The trailer opens in the same fashion as before, in a new window. So, when a user watches the trailer once, what does that button image become other than an enormous space waster in prime real estate?

5) Did the poster size shrink or am I imagining it? Maybe the background color is throwing me off. I assume if the allotted poster area did shrink, the price to include one will similarly follow suit?  :)

6) Gray. Bad. Can't stress it enough.

In closing, I just want to take a second to congratulate Col and his hardworking team on another successful year, and all the best moving forward!
Photo of John Smith

John Smith

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
I really do prefer the old design. 
Photo of Gary

Gary

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'll cast my vote on the older format.  I do not like the new test page at all.
Photo of Gary

Gary

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Has anyone complained about when making changed to lists, you have to do it twice in order for the change to take effect?  It's been like this on my account for around a year now.
Photo of Gary

Gary

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
*changes
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13921 Posts
  • 14500 Reply Likes
I have major concern regarding the new design regarding readability, especially for people who are visually impaired. Since I am primarily using Firefox, I am not currently affected. However, I have a hard time reading much of the text since gray on black does not offer sufficient contrast.

Speaking from personal experience, gray on back is particularly challenging for people with cataracts. Fortunately, I've had cataract surgery, but I still find it more difficult to read than the current design.

This also appears to be in direct violation of the American Disabilities Act.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/employment/articles/spring2013-0613-website-access...

Individuals with vision impairments can have significant barriers to web access. This is because many websites provide information visually, without features that allow screen readers or other assistive technology to retrieve information on the site so that it can be presented in an accessible manner. The most common barrier to website accessibility is an image or a photograph without corresponding text describing the image. A screen reader or similar assistive technology cannot "read" an image, leaving individuals who are blind with no way of independently knowing what information the image conveys (e.g., a simple graphic or a link to another page). Similarly, complex websites can lack navigational headings or links that would facilitate navigation using a screen reader or may contain tables with header and row identifiers that display data, but do not provide associated cells for each header and row so that the table information can be interpreted by a screen reader.

Online forms, which are a critical part of accessing goods and services on many websites, can be inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. For example, field elements on forms (the empty boxes that hold specific pieces of information, such as a last name or a telephone number) may lack clear labels, and visual CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing Test to tell Computers and Humans Apart; distorted text that must be inputted by a website user to verify that a web submission is being completed by a human rather than a computer) may make it difficult for persons using screen readers to make purchases, submit donations, and otherwise interact with a website. These barriers obviously can impede the ability of individuals with disabilities to fully enjoy the goods, services, and programs offered on the web by entities covered under Titles II and III of the ADA. Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,460, at 43,463 (proposed July 26, 2010) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pts. 35 and 36).

Creating Accessible Websites
http://www.afb.org/info/programs-and-services/technology-evaluation/creating-accessible-websites/123

The Internet is tremendously important in our daily lives, including the lives of people who are blind or visually impaired. We check the news, sports, weather, and stocks engage in social networking, and make banking transactions and travel plans alongside fully sighted friends.

Not every website, however, is optimally designed for use by web surfers with visual impairments. When a website is built without regard to proper web design, they become inaccessible by people with vision loss who use access technology.

Everyone Benefits From Accessible Websites

The same good techniques that make web pages accessible to those of us who use access technology benefit users of other devices as well. For example, people with slower Internet connections and those using devices such as cell phones or tablets that have smaller screens.

Learning About Accessible Web Design

If you are serious about making your web site accessible, the most valuable resource available is the website of the Web Access Initiative (WAI), part of the World Wide Web Consortium. There you'll find guidelines for making web pages along with explanations and techniques. The content guidelines are found at www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

You will also find valuable help in this web accessibility area of the AFB website. Learn about:

Questions & Answers about Blindness and Vision Impairments in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/qa_vision.cfm
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13921 Posts
  • 14500 Reply Likes
Yann, Thank you.
Photo of Yann

Yann

  • 458 Posts
  • 186 Reply Likes
Dan,
We've adjusted the contrast of the primary (e.g solid white) and secondary (e.g. light grey) text to meet the standards described in the WCAG 2.0, Level AA, “Contrast (Minimum): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3.” We also bumped up the contrast of the tertiary/inactive text (e.g. the dark grey used in quick links for items with no data). However, these do not meet the contrast criteria for legibility. In this case, legibility was considered a secondary function since they are primarily meant to represent an in-active/disabled state. Note: Hovering over these "inactive" links brings them into contrast ratio compliance.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13921 Posts
  • 14500 Reply Likes
Yann,

I'm in the second half of the beta test. I plan to fully review the current implementation and post my review when I've completed it.

Thank you for pointing this out. I would not have guessed this a priori.

I did notice that the contrast is slightly better. Hovering over the linked items does help.
Photo of Charlie Roberts

Charlie Roberts

  • 15 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

It has become painfully obvious that IMDb rushed this incomplete (and not really an improvement) mess in to service and that a large number of regular users and "fans" of are not pleased.

Let this be a lesson to the suits . . . don't mess with success!

A little tweak here and there . . . OK . . . but a complete overhaul when all it needed was a new set of windshield wiper blades is a bit on the overkill side of the ledger PLUS . . . it stinks.

Just put it back and . . . try again right after the next moon landing.

Cheers!

Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1455 Posts
  • 707 Reply Likes
[Yann wrote]
"... tertiary/inactive text (e.g. the dark grey used in quick links for items with no data) ... do not meet the contrast criteria for legibility. In this case, legibility was considered a secondary function since they are primarily meant to represent an in-active/disabled state."
"Disabled"?  Pardon if I interpret that term too literally.  A sub-page that simply contains "no data" is not "disabled".  The link to that sub-page will appear in the low-contrast state, but the link is not "disabled".

When a data sub-page contains "no data" (and the link to it is in the low-contrast state), you might ask: Why would anyone want to visit that sub-page?  Well, perhaps a contributor might want to visit it, intending to use that sub-page's specific update menu to add some new data there.

Likewise, when a title's message board has no posts (and the "Message Board" link is in the low-contrast state), you might ask: Why would anyone want to visit an empty board?  To post the first message there, that's why!

So, there are legitimate reasons why people sometimes visit sub-pages that do not yet contain data.  I therefore opine that the links to such pages should ideally be designed for "legibility" (ideally complying with the WCAG contrast criteria that Yann mentioned), if that would not be impractical.  ... Just my opinion.
(Edited)
Photo of fukcregistartion

fukcregistartion

  • 2 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Get back the year WITH the title on top, please. Ex. "Star Trek" is ambiguous, "S....

Get back the year WITH the title on top, please. Ex. "Star Trek" is ambiguous, "Star Trek (2009)" is not.
Photo of Mark Kaiser

Mark Kaiser

  • 5 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New design - where's the YEAR?.

New design - where's the YEAR? (I'm getting release year in Sweden, yes, I'm in Sweden but who cares about Swedish release - one wants to know the official year the film was made!
Photo of Serhan Demirhan

Serhan Demirhan

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New version of the page is really sucks.
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1455 Posts
  • 707 Reply Likes
As a thought exercise, I made a private temporary sketch of a layout that would deal with the navigation links in a way that I might like.  Starting with the existing (old) default layout, I widened the main title information area (the area with the poster and the information alongside the poster), giving that area about 800 pixels of width and adjusting its layout a little bit.  Then I stuffed all the necessary nav links into a four-line box below that area.  That would make sense to me, grouping all the nav links there.  Then there's no need to open a sidebar (as in the old layout) or a "More" overlay menu (as in the new layout) to find all the nav links.  They'd all be displayed openly in a tight group, easy to view at a glance and quick to click.
(Edited)
Photo of randy

randy

  • 4 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I think that it's cool to have a relaxed work environment, but they should stop letting IMDB workers drink on the job.  No sober person would change the old display to this new one.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13920 Posts
  • 14495 Reply Likes
randy,

Thanks for the feedback and the straight line. I tend to agree that the new design does not seem to offer any tangible improvement. However, I've not had the opportunity to fully explore the new design, so I will withhold judgement.

I wrote the criteria so we as a user community remain focused on offering constructive advice to make a great website even better.

Finally, I learned humility regarding web development when I lead a disastrous development effort for an internal corporate website 15 years ago.
Photo of David

David

  • 3 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
I agree with randy, the majority of these questions (1, 2, 4, 6 and maybe 7) can be answered with "no".
(Edited)
Photo of Yann

Yann

  • 458 Posts
  • 186 Reply Likes
The answer to these questions will be determined quantitatively by looking at the engagement mertics we are gathering from running this test. It will take a least 4 weeks for the data to become statistically significant, at which point we'll know for certain.
Photo of Nobody

Nobody

  • 1455 Posts
  • 707 Reply Likes
The answer to these questions will be determined quantitatively by looking at the engagement metrics ....
I assume that a majority of users may quietly accept such redesigns without complaint.  Will that suffice to satisfy a quantitative evaluation?

(I guess this may be how some other major web properties have sometimes settled on controversial redesigns.  Vocal minorities of users may complain but perhaps the large majority might appear to have no problems with the changes.)
Photo of randy

randy

  • 4 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
"Nobody" hits the nail on the head with the statements above.  This is similar to the risk aversion problem: in an attempt to keep a small vocal group from complaining, you alienate the larger (mostly quieter) majority.  Ever been on a plane or in a confined group?  Most everyone will be made slightly unhappy to keep one person from being very unhappy.
Photo of Can Bolat

Can Bolat

  • 7 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I use to old IMDb design this is so bad 
(Edited)
Photo of Michael David

Michael David

  • 11 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Then why mention them if they don't generally apply? That's just a waste of time isn't it?
Photo of lars.hammarstrand

lars.hammarstrand

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Doesn't matter what browser I use, it's still the same for me...
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13554 Posts
  • 13930 Reply Likes
@Michael David
Then why mention them if they don't generally apply? That's just a waste of time isn't it?
I'm not certain whether you are referring to my comment. If you did: when I posted about the Firefox and Google Chrome browsers, I made the baseless assumption that this these browsers were excluded form the test. Peter, corrected my misstatement.

Peter wrote:
It is a test, but the browser differences that Dan mentions do not apply in general.
@RamuelSpirit
I have tried all possible browsers but all see the gray background with white writing...
This is not a test anymore ....
This is still a test. Only a limited number of users are affected by this test.

Col Needham wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. This is a limited test of a new title page design which is only being shown to some customers.  We are gathering data and feedback at the moment.  

Please add comments here if there are other issues.  The design team have been alerted to this thread.
Yann wrote:
The answer to these questions will be determined quantitatively by looking at the engagement mertics we are gathering from running this test. It will take a least 4 weeks for the data to become statistically significant, at which point we'll know for certain.
(Edited)
Photo of Sarine Voltage

Sarine Voltage

  • 5 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Thx everyone for your ideas+ and feedback.
 
This part is in response to Dan Dassow: I've been using Firefox, so... next, I tried changing the preferences as you suggested--only thing is now either the IMDB website people changed up the look again or I've somehow managed to get faaaaaar away from what I'm hoping to see, which is pretty simple, actually...

Okay, hold on, wait a minute, I just went to look at what I changed/checked off in my preferences and NOW I'm seeing the view I like (picture, title, rating, blurb, pics, the "if you like this you might like these" blurb, cast listing, etc.) Okay, so I "Grabbed" a photo of it and I'm attaching it for a visual reference... i guess either the gods/goddesses of imdb smiled upon me and i've got good karma here or i somehow lucked out and stumbled upon the way to make my view a happy one or i owe you, Dan Dassow, many thanks, so THANK YOU Dan, the powers that be at IMDB, and of course me, myself...
Have a fun day, everyone!
(Edited)
Photo of Sarine Voltage

Sarine Voltage

  • 5 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
BTW, did i mention how much i love IMDB? I LOVE THIS SITE, IMDB TOTALLY ROCKS!!!
Photo of lars.hammarstrand

lars.hammarstrand

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
I concur! I'm sorry to say but I do really hate the new design of the title header. Now you don't get the overview as before and the original rating bar was really useful in order to decide whenever you want to watch the movie or not and it was easy to give feedback.

If the intention is to make this the default design, please add an option to get back the original design which was way better!

Pretty please with sugar on top !! ;-)
--

Thanks in advance!



Ps...
Please listen to the imdb users before you let in a "design guru" to go bananas on the site and secondly, please focus on functionality before you start playing around.
(Edited)
Photo of Michael David

Michael David

  • 11 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Lars- the voice of reason- I DO hope your comments are heeded! Well said.
Photo of Sarine Voltage

Sarine Voltage

  • 5 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New IMDB page setup (WHY?!).

The IMDB set-up was AWESOME if not PERFECT! Why change something that (probably after years of experimentation) is set up in an easy-to-use-and-navigate manner, most likely the best way it can possibly be--and trade it for a less-than-average/under-par setup?! LOVED the former set-up, this new one SUCKS and is not easy to navigate or user friendly! Why feed some website-designer's ego ('specially when their work is obviously "less than"), feed your users/customers! Thank you!
Photo of Peter

Peter, Champion

  • 6603 Posts
  • 8041 Reply Likes
That's what people said the last time they changed the layout.
Photo of Sarine Voltage

Sarine Voltage

  • 5 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I'm not dissing change itself, I'm down with change--that is, if the change is an improvement, making life smoother/easier and NOT more annoying/frustrating. When I take minutes of my precious time to post or email about someone or something (like this), it's either so awful or so awesome that it really demands attention...

What i find most aggravating with this set-up is the placement of a video right at the top of the page, so if you're jamming around (like me), the mouse dragging across the page inevitably engages the "play" button, THEN as you wait a moment for the spinning circle to stop, some stupid ad pops up instead and you're more than annoyed now because more clicks are required of YOU and it's all so unnecessary and kind of ridiculous...
Photo of Michael David

Michael David

  • 11 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
I TOTALLY agree with your opinion- I hope the original design is reinstated.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13920 Posts
  • 14495 Reply Likes
@Peter
That's what people said the last time they changed the layout.
I agree. That is why I will withhold judgement about the change in general until I've had a chance to benchmark the proposed "new" version.
Photo of Richard Doyle

Richard Doyle

  • 2 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
This The missing release year is a fairly disastrous deal breaker for me.  That year is PART OF THE TITLE on your site.  It's what differentiates movies with the same title.  The year you are showing does not always match the official release year.  At minimum, this must be fixed.
Photo of Nebojsa

Nebojsa

  • 2 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled IMDb contact email address?.

regards
how i can contact IMDb via email?
i justt want to say/in this case ''write''/ that older look of titles was better with year of release/for exemple after title writen ''2015''/ and also was much better runtime/for exemple ''90 min''/ than 1h30min but ok you can also post 90min and 1h30min but put year of rlease
Photo of Arun Regi Alex

Arun Regi Alex

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I believe enough people have raised their concerns with the new design. I'm not adding to it but I must plead not to implement it at all. It looks good without it & a change seems unnecessary in here.
Photo of Michael David

Michael David

  • 11 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
The more people complain about the new design the better and the more likely IMDB is to take notice. You're encouraging people not to bother commenting by making that statement.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 13920 Posts
  • 14495 Reply Likes
@Michael David
The more people complain about the new design the better and the more likely IMDB is to take notice. You're encouraging people not to bother commenting by making that statement.
I agree in principle. The web design staff need constructive criticism on what works and what does not work.

@Arun Regi Alex
If you have concerns and/or suggestions regarding the proposed "new" title page format, please express them in this thread.
Photo of Arun Regi Alex

Arun Regi Alex

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
It's not that I don't have constructive criticism but it's already being addressed by multiple persons. While me commenting might add weight to the seriousness of the matter, I really don't see a point in it. I commented in layman terms because they need to know how an average IMDB user feels about the proposed change.
Photo of Lelouch Lamperouge Lamperouge

Lelouch Lamperouge Lamperouge

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Suggestion: Implement user settings and a slight rework of the movie page layout.

I like the new look for movie pages, though there are a couple of changes I seriously disagree with. Adding the trailer next to the poster for example, it clutters up the top of the page and pushes the synopsis and Director/writer/actor information underneath and the movie poster to the side where it's much smaller.

I also don't understand the change from min (150min) to hrs & mins (2hrs 30min). I think it should be an optional toggle between one or the other. Speaking of options, I made a crude image of what I think the movie page layout should be. 



The settings menu appears when you click the little cogwheel by the username. You can change things about what things look like and the ratings, which many people have said isn't very good. Being able to specifiy who's ratings you want to see would make it a lot better.

Not showing 1 or 10 ratings can filter out haters trying to lower the rating and fanboys trying to raise it. Not allowing a certain user can get rid any trolls/idiots you run into, which happens a lot on the forums. Not using a certain demographic can filter out people who wouldn't like that type of movie anyway, for instance Titanic has an 8.6 ratings from girls under 18 but only a 7.2 from males 30 - 44. If your a 30 - 44 year old male then you don't want all these under 18 girls telling you how amazing the movie is.

While I think I made the poster a tad big in my suggestion, just a little smaller than that is the perfect size for the poster. The trailer is available to see right underneath it in the 'videos' section. So what's the point of it cluttering everything up when it's already available right there?

Thanks for reading.
Photo of Michael David

Michael David

  • 11 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
It's RUBBISH. I have to disagree with your opinion of it.
(Edited)
Photo of gwmax44907

gwmax44907

  • 9 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled I do not like the new format..

Please put back the production year of a movie next to the movie title at the top of the page.
Photo of OpHaNiM

OpHaNiM

  • 3 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
This design is horrible beside of dark background deforms posters . Here a example :

 

If click on poster all is normal :


You can call this an improvement ?! 
Photo of Yann

Yann

  • 458 Posts
  • 185 Reply Likes
OpHaNiM,
the problem here is that this poster isn't sized to match the industry standard set for one-sheets. See: http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?photosspecs
(Edited)
Photo of Anne

Anne

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
Where is the quick message board on the right: 



Now is even hard to find , i ensure you most dont know there is an extension button ..... why you complicate things if already was a fine design simple and efficient !!!
Photo of Michael David

Michael David

  • 11 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled New design is TERRIBLE!!!.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reinstate the original WHITE background(& send the designer back to art school- grey background indeed. Absolutely HOPELESS!)
Photo of Charlie Roberts

Charlie Roberts

  • 15 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes

Just because it is a great site, does not rule out their capability of being stupid on occasion.

This is one of those occasions!

Photo of uffe

uffe

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
This is for Yann. I understood and used your instruction. Worked OK. But this morning I didnt get the picture, I used yesterday (like the one in your instructions). I have access to my lists, but no possibility to add to them.
Photo of Abhay Bhatt

Abhay Bhatt

  • 91 Posts
  • 56 Reply Likes
I have heard some Imdb professionals/employees here arguing against 'If it ain't broken, don't fix' philosophy. While I agree with his arguments against this philosophy that we should strive for improvement and progress, and sticking with that philosophy stops progress and improvement, I do have to say something.
His argument for improvement would have been totally justified if Imdb didn't have any other issues. I am wondering that with so many open issues, why the Imdb management is not trying to fix those first, make the website bug/issue/error free, and then think about improving something which is working fine and is issue-free.
Just wanted to mention on a side-note, that I do like the new design except the only fact that now I have to scroll down everytime to read the plot summary on a movie page with trailer.
Photo of Ray

Ray

  • 10 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Previously, it was easy to add a film to my Watch list. Now I get the feeling IMDb is trying to do away with it. It has been my primary reason for using the site.
Photo of Gary

Gary

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's the plus sign beside the movie title.  That's how you add it to your watchlist.
Photo of Guilherme Simões Reis

Guilherme Simões Reis

  • 25 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
I agree, extremely confusing, hard to find the place to rate the films, to add to your lists etc
Photo of PETE MARTIN

PETE MARTIN

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
If IMDb wants to fix something, how about fixing the fact that when you navigate to an individual's credits, then go back, you NEVER get back to where you just were! Instead, you accidentally get taken you to the person's first section of credits, and opens that up.

For example, I was just looking up John Carpenter's directing credits.  I clicked on a specific film and checked it out.  Fine so far.  But then, where it took me back to?  His MUSIC credits!  His first category at the top of the page.. exactly what I DIDN'T want to see!

Lousy, bad design.  Terrible.  Simply not acceptable for the most important movie database in the history of the world!
Photo of Keester

Keester

  • 209 Posts
  • 98 Reply Likes
Aesthetics over functionality seems to be what IMDb is trying to achieve.

When it don't work FIX IT. Don't paint over it.
Photo of Tony B

Tony B

  • 1 Post
  • 4 Reply Likes
Absolutely despise the new design. Rating and/or adding movies to my watchlist were simple one-click processes. Now you've added an unnecessary step to rating and hidden the add-to-watchlist button on another page. Boo, IMDB. Why do internet companies always insist on "fixing" what isn't broken?
Photo of joyusapollo

joyusapollo

  • 4 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Watch your views drop off - hard to view trailers now. Whey do people want to cha....

Watch your views drop off - hard to view trailers now. Whey do people want to change what isn't broken?
Photo of PETE MARTIN

PETE MARTIN

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Exactly.  Fix what needs fixing, leave well enough alone.  As far as the title pages go, I absolutely HATE the movie titles being in white on a black background now, and don't know why the rating is over to the right.  And what's with the stupid PLUS sign?  Are we supposed to automatically know what pressing that is gonna do?

If IMDb wants to fix something, how about fixing the fact that when you navigate to an individual's credits, then go back, you NEVER get back to where you just were! Instead, you accidentally get taken you to the person's first section of credits, and opens that up.

For example, I was just looking up John Carpenter's directing credits.  I clicked on a specific film and checked it out.  Fine so far.  But then, where it took me back to?  His MUSIC credits!  His first category at the top of the page.. exactly what I DIDN'T want to see!

So now I've gotta CLOSE the music category, scroll back down to the directing section, and open that back up!  How much more stupid and awkward could a design possibly be?!?!?!  And it probably could be fixed in about 10 seconds.  

So how about it, IMDb?  You think maybe you could leave alone what works absolutely fine, and fix the things that are broken?!   What do you say?
Photo of joyusapollo

joyusapollo

  • 4 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled I do not like the way you make us access movie trailers now. I hope enough people....

I do not like the way you make us access movie trailers now. I hope enough people like me express their dissatisfaction with your new system so that you can se the "error of your ways".
Photo of PETE MARTIN

PETE MARTIN

  • 6 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I see what you're doing -- emphasizing the poster and trailers more so it's easier and more obvious to to play the trailer.

But in so doing, important information like the rating has been pushed to the side, and the title font is white-on-gray.  On top of that you've got this stupid "PLUS" symbol that shows the person's lists... something I consider far less important that info about the film itself.
Photo of Sam Beckett

Sam Beckett

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
Please put the production year back next to the title, and on the topic grey background: The inactive Links in the menu are a bit too dark, also: In the (Android) App you can't see the rating stars until you select one!

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.