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'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.
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.
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.
Creating Accessible Websites
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).
Questions & Answers about Blindness and Vision Impairments in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
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:
Get back the year WITH the title on top, please. Ex. "Star Trek" is ambiguous, "Star Trek (2009)" is not.
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!
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.
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!
If click on poster all is normal :
You can call this an improvement ?!
if the designers need something to do, have them re-design the lobby break rooms, & restrooms.
I can't possibly imagine what made you to remove it in the first place.
It's great to know the release date of a film in your own country, but it certainly isn't enough. Numerous films have been released in countries many years after they first aired in cinemas somewhere else in the world. To not know that fact, the original release date, robs you of many things, quite often of the right perspective.
It's not unnecessary information. It's vital !!!
BRING BACK THE ORIGINAL YEAR OF RELEASE NEXT TO THE TITLE !!!
The Year of Production is gone. I only see it in search results, not anymore on the full info page (where it should be next to the title). Please put this back. Note that release dats is not YOP.
since some titles are short or the titles are used and repeated over and over again. we need to glance at the title and see that it is the correct movie. we also need to include that in our databases.
please put the year back in the title.
Or is this site run by a dictator?
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.