I can no longer get to www.bbc.co.uk

It came up with a banner about the Home Page is changing, with the option to "Take me there" or "No thanks". I decided to take a look. Didn't like it, but can't get back to the original.

WARNING - DO NOT FOLLOW THE LINK ON THIS LINE. See why later in the post. It now always goes to http://m.bbc.co.uk/

Even viler than before.

15" laptop, Win 8.1, Chrome. I stopped using IE11 yesterday, as I suspect it may be crashing my system several times a day. Though that issue may be NetWorx which I dropped at the same time.

Just tried IE11 and that still gets the previous version, but I see the "Take me there" button link is to the above. So it isn't just letting you see what you think, it's setting a cookie .

Edit: If you scroll all the way down, near the bottom is a link to go back to the old site.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 20-May-15 12:21:16)

BBC item about these changes here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/6ef9fa18...

Going by how they implemented the Responsive News site recently - choosing not to use the new design will only buy you a bit of time before they change things for all visitors

As ever, I'm of no help at all but ....

I followed that link yesterday as well, and also didn't like the result. Stuck in BBC limbo .... if you find a cure, let me know.

Oh, and using Safari, so maybe not a browser related thing.

Just tried it on Chrome on the same machine, and still get to the 'old' site.

Edited by Zarjaz (Wed 20-May-15 13:26:09)

it's setting a cookie .

Edit: If you scroll all the way down, near the bottom is a link to go back to the old site.

That clears the cookie. (Cookies are always browser-specific).

Aha, thank you.

I recently clicked on the News link in the top menu. That page is still quite sensible. It would be better if that was the Home Page in the first place.

I'm regularly on the BBC site but very rarely use the bbc.co.uk home page - all my bookmarks point to bbc.co.uk/news

It's a responsive design site, which means that the site can adapt it's layout on the fly in accordance to the device's screen size.

This means that you don't need to maintain two or more parallel sites, one for Wide screens and one for mobile screens, and instead just need to maintain one site which fits all.
This will also save the BBC money.

The BBC News site has been using a responsive design for about a year now (I think).

More and more sites are being designed this way.

In reply to a post by cymru123:

The BBC News site has been using a responsive design for about a year now (I think).

Actually went live on March 23rd 2015

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

it's setting a cookie .

Edit: If you scroll all the way down, near the bottom is a link to go back to the old site.

That clears the cookie. (Cookies are always browser-specific).

Both of BBC's Site works fine for me in IE11

Paul

In reply to a post by b4dger:

In reply to a post by cymru123:

The BBC News site has been using a responsive design for about a year now (I think).

Actually went live on March 23rd 2015

So it was, felt longer than that.

Same here, but the point is that on a laptop or desktop machine the new Homepage (as they call it) is dreadful and user-unfriendly. On my smartphone it isn't too bad.

Though AIUI most smartphones work perfectly well with the non-mobile BBC site.

It's only the Home Page that is the issue. At the moment the old one is still available if you inadvertently get the new one, but it won't be long before you have no choice. As I said, the easiest thing to do is go straight to the News page instead.

It actually loads in NARROW screen mode and then resizes - that should be transparent to the end user, however it is not.

the bbc has gone shockingly bad with their website in the space of a year.

Before it was a fast and responsive site, and it looked pleasant on my PC to use.

Now its been mobilised, and is aweful on my pc.

examples?

Massive text,
too much white gaps.
Lazy loading of pictures, so they dont all load at once, but instead on scroll etc.
Images seem to load first at low res, then high res on top, the process si very slow.
Website is laggy to browse (although is fine on my phone)

Also the bbc android app has gone the same way.

The new android app makes the phone hot and drain cpu fast, it eats cpu cycles for breakfast. On my main phone I have kept the old app in place and refusing updates.

By the way how does one contact the author fo that blog to give feedback? I am curious how they even got feedback given I cannot find a way to provide it.

The bbc site isnt desktop friendly.
Doesnt use full page width, is lots of scrolling with small width optimised for phone displays.
Too much white space between text and images.
Too big font size.
Lazy loading of images. (optimised for phones not pc's).

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 31-May-15 11:21:34)

yeah I just checked the main home page now, completely agree.

That new one is way worse than the one there now, its as if they forgot pc's exist.

But for me I can revert to the older page, using the link at the bottom.

The "News" page and many of its offshoots have now gone the same way .

I can still get back to the old Home Page, but the links from that now go to new style.

The comments on the blog are closed.

You get to the feedback on the new home page by being on it and scrolling down to the link to go back to the old one. It's close to that link.

Likewise I find the BBC site useless on a laptop or desktop now. Its okay on my iPhone, doesn't seem to have changed. I assume the redesign is for tablet users :-/

It probably was. They offered it as a test to some users, so it's possible you accepted and used it before most.

Matt

given they have dedicated apps they could have kept the old desktop site with mobile users using the apps. Everyone happy.

They can stick two fingers up at google for the non responsive design search penalty as the bbc is well known enough they dont need google's help to get traffic.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Lazy loading of pictures, so they dont all load at once, but instead on scroll etc.
Images seem to load first at low res, then high res on top, the process si very slow.
Website is laggy to browse

Everything instant and super-snappy here.

+1

Firefox on Windows 7

Ditto. I check it now and again but from hundreds of page views a day my usage of the bbc news website is down to significantly less than 100 per annum. It was near perfect on multiple platforms, now it's just total cr@p. Their contempt for the users knows no bounds, the censorship of comments and closure of commenting is totally out of order for a publicly funded organisation.

Edited by M100 (Mon 01-Jun-15 14:49:10)

yeah they want to moderate posts before they appear and close down comments within a few days after article published, your point is very valid.

I'm finding it almost useless now on a 15.5" laptop.

Since this new HomePage, and the new layout spreading through the site within a couple of days of it appearing, there are virtually no proper articles on the site with a decent layout and paragraphing. Almost everything can best be described as an expanded three-line headline, then a 2-3 minute (low quality) video clip, and under that a short summary of the video with basically single-sentence paragraphs and double-line spacing.

They are very likely to lose their adult audience in an idiotic attempt to attract the "yoof". An audience that (like us?) might have matured into using the site but won't be attracted either now or in the future by this pale imitation of the various social media news propagators.

I wonder what it is exactly you are seeing? Can you post a link and screen grab maybe?

I do not see any real change in the BBC News website, same full articles, laid out just like other major news sites (without the ads and clickbait). And everything is instantly rendered, and super-fast.

There have always been a small minority of news pieces on the site which were primarily video or audio reports, they are still there, is that what you mean? My sister produces news and documentaries for the BBC, and has done a few Business reports in that style for the website, I'll be sure to let her know you don't consider it real news!

Here's a link to the BBC blog about their RWD (Responsive Web Design) changes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/b2c6502f...

The comments make for some interesting reading - they closed comments when they created this next post http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/ca4e1ad8...

They've made some tweaks - but it still doesn't work well on a desktop PC for me.
As you say it seems the actual content has also changed with less text and giant spaces between each sentence rather than paragraph!

so http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-polit... loads as fast as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010... ?

2010 story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010...

second url is faster for me and much more readable.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 02-Jun-15 15:02:48)

both links closed comments.

I would love to be able to contact their design team directly but they hide behind heavily moderated comment pages.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

so http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-polit... loads as fast as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010... ?

2010 story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010...

second url is faster for me and much more readable.

The new story loads identically fast as the old story for me, both are virtually-instant.

The key members are here on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HmmmUK/lists/bbc-techies/members

Some of them are a bit 'sensitive' though...

How about the video/non-video balance in this report? It demonstrates exactly my point about the written part being merely an expanded headline.

The pictorial content is not really necessary.

The The Sky report. Compare and contrast both the written and the video.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 11-Jun-15 01:05:25)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

How about the video/non-video balance in this report? It demonstrates exactly my point about the written part being merely an expanded headline.

That is not the main article! It is the evening news video report added to the site, linked under the Video/Audio or Watch/Listen sections. As I explained, there have always been a small number of news pieces which are primarily video or audio reports. The writing is clearly not a report, it is just a brief summary intended to introduce the video or audio.

The main article, linked from the headline, is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33063838

I don't know how you got to the main article, as it isn't linked to from the mini-report accompanying the video. Nor from any headline I came across.

Moving on from that, this one may as well be on twitter. No links, nothing useful, rubbish.

What is it that you keep failing to understand?

I can only explain it one last time. These are video or audio reports, often taken from BBC News/Documentary TV or radio broadcasts. The BBC is a broadcaster not a print newspaper so it makes sense to include this additional content on the News site for people to watch. You may not find them interesting or useful, but many do. The text is just an introduction, the report or item of interest is the video or audio. They are listed and linked under sections called "Video/Audio" or "Watch/Listen". Stop clicking on these if you don't want to see them.

They are not main articles. If you click on a headline, you get a normal length report, they are all still there. (As I said, this is how the main report in my previous post was accessible, whereas the video report you moan about was unsurprisingly under the Watch/Listen section).

You completely fail to get the point I am making!!!!

I just pointed out that in the previous case, where I would have liked more information than was available from the place I had got to, there was no way. I agree it was an introduction.

There was no link at all to the article to which it was an introduction!

In both cases I was interested. In neither case was there any help as to where to look next.

The first case gave a little information. This latest one none at all.

That is my point. It is rubbish reporting. Far worse even than supermarkets shuffling their shelving with the intent of you seeing something you normally don't whilst looking for the moved product you buy regularly .

I dispute your claim that in both mini-reports there was a link to the main article. There wasn't. At least not when using IE11.

If there are links using some other browser that just strengthens my point. The new website is very poor on computers, as opposed to phones or perhaps tablets.

Edit - relevant extract from the source "<p>Bryony Mackenzie reports. </p>
<div class="related-items full-width"> <h2>Read more</h2> <article> <div class="article-inner article-story-alsos"> <a href="/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-32831546"><span class="cta">Cambridge Mackays dummy gets 3D-printed hand after theft</span></a> "

I've also taken a screenshot, but the source ought to be more than enough to show the "Read more" doesn't have a link.

Edit 2:- No link from the tempter to the main article using Chrome either.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 13-Jun-15 23:35:38)

OK - some progress!

Using IE11, the picture is just that. A picture. Then

Kent schoolgirl's friends say her 3D hand is 'cool'

13 June 2015 Last updated at 08:40 BST

A school girl from Kent, who was born with only one hand, has had a new one specially built for her by her classmates.

Lara Pincott says the colourful 3D printed hands are proving a big hit with her friends.

Bryony Mackenzie reports.

Read more
Cambridge Mackays dummy gets 3D-printed hand after theft

where the last line is a link to a different article altogether.

Using Chrome, the picture is cleafrly a video link. I found that video quite interesting, and wouldn't have wanted any further info.

However, as stated in my second edit above, there is still no link to any main article.

I think you are confused.

These video or audio reports are NOT introductions to a written report. They are items in their own right. I meant that the text accompanying the video/audio is an introduction to the video/audio. They are not "mini-reports" either, let's be clear.

There may in fact be no written report or other item whatsoever, I know for example this was the case with my sister's reports as they were her own research. Sometimes though there will of course be multiple pieces on one news topic and usually there is a link between them, so you are right one should have been included for the ovary video report to the written report.

I never said both video reports had links to written reports. I said the ovary written report was the one you got to by clicking on the headline, by headline I mean the main headline that existed in the News page or Health News page. The video report you got to by clicking on the video icon and title in the Watch/Listen section.

No.

You are just fixated on an erroneous belief that the website is wonderful and that anyone who doesn't believe is a heretic.

When you come across a taster, then it is ridiculous not to provide a link to the main course. End of.

Quite apart from the new discovery that the 3D hand for the girl has a video link in Chrome, but no suggestion of that video in IE11.

It's a bad site, in concept and in execution.

Edit:
Uh uh!

A copy of the URL in IE11 to IE11 gives a version with the video ?????

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 13-Jun-15 23:56:09)

Right - more progress.

Clicking the link to the girl with the 3D hand was not giving a video. A refresh of the page, which should reload it rather than access a cached version also fails to give the video.

Closing all tabs and then IE, then reopening it and these forums and clicking that link does give the video version. Very strange. Bearing in mind that at the time of my original linking to it the comprehensive video we now have was not present. I feel there was an elementary one but I'm not sure. I may be thinking of the Cambridge one.

When you first followed the link, did you have the riding a bicycle video?

No, the video report has not changed. It has always been 2 mins 11 secs long, starts with the girl riding her bike, and was like that earlier in the day when I watched before you even posted, the page also confirms last updated in the morning of yesterday.

I think it's clear you have problems with the website which have coloured your opinion on these video reports. I have addressed the 'link to the written report problem', but you didn't seem to pay attention. I still don't understand why you are even clicking on these reports in the first place if you don't want to see them - they are identifiable before you click, so just don't go the video/audio reports!

Where have I said I don't want to see them? I am objecting to the idiotic way they are littered around without links to the full reports.

Your telling me they can also be accessed from the main report is completely irrelevant. At no point have you given any clue on how to get to such main reports.

Not being given links to main reports is the issue. How many more times do you need telling?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Where have I said I don't want to see them? I am objecting to the idiotic way they are littered around without links to the full reports.

Your telling me they can also be accessed from the main report is completely irrelevant. At no point have you given any clue on how to get to such main reports.

Not being given links to main reports is the issue. How many more times do you need telling?

The problem might just be you don't give proper attention, hence the website leaves you all confused and you misinterpret my posts.

I never told you video reports can also be accessed from the main report. I said there are usually links between them, and there should have been one from the specific video report to the written report.

For example, if you go right now to the BBC News home page, there are 6 video reports under the Watch/Listen section. Each one does have a link to the written report at the bottom. Occasionally they are absent, through oversight or mistake or whatever, the one video you linked to happened to be an example.

I also told you clearly how you get to the main article in its own right (though it is obvious). Just go to a News page and click on the relevant headline, it's not rocket science. Don't click on a video icon with a play button and time stamp, listed under Watch/Listen or Audio/Video, because that is a video or audio report.

I have no great passion for this website at all really. I was just interested in criticisms of it, especially where I couldn't objectively see or repeat them. Do let me know if you have any criticisms left.

How, from a video clip and short text, does one divine the News page to go to to find the headline to click? A headline that may not be obvious, especially given that many main articles are also presented as videos and may need considerable scrolling to become visible. The reader should not even have to think how to find more information. Making things intuitive and accessible is the claimed reason for the changes, and the result is a resounding "Fail".

The BBC website aims to be one of the premier news sites in the world, and was. It is now unsuitable for anything but smartphones and tablets, cumbersome to use, and sloppily compiled with frequent omission of vital links.

It's a mess. It is not me that is confused. I do not misinterpret your posts, though I do find them short of anything helpful. You seem not even to read mine properly, starting from a standpoint of rejection.

I have a working lifetime's experience of producing easily navigated and user-friendly input screens and output screens and prints. As a business applications specialist of considerable success I do recognise good and bad systems and programming design.

The Beeb site is not "bad". It is merely poor, made worse by sloppy usage by the content producers. As for Read more links that aren't, Pah!

You simply click on the link provided on the video page. If there is a written report on the topic, 99 times out of 100 it is linked right there in plain view.

The site is designed to do exactly what you want it to do.

For some reason you insist on pretending this isn't the case.

I never said you have to or should have to find the headline yourself. I was explaining how to go to the written report in its own right in the first place, which appears to be something you have been struggling with.

1) You're in a loop.

2) It used to do exactly what I wanted, now it doesn't. Fact, not pretence.

3) The site is designed to appeal to users of small portable devices. It works well on my smartphone. It is reasonable on my iPad. It is poor on my touch-screen laptops, and quite nasty to use on my touchpad-driven one.

4) The new style appears to be inducing sloppy reporting. I would blame that on the system, not on the reporters.

3) The site is designed to appeal to users of small portable devices. It works well on my smartphone.

The site also works well on my Win7 Pro x64 system with twin 24" screens as it does on various laptops running Win 7, 8.1 & 10.

4) The new style appears to be inducing sloppy reporting

How? It hasn't changed the content although I dislike the spacing. I admit I prefer to read my news reports to watching often quite unnecessary video/audio reports but then again the BBC is an audio-visual oriented organisation rather than a print publisher so video/audio reports are to be expected.

In reply to a post by MCM:

I admit I prefer to read my news reports to watching often quite unnecessary video/audio reports but then again the BBC is an audio-visual oriented organisation rather than a print publisher so video/audio reports are to be expected.

The BBC has also been criticised for running a free with no-ads website that seems to compete with local and national newspapers. Maybe this is a reason behind the video obsession.

I've just changed my Favorite from http://bbc.co.uk to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news . That's good enough for me.

I used to be on .../weather but often clicked on the logo to get to the Home page.

I've changed my browser Home page to .../news like you. I don't follow my logic in doing that, but it's working fine in that respect.

My BBC Home page is in fact back on the old one since I reverted to it for a second time to answer a vimto _girl question. I'm no longer offered the new version, but no doubt it will come back.

I see the new one on my iPad and Android mobile.