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.