Even though left would signify going backwards I picture looking at a blog like flipping through a magazine. So where do your eyes go when you flip the page, the bottom right.
Although this isn't a direct analogy to the current layout of hubski I do think that it is uncomfortable to look at the front page. If the idea is to keep it away from being a stream interface then could we resize the posts based on relevance sort of the way that TED sizes their video links.
What are your thoughts?
I'd personally like it to remain this way for a while longer just so I can be sure it's not just a learning curve thing.
mk, are you doing comparative click heat maps or anything like that?
On another note, I don't like the three column layout, but I find the underlying aesthetic much improved, the shades, the fonts, I dunno. I find it less functional but more beautiful if that makes any sense. So on one level I guess it is more pleasing to look at.
I definitely don't want the front page to be uncomfortable to look at. Personally speaking, I want to use it some more, and possibly try some changes before reconsidering. Today I just changed the flow of posts on the page, which I think was an improvement.
Whatever we decide to do next, I think it will help to figure out what is good, and what is bad, about this format.
The feedback is appreciated.
That said, I think its the perfect time to bring up another suggestion I've been meaning to post.
We should pay for hubski. I think there is a lot of value in it and I think hubski as a pay service is a reasonable proposition
We all realize that hubski has costs, whether it be human capital or server space, and eventually those costs have to be accounted for or else hubski won't exist and we will all be worse off. If theses costs are offset by advertising in one form or another then we will either be distracted from hubski's beautiful aesthetics (as mentioned in this post by ecib) or we will have our content devoured by imposters.
Do you have any follow up thoughts on this subject mk?
As for a paying for the site, I appreciate that some might be willing. Hubski isn't free for me, but it currently costs little, and I really enjoy working on it.
However, at some point we might need revenue. One idea that I am entertaining is that Hubskiers could pay a subscription to have an ad-free version of the site. Only non-subscribed users would see ads. That said, I hate about 95% of all advertising, so we would be very hands-on about what type of ads could appear on the site, and how it would look. Ads become part of the experience, so advertisers owe the user something. If they can't provide it, we would be better off not having them.
Still, I prefer not to needs ads at all, and am keeping an open mind on this.
- We should pay for hubski. I think there is a lot of value in it and I think hubski as a pay service is a reasonable proposition
Firstly, there's nothing indignant about voicing your opinion about the new look, provided (as your is) that its constructive. Secondly, as to the pay service idea. Its a great idea, but the user base just isn't big enough to justify that yet. One has to assume that any type of pay service (even say, $10/year) is going to drive away all but the most dedicated users. At this point, if that were instituted, I fear that we would dry up, which would be a disaster, and we would all lose. Great idea, wrong time, IMO.
I am not loving the three column format, it's busy and harder to digest, but I think trying it is worthwhile. It's probably worth sticking with it for a bit so people and mk can ruminate on what they like and don't. I ultimately have faith that experimentation is worthwhile, even if any given attempt doesn't yield happy results. I am sure that input is gladly accepted and carefully considered.
Humans shy away from change. It's uncomfortable. But I think we should all try to think about whether we are disliking something because we actually don't like the layout or the columns or the text or the buttons or the whatever or if we just don't like it because it is new.
Other then that, Hubski's looking pretty crisp.
If I can articulate my impression better; I find the dimensions displeasing. I would be ok with a three pane layout if there was some sort of asymmetry between the panes. Maybe the first pane is a larger font, has less posts, and is more relevant then decrease the size and increase the frequency for the next two panes.
This is why I also mentioned a TED style layout. If you don't want the site to be so stream like (which I think has its merits) then resize the posts based on relevancy and have the opportunity to affect visitors interactions.
I think it is an improvement, but a moderate one.
I'm willing to rethink the whole thing if it comes to it. But I do want to absorb this some more.