Modes of failure

[threemonkeys]

Failure is not updating here for more than a week.

Failure is a department store having a shirt that I wanted to buy and then not having any of their sales counters staffed. There was one counter in the store with people on it, but they refused to serve me. Turns out they "have nothing to do with" the store - they just sell their own stuff inside it.

Failure is stuff.co.nz thinking that a site revamp is just about visual appeal and customisation and completely forgetting that information accessibility is the heart of a news site. The site has a nice clean look but they used to be the best site for getting news rapidly The information density and navigation meant you were never more than a click away from the story you wanted. Now you have to go hunting through many pages and so they are now just another middle ranging member of the pack.

Failure in 1987 is publishing an anthology called "The Science Fiction Yearbook", subtitled "The Best Short SF of 1987" and then the editor, David S. Garnett selecting the stories from a very narrow style subsection of the genre. The stories are actually a pretty good bunch, but the effect is somewhat spoiled for me by the mismatch between the title and the contents. It could easily have been saved by a mission statement of some sort in the introduction which clarified the selection criteria. For example, David Hartwell does this well in his "Best of" series. I appreciate it when an editor is able to state their intentions in an introduction. Done well it may only take a sentence or two and yet really help with understanding the anthology. Failure is effectively saying "I pick what I like". While probably true, it does nothing at all to justify the narrow focus of something with such a wide ranging title.

Comments

[austspecfic.livejournal.com]

Oh dear! So did you get the shirt or give up?

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

No - I just tossed it on one of the empty counters and walked out.

[lobelet.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you said that about Stuff -- I thought it was just me being dumb. I've found the new site to be full of glim and glitter but oddly lacking in content (or, more accurately, full of content that is impossible to find).

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

We aren't alone in this conclusion. Stuff/Fairfax set up a feedback forum which got flooded with people making detailed complaints about the new look - way too specific to be ignored as people not liking change. The response was to hide the forum away rather than fix the site.

[thoatherder.livejournal.com]

I hate it, Toya hates it, everyone at work hates it. It appears that they've let an arty farty, form over function "designer" do a make over. I hate that you have to scroll to get all the news, that there is too much white space and so on.

There is a reason that newspapers have the format that they have, and a news site should present news as compactly and clearly as possible.

Grrrrrrrr.

Letting designers dictate the look of the web was the worse thing that happened. Bring back hand coded html, and ban alignment via single pixel gifs and tables!

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Oh and don't forget how much worse the load time performance is too.

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

That's been the result of nearly every public or staff feedback forum I've dealt with. :)

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

You can probably chart a whole life cycle of a feedback forum from the point of view of the managers/moderators. Starts with breathless enthusiasm for their new venture. Then slightly miffed at the lack of total praise. Then aggressively defensive. Possibly followed by a last angry swing. Then sullen silence. Then a new venture comes along and another forum (with a new moderator) comes along and it starts again..