I too miss the Application menu. It was easier earlier. Also I notice the "Games > Your Games" doesnt list all the games that I have subscribed to.
- Rajesh Zoho Corp On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Richard Carson <richard.carso...@gmail.com>wrote: > The "3 column fixed header and footer" is similar to Yahoo's homepage, > which has deteriorated since. Compare this to the New York Times, Yahoo > gives off a certain sense of cheap filled content with McDonalds and MTV. > (blech!) > > The new Facebook redesign is too busy with the new open hierarchy > structure. Taking out the Application bar was a big lost. They could have > offered transparency to free up visual space. Though it seems that the > intent is to get more page views and serve more ads in the new way. > > In doing so, they've taken away all the great features I've come to love. I > actually feel very overwhelmed because everything is thrown at you. More > links. unnecessary and useless content for users. However, people have said > that about Facebook in comparison to places like Twitter. > > Here are some of my pet peeves. > > - The reiterated forced chat list in both left and hidden right column is > unnecessary. > - I have 5 applications listed on my left (I don't know why those 5) but > because of the lack of customization. I can't change it. > - Deleting apps is unforgiving. (I accidentally deleted an app and I can't > get it back) > - Applications takes me to more applications. Or click on "more" to see > more applications of a different type set? (that's confusing) > - The lack of customization is very, very disappointing. (But look where > customization has taken mySpace) > - Creating lists is now gone!!! (I spent lots of time creating and > organizing lists for my newsfeed and they're now gone) > - The line separations that issolate the news in newsfeed is too strong. > It hurts my eyeballs. > - It's a very time consuming process to switch between applications. (I > have to go back home, see more apps, then find/select the new application) > > i can go on an on, but the basic message is that taking out the application > menu was a big loss..... I don't know if I am in the smaller or larger > majority audience on this one, but R.I.P. to the Application menu. I hope > you see you back in the future. > > R.C. > > > > > On Feb 9, 2010, at 7:01 AM, Vlad Margulis wrote: > > > The new Facebook design looks like one of the busiest interfaces I've > > seen in a while. It immediately reminded me of the Yahoo! homepage > > back when... well, when it was too busy. Yet somehow, the Facebook > > homepage makes sense, doesn't feel too overwhelming and is easily > > navigable and parse-able. > > > > I think there are two things going on here; one is that they did a > > fairly good job following basic Gestalt principles of perception to > > clearly chunk out the layout and establish hierarchy. Two, I think > > our brains are becoming more accustomed to processing much more > > visual information. > > > > It's been suggested by new neurological research that the way the > > brain understands complex concepts is through established > > neurological frameworks, meaning the brain forms neural circuits > > which define a specific conceptual framework. For example if I say > > "Mystery novel" your brain already has an established > > idea/preconception of the structure of that concept. When you read > > the actual novel, you'll be fitting the content into that framework, > > through a process called neural binding. > > > > My theory is that we now have a neurological framework of such > > interfaces -- we know the navigation will be on the left, we know the > > content will be in the middle, we know there might be threading of > > conversations, we know there might be a chat roster on the lower > > left, we know a chat window might popup on the lower right, we know > > there will be a searchbox at the top, etc. In fact, if you look at > > the Yahoo! design, the page that it initially reminded me of, it has > > a very similar structure. Because we already have this framework in > > our brain, we don't need too much of a cognitive process to > > understand the page, all we need to do is process the content. I > > believe even though the page looks crazy busy to our design-trained > > eye, we now have the proper neural structure to be able to parse and > > comprehend it with relative ease. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Reply to this thread at ixda.org > > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=49195 > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > > To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org > > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
