Did you set out to deliberately make the site less accessible?

[Acromos]

Sorry, but I feel it has to be asked. I have been, from day one, a reluctant user of all the pomp and circumstance old MW was capable of - simply because I don't need'em, it doesn't mean anything to me. I can read text without pictures just fine, I'm 52 years old, and I remember a time when picture books were for children and adults of limited mental faculties. Now it seems pictures are a way to live life. The only way. My colleagues stare in bafflement when I don't bring my phone for lunch.

So now I visit the new MW for the first time, and there are fewer tools, the code has become way, way less transparent - and frankly, I'm wondering if it's worth the bother. I'd have to wave five campaigns goodbye, but I'm just not convinced this new stuff is going to be any good experience.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I look at what people who know how do with it, and it's impressive. But it looks to me like someone made a herculean effort to make it more advanced - but much, much less accessible. Which, I'm sorry, but which is a really, really bad way to attract users. Or keep those like me.

[Vladim]

I mean, you can write text on Baldr as well as on Myth-Weavers without any fancy formatting. I think you're right about the pictures and about them having become pervasive, but if you don't need them, more power to you!

[Colin]

@Acromos Have you looked at the New User Guide yet for a walkthrough of the new site?

 

While we understand change can be frustrating, maintaining the old site was becoming such a nightmare that things were really down to "make a new site because the old one broke with every update attempt" or "shut down Myth Weavers." We preferred the discomfort getting used to a new site over shutting down Myth Weavers.

[Acromos]

@Colin See, that just pisses me off. You know?

Jesus, I hope none of you guys make your money working in UX. I looked for, and couldn't find, a user guide. Alright, it's in the top menu, which isn't crazy in and of itself. But you really should have made a pop-up, or a giant flashing 'Start Here!' button on the landing page. And it's a literal million pages long. I hope I don't need to explain why it's a problem that it's a million pages long? Make a god damned quick start guide: Here's how to post, here's how you do a posting format, here's a template you can use.

Jeez!

And you can stow the condescending bullshit, Colin. Change isn't frustrating. You are. This is the feedback forum. How about you treat posts like feedback, eh?

[Powderhorn]

I'm not certain why you thought any of that was appropriate.

The suggestion of adding a banner to the New User Guide is useful, and potentially renaming it as people migrating over won't think of themselves as new.

While posts in a site feedback thread should be treated as feedback, you need to do your part to present such feedback in a manner that does not require so much effort to sort out the useful from the anger.

[Acromos]

2 hours ago, Powderhorn said:

I'm not certain why you thought any of that was appropriate.

The suggestion of adding a banner to the New User Guide is useful, and potentially renaming it as people migrating over won't think of themselves as new.

While posts in a site feedback thread should be treated as feedback, you need to do your part to present such feedback in a manner that does not require so much effort to sort out the useful from the anger.

I quite simply don't know what to tell you. Condescension pisses me right the **** off, and I make absolutly no excuses for that. I will not be talked down to by Colin, end of story. If you cannot take in feedback without talking down to your users, you have bigger issues than a website that isn't going to have any users in six months time (which I'm aware is something of an overstatement, but unless you manage to make it more accessible, you'll do me the favor of proving me right - over time).

[Suzuki Stumpy]

I'm sorry, but having looked at Colin's response, if you think that's being condescending I'd suggest that it's you who needs to have a bit of a reality check.

[Basil_Bottletop]

There was a study that found that Work Emails were routinely misread as being harsher when the reader was embarrassed that someone found (or corrected) a mistake they made. Regardless of the tone of the email or the intention of the sender. Some examples even showed the corrector wasn't a direct supervisor and was offering the recipient a heads up unofficially. Regardless, the recipient took it to be a personal attack.

That same study also said that senders of emails believe they should be shown twice the amount of grace in tonal expectations than that of emails they read. Whatever they send should be seen in the best light. Whatever they read would be read in the harshest vibe. Essentially, people expect to be given grace but have no interest in offering any of their own.

Fun Fact? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Powderhorn]

Before this spins out of control: A volunteer has stepped up to edit the user guide for readability and ease of use. My hope is that this addresses the underlying concern.