35 Comments

I noticed the beta version several weeks ago, really not a fan of this new design. The type in particular is atrocious and the layout just baffles me. It's a shame because although the old site (by Poke) was a bit outdated, it was far better designed & the structure/layout was much clearer.
Mark
2011-08-18 16:54:16

Related reading: Mike Dempsey's look at the history of the Radio Times, charting the shift from amazing illustration to generic portrait photography: http://mikedempsey.typepad.com/graphic_journey_blog/2011/08/sign-of-the-times.html
Daniel
2011-08-18 16:57:05

I have used their site every day for the last 2 years or so, for something like 20 minutes, but the new design just instantly crashed my browser. I doubt they care. Is there anywhere else with a comprehensive UK channel listing that wants my business?
Anna
2011-08-18 21:29:24

It's dreadful. Fonts are awful to read.
Stu
2011-08-18 22:23:15

Nearly 700 people have commented negatively on the new website already-Frankly its really badly designed and makes every mistake in the book-Fussy pretentious slow and confusing.
dom
2011-08-18 23:37:44

'In terms of functionality, regular users of the site will start to find that the site is full of information they're interested, as the site learns what individual users are interested in. "The site also becomes gradually more personal, the more you use it," explains Matt Walton, BBC Magazines' in-house digital team who led the project. "First time users will get recommendations largely led by the editorial team. As you spend time with us we use your interactions - what you follow, ignore and click on - to help us make you recommendations to suit you. We'll drop the editorial selections we know you won't like, in favour of automated suggestions that we think you will. The idea is we don't hit you with personal straight away, but that the site evolves over time and only starts to recommend you things that we know are right."

Not only can Matt Walton not design a website -he cant write either-for shame this man needs a job more suited to his capabilities-Oh and by the way Matt I dont want you second guessing my tastes you intrusive arrogant twit.
dom
2011-08-18 23:43:25

Perhaps it did need a facelift but very much a step backwards for the site, a muddled & uninspiring design that ultimately misses the consumers immediate requirement which is to EASILY identify what programs are on & when they're on.
chrissa
2011-08-19 00:04:14

Hells bells. I'm not normally moved to comment on like/dislike of design, can often get muddy, but I have to agree with Mark, this new version is an absolute mess. I get REM on every page... no sense of hierarchy to the layout, just overwhelming clutter.
Rob
2011-08-19 10:04:37

I agree entirely with Mark. Great job Mark. Not so RT!
Mr G
2011-08-19 10:30:08

Not really feeling the site. The prime use of a TV listings site would be the listings, which are cropped away in an MPU-sized space (incidentally placed in an area where you'd expect to see an MPU), and there doesn't seem to be a clear hierarchy beyond the main feature pod. Not convinced by the need to set the whole site in Interstate either.

Based on the article info it looks like a typical design by committee decision — too much things go on at once in my opinion.
Tom Muller
2011-08-19 13:16:46

It's all over the place. Why not take inspiration from a simple design such as the BBC iplayer site? I can understand they want their own identity sure, but something clear, cohesive and easy to use is surley the foundation of any information retrieval based website?

@Anna, as for comprehensive UK TV freeview listings try http://www.tvcatchup.com/guide.html, as a bonus you can watch the telly online!
Rob
2011-08-19 16:49:20

Certainly if it does learn to know who you are and what you're interested in, I think that's pretty smart. As a new user of the site, I personally am not that impressed to sign up etc.

But seriously Interstate, Georgia and Helvetica... oh and a little bit of Arial Narrow. What's going on?

If you just want listings I tend to use onthebox.com.
ts
2011-08-19 17:35:39

The way to encourage users to view new material is not to alienate them by taking away what they had before.
Philip
2011-08-19 18:17:55

About time too, Radio Times' design was certainly not up with the design times, now they are finally getting there!
Graphic Designer
2011-08-20 18:19:12

Matt Walton is kidding himself if he thinks users will want to stay with such an unpleasant site when there are so many alternative TV guide sites..

His employers, the new owners, need to cut their losses, get rid of him, Metabroadcast and Method, and find themselves a whole new team who will revamp the original site and build additional users instead of driving away the current ones
patj
2011-08-21 12:33:44

The new website is not an improvement. It is harder to see at a glance what time a programme is on, you cannot click on Radio channel to hear it's current output live, and there is a stupid barrier of advertising between the top four or five programmes and the rest. The old layout and functionality was absolutely fine. The new one is dreadful.
David
2011-08-22 01:26:37

I really don't like this - I don't want gossip I want TV listings. This will actually make me spend less time on the site or hopefully find another one and leave it altogether.
Joanna - studiojo
2011-08-23 14:08:16

Nasty!!

Its a total mess.

[comment deleted by moderator]
Paul
2011-08-23 14:29:00

Matt Walton obviously thinks font equals good design- he really does'nt know what hes doing.
ruby
2011-08-25 00:01:50

This certainly looks a lot better than what they had, I think we are going to see a new era of the clean white designs over the next year or two, web 2.0 is going out of fashion.

It's amazing how far things have come though, take their website from 2000 as an example! - http://web.archive.org/web/20000816213457/http://www.radiotimes.com/
Web Design
2011-08-25 15:21:45

This site is a disaster. It's a real chore to actually get through to the listings and see what's on - which is, oddly enough, my main reason for visiting a tv listings site. I buy the paper magazine, but for the past few years I've used the website when it isn't to hand - and this redesign has forced me to find an alternative site. I'm not an expert, but nor am I a novice user - I have a technical background, and this site is to me a holy grail of bad design. I'd call it form-over-function, but it's not even that nice to look at. Fussy and awkward, the whole experience is absolutely horrendous. Yuk.
Andy
2011-08-27 11:18:19

Please revert to the former style. I will be so sad once 30 September comes and we can no longer use the "old" site. The new one is too cluttered and does my head in. As one of the many dyslexics (someone is checking my typing here, thank you friend), it is all too much and addles my poor brain. And what is it with the variety of fonts?!!!! I will try onthebox...
Emma
2011-09-01 16:28:47

Ahhh yes, onthebox, an oasis of calm!
Emma
2011-09-01 16:33:30

Oh my GOD!!

Terry Wogan must be turning in his grave!

;-)
Paul
2011-09-01 17:12:39

I can only agree that the redesign of this site is, pretty much, a disaster on terms of both appearance and functionality. I used to use it on an almost daily basis; I will look elsewhere now.
mark parkin
2011-09-06 20:47:26

This is really awful. I cannot imagine how anybody could have thought that this new site is any sort of improvement on the old one. It's incredibly cluttered, far too much information on the page, ugly font.
What you cannot easily do, is simply find a listing.

Note to Matt: I do not want to "spend longer" with you - why on earth would I? You state: "The traditional use of the Radio Times has been for people to nip in and check what's on TV tonight." - exactly; that is what most people want to do. I do not want to "snack on (our) fabulous news and features.." What a load
of twaddle.

I will not be using this site again. What a classic example of changing something for no other reason that it could be changed - and what a disaster it is. Matt Walton should hang his head in shame.
J R Slater
2011-09-08 19:30:26

I really like the new website, a great improvement! Clear, well designed, easy to use.
Tom Bennett
2011-09-11 20:45:40

I really can't join with all the others who wish to criticize the layout and functions of the site. This is not because I like the new site, it's because it won't stay open on my browser. !
We buy the radiotimes each week, but I frequently turned to the old web site, not only for listings but for film reviews, comments and other links.
I can't do any of this now - the improved site is a non-starter.
John
2011-09-18 17:31:13

The site designed by poke was so much better. I can't believe what has been done here. Such a step backwards.

The creative director at Method seems to think that he was moving the magazine into the digital age but it seems more like he was moving the magazine into the generic_messy_looking_portal_from_ages_ago age.

The typography is horrid. The Hierarchy is a complete mess. Even the simplistic grid is malformed. This makes every mistake in the book in both Graphic Design and Interaction Design terms.

If it only was a mistake while trying to achieve something grand. But no, it is the result of lack luster design capabilities from the parts involved.

This is going to cost this business money. Both method and the person responsible for this inside of the BBC should reconsider their positions as they are clearly not able to deliver.
Designers United
2011-10-04 13:16:57

It's all over the place. I miss more stuff with the new site than I ever did with the old. I just don't trust it any more. Just checked today and it was telling me in the watchlist that The Fades is repeated tonight (not so) and that the live match (kick-off 7:45) is a repeat - erm it's a LIVE match. Was this new site a school project or something?
Michael
2011-10-10 12:27:40

I have always enjoyed the features of radio times, particularly the blogs which are hilarious, but I'm very turned off by the new layout. RT didn't need to try to "encourage people to look at other features of the site, other than the listings page". They already had an established fan base; just reading the comments on the blog pages proves that but now they risk alienating the audience they already had.
L
2011-10-10 23:43:13

They had the best listings site on the web. Now they have one of the worst (on the rare occasions it's actually working). What a waste of money, fixing something that wasn't broken.

D
James David
2011-10-17 09:17:55

Quote from the blurb issued by the nincompoops at RT

"What about my programmes?
We’ve replaced the "Your Programmes" feature with the “watchlist”. The watchlist is easier to use and does more: it allows you to "follow" all of your favourite programmes and films even when they're not airing. And as well as showing you the next time they're on TV or radio, it also highlights where you can watch them on demand.

Because the watchlist works differently from Your Programmes, we can’t easily move your programmes. Again, we've made it very easy to follow your favourites on the new site and hope you’ll find the new watchlist more useful. "

I am not interested in what's' NOT airing, or having some so called smart programme deciding what I like,or gossip, all I want is to be able to do is to browse through a list (not a grid) of my channels, mark what I might want to watch, and print it out on my printer (oh! that's what Your Programmes did!)

Apart from that the new site is a complete MESS.

Suggest RT sack the design team and keep the old website. OK it could do with a spring clean and beautifying, BUT IT WORKED.

If the new site is not replaced I'm off - bye RT - sad to see you go
Mike Awford
2011-11-04 09:43:13

I'm not a big fan of the new design (probably because I'm used to the old one) but even worse, it's just been confirmed that the new Radio Times website will not carry Videoplus codes due to the high cost of the Videoplus licence.
Duncan Hill
2011-12-06 19:23:02

it's a complete and utter mess, as well as being poorly designed, it just doesn't work, pages take an age to load, it's completely user un-friendly and RT were arrogant enough not to include some features from the old site that were the USP's.

Also they committed the cardinal sin of not carrying forward user data onto the new site so people have to sign up again, build new programme lists, etc etc

the old site was meant to close at the end of september but they've carried it on till mid dec as they realise they've made such a piss poor attempt on the new site

All in all - A MASSIVE FAIL

I now see old.radiotimes.com is no longer working

so two fingers to RT, i'm off to digiguide, offers everything the old site did, immensely better listings and search facility (30 days ahead!)

the only thing i'll miss is the old 'my programmes' but hey no one at RT listened to any of the huge amounts of negative feedback so goodbye and good riddance!
digital artist
2011-12-07 19:49:28

Tell us what you think

Your comment: What happens with my feedback?

What happens with my feedback?

We no longer require you to register and have a password in order to comment, simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. CR encourages comments to be short and to the point. As a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.

Name: (required)

Title:

e-Mail: (required)

URL