Some thoughts on the Salon redesign apology: Jason Levine points out that most sites don’t, in fact, apologize for their pathetic redesigns, and that’s true. A few sites that did do that sprung to my mind yesterday, but I can think of lots of bad redesigns that didn’t involve apologies from the sites. This seems to happen an awful lot with newspaper sites, I don’t think the Washington Post or the LA Times ever apologized for their miserable redesigns, even though they should have. A friend also wrote to say that Yahoo does make changes to their interface gradually, so they’re not really a “never redesign” site. Yahoo is always adding links and features to their site, but the look and feel of their site is fundamentally unchanged since it was launched, or at least it feels that way to me (I’d like to see a screen shot of the original Yahoo). Perhaps that’s the hallmark of good stewardship of a Web site, changes to the site are small and helpful so that the users never have jarring experiences upon returning to the site.
TheGEEK.org offers a bad solution to a serious problem. The problem is, as the author puts it, the “IE-ification” of the the Web. There are more and more pages that just don’t work right in Netscape, and these pages can be a powerful incentive to move to IE, which is just what Microsoft would like. Some pages just adhere to published standards that Netscape doesn’t support, and that’s fine (but annoying). Other pages use Microsoft’s proprietary crap — these are the problem. The author suggests that a new browser should be created that hews as closely to IE as possible and runs on Unix. I think this is a bad idea, because it supports the idea that Microsoft dictates Web standards. We don’t want that. This is an interesting reflection of the problem we had a few years ago when Netscape dictated all the Web standards. That was a bad situation, too.