> There's no easy back peddling from a year of development. It may be crap, but they put so much time & effort into it they can't turn back now - even if a lot of users hate it. They're also working more on becoming an Advertising platform, and this redesign allows for more flexibility there, like linkedin's auto-play videos when scrolling into view.
Yes there is - you call it what it is, a failed Epic. Pivot and see what you can salvage before moving on.
As for the why did this change / previous design wasn't broken - you're abstracting away the interface and systems from the careers which built them. We must endure constant change to allow new generations space to fail and grow. A cynical perspective would say that careers aren't made through maintenance work.
We must endure constant change to allow new generations space to fail and grow.
I call BS. I know for a fact that policies of strict continuity can be maintained, because I've done it -- that you can implement radical architectural change without rocking the boat and without throwing the users/UX under the bus. The fact that we, as a field, aren't aware of this just goes to show how "half a field" programming still is.
Users and UX somewhere will be thrown under the bus. The question is - will it be a heavily used multi-million dollar valuation site, or will it be a rarely-used development site?
A big part is the blur between toy and product. We disregard end-users as "sheeple" while simultaneously receiving gratification from their auth count.
Users and UX somewhere will be thrown under the bus.
I call BS. If you're moving to a new UI framework, these are usually powerful enough to emulate the old UI. Getting the new framework to feel as snappy as the old UI is a very good benchmark for performance as well as for feature parity. (They usually have more features, but there might be some corner-case overlooked.)
The question is - will it be a heavily used multi-million dollar valuation site, or will it be a rarely-used development site?
Management sometimes will decide that it isn't worth the effort, and sometimes that will be the right call. But for a user-oriented site, high value should be placed on the user.
Yes there is - you call it what it is, a failed Epic. Pivot and see what you can salvage before moving on.
As for the why did this change / previous design wasn't broken - you're abstracting away the interface and systems from the careers which built them. We must endure constant change to allow new generations space to fail and grow. A cynical perspective would say that careers aren't made through maintenance work.