The real story is their ability to condense the page down to just the essentials which was achieved by concentrating the decision power to a small, capable team, as opposed to a committee of stakeholders. Microsoft has more teams than most other companies who would all like to see their project featured on the homepage. It also has to serve a diverse set of customers who want to buy or need support for any one of their dozens of products. Next time I need to download a Windows driver or skype I'll start my search at Microsoft.com instead of Google.
Microsoft's website is a solid improvement, and glad they are spearheading the responsive design movement amongst corporates.
But when it comes to their stated goals of simplification, it may seem odd that MS continue to promote unwieldy URLs.
Is /default.aspx really necessary? Would the average visitor care about the underlying technology?
This seems unlikely to be a simple oversight, but perhaps it's intended to advertise the .NET brand (at the cost of usability), or maybe legacy reasons.
I always been a huge fan of simplicity in web design. I think for such a huge company, they nailed it.
I know a lot of designers have taken shots at this design, but its not for them - its for the users:
"For the Microsoft.com team to take a calculated risk and pour their understanding of their users into a cleaner, smarter, and modern page, the change had to start with the the source of the, and in my opinion every, problem: People."
Hmmm. The reviews where positive? All designers I know posted on Facebook and elsewhere (I'll try to find the launch thread here on HN which was not very positive either) things like 'He! MS bought a Themeforest theme!' and such. I quite like it I must say, especially the responsiveness (I had to go to some MS service on my Android S2 and actually it looked nice and worked well). But overwhelming positive? Not in the press I read (which has a lot of designers & coders & tech minded people).
So what are these designers actually looking for? The information is well structured (I picked a random Microsoft product or service and I got to their pages in 2 seconds), and the responsiveness is superb (Resized my chrome and they were some really nice transitions). This is a big step forward for them.
The navigation menu is technically really clean and easy to move through. Problem is: click on a link and it's gone.
This nav/subnav system suggests hierarchy, like it's a snapshot of the sitemap. But what it actually is, is a portal. A simple portal to external dedicated websites to almost all their products.
Microsoft has 2 options:
1. make one huge consistent website for all their products
2. make microsoft.com look like what it really is: a portal
His blog design is so responsive. Thats great. But the images get cropped to the width of the screen making it impossible to read the content on WP7:-/
But the images get cropped to the width of the screen making it impossible to read the content on WP7:-/
That's because most people's idea of designing for mobile is "tailor for Webkit and screw (actual web-standards and) anything else".
You learn this quickly and brutally should you ever try to venture on to the open web using Firefox mobile on your Android device. I can't even imagine how little concern has been put into MSIE mobile, given its absolute minescule market-share, and how surfing the mobile web with it would be.
My takeway: Building a good responsive webpage requires significantly more engineering resources and expertise than most people have access to. Just to accomplish one responsive page required a team of engineers experienced in the full front-end stack along with industry experts to lead them.
What if in the near future only large businesses like Microsoft will have the resources to produce responsive websites? What does this mean for small lean startup teams?
Really? I've done one and it's pretty easy if you know how it works and design with the constraints of responsive design in mind.
The hard part is how to redesign ANY large scale website. There are so many stakeholders involved, so many languages/cultures to consider, so many product lines vying for attention, and lots of legacy content to retro-fit or cut.
I think calling this "one responsive page" understates the true size of Microsoft's presence and the difficulties associated with not getting a design-by-committee pile of gunk out the other side[1].
Oh good, now it only takes 24 people to design and implement a page with 'proper' HTML 4/5 + CSS 1/2/3 + JS that is 'responsive'.
I stopped reading A List Apart when it became rather apparent that they either delight in adding more tedious work to a web designers check-list, or just truly seem to think every project needs this many people working on it (or someone with insane mental capacity that can actually do half the stuff they recommend).
The mental overhead involved in modern web design automatically precludes the vast majority of either normal folks, or companies not big enough to have 24 people make a web page.
When we can reduce the effort needed to do this properly, then it'll be worth giving people a pat on the back. Not when it takes 24 people to make a page that works properly on a few devices.
the homepage is beautiful. huge step forward in both design aesthetics and marketing clarity. congrats to all involved.
but as far as i can tell, only the homepage is responsive. this is terrible. i understand that mountains must be moved in order for the full microsoft.com site to change to a single responsive layout, but in the meantime this may actually be a step backward in terms of mobile usability. users are going to be confused as hell navigating through from responsive to desktop and back again.
it's a little premature to celebrate a responsive victory.
"It's easy to dismiss this project by saying, "It's just a page. Big deal." That would miss the point entirely. It would also be entirely inaccurate. The Micrsoft.com ..."
mscom is only the front page and a small subset of what you might think of as "microsoft.com". Each vertical has its own team, servers, and release cadence; it isn't a setup optimized for brand cohesion.
I wanted to take this "Bing it on" challenge that they have banners for all over the site. Clicking it takes me to vanilla bing.com, not a challenge site.
When they rolled out their new logo, and the new site, people were surprised to learn that the old logo was 25 years old. It didn't look 25 years old, and it stuck around because it never looked dated like their other logos.
Now I'm afraid their new logo and branding is repeating the same mistake as their old ones. It looks like a 2012 logo now, and in ten years it will really look like a 2012 logo.
That may be so but I think the time is right for them to put their best foot forward. Things have been moving away from them, so all this recent repositioning comes across as smart. If its wrong later change it later. Iterate, be responsive. I applaud their efforts and newly engaged approach.
I agree, I much prefer the old logo. It stood the test of time and to be honest was much more interesting without being garish. The new logo just looks plain, boring, and forgettable.
I really don't see how this design is any good. It's indeed better than their older designs. And how can anybody classify a design as being good when the central pieces of it are stock photos with a cheap feel and that just take up space?
I mean what's up with that girl on the front page, holding a butt ugly big and old laptop? Or the fellows who climb a mountain, which is somehow representative of Visual Studio - could they have picked a worse or less representative clique?
And of course, in every design I've ever seen on Microsoft.com showing people that look as if they are on crack while holding a laptop, it's mandatory for them to show at least one black/interracial dude at all times, even if the pictures are auto-rotating. Not that I have a problem with that, but they are so consistent in this policy that it reeks of design by committee and corporate policies.
Compare this to Apple.com ... one big picture of their newest product, one big title, clear as crystal top menu, 3 thumbnails of videos, either to keynote speeches, promos or Jonathan Ive.
Treating execution (engineering) like a small treat and highlighting "ideas" (the marketing team) as the main goal is a bad idea.
Execution (as in engineering) is the art.
As someone once said: "It's not an algorithm. It's not "idea" in, "product" out."
First problem is this;
"An engineering team implements the actual solutions that are designed by a group of marketers and designers; among other things, Pita's team oversees the proper execution of the projects."
Get rid of the different teams. Hire engineers that know marketing/copy writing and design. And get rid of the "management" and "overseeing" portions. If you're not executing, you're not doing.
Best quote.
"Oh good, now it only takes 24 people to design and implement a page with 'proper' HTML 4/5 + CSS 1/2/3 + JS that is 'responsive'."
The new microsoft.com. I went through the hover menu and went for "See all products". Then instead of showing me the page I asked for, it asked me to sign up, with no way to go back.
I went back and tried again. Impossible to access the page I requested without signing up.
Too bad. I've been a happy Linux user for the past 10 years but I'm always curious about what others have to offer. They don't want me to see, fine. Sorry Microsoft, I won't sign up, I won't see your product, and you lost me again for the next 10 years.
Just as you did with the new outlook.com, by asking me to either {0} [1] or give my phone number.
Wait, because you encountered a bug (that no one else has replicated), you are putting off Microsoft products for another 10 years? No offense, but that seems like a silly reaction.
I see nothing of the sort, and I'm not logged into Live. When I select any of the 'See all products' from the Products hover menu I either get the product suite's landing page, or the Site Map [1]. Is this possibly a regional issue?
A decade ago when I studied usability, we were taught Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions, and how we should design a UI that is appropriate for users in specific locations.
I would like to understand what process followed when designing the new site that will be accessed by anyone in the world. Did the project team do User Experience testing? If there was testing, did this happen at local office level?
I despise "responsive design". For years, web sites worked great on my iPhone, iPad and laptop. More and more often, I'm getting web sites that are nearly unusable on my iPhone as they become "responsive".
While I appreciate making bigger touch targets and lighter-weight images, I really like being able to scroll around horizontally and vertically, zoom in on stuff I want to see details of, zoom out and get an overview, etc., and as soon as you make your design responsive, I lose that.
people seem to be discussing the new site, but what i liked about the post was the really good write up on the team dynamics involved in the site redesign. it sounds significantly more functional (non-dysfunctional?) than most stories coming out of microsoft.
[+] [-] Lukeas14|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nostromo|13 years ago|reply
Hilariously, there is no link to download Skype. Click on the "downloads" tab, and it prompts you to download a webcam (?!) for $35.
[+] [-] wamatt|13 years ago|reply
But when it comes to their stated goals of simplification, it may seem odd that MS continue to promote unwieldy URLs.
Is /default.aspx really necessary? Would the average visitor care about the underlying technology?
This seems unlikely to be a simple oversight, but perhaps it's intended to advertise the .NET brand (at the cost of usability), or maybe legacy reasons.
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|13 years ago|reply
I know a lot of designers have taken shots at this design, but its not for them - its for the users:
"For the Microsoft.com team to take a calculated risk and pour their understanding of their users into a cleaner, smarter, and modern page, the change had to start with the the source of the, and in my opinion every, problem: People."
[+] [-] tluyben2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] why-el|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbx|13 years ago|reply
This nav/subnav system suggests hierarchy, like it's a snapshot of the sitemap. But what it actually is, is a portal. A simple portal to external dedicated websites to almost all their products.
Microsoft has 2 options:
It's really confusing.[+] [-] yread|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Livven|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josteink|13 years ago|reply
That's because most people's idea of designing for mobile is "tailor for Webkit and screw (actual web-standards and) anything else".
You learn this quickly and brutally should you ever try to venture on to the open web using Firefox mobile on your Android device. I can't even imagine how little concern has been put into MSIE mobile, given its absolute minescule market-share, and how surfing the mobile web with it would be.
[+] [-] dreamdu5t|13 years ago|reply
What if in the near future only large businesses like Microsoft will have the resources to produce responsive websites? What does this mean for small lean startup teams?
[+] [-] IanDrake|13 years ago|reply
The hard part is how to redesign ANY large scale website. There are so many stakeholders involved, so many languages/cultures to consider, so many product lines vying for attention, and lots of legacy content to retro-fit or cut.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
1. http://www.dustincurtis.com/dear_dustin_curtis.html
[+] [-] windle|13 years ago|reply
I stopped reading A List Apart when it became rather apparent that they either delight in adding more tedious work to a web designers check-list, or just truly seem to think every project needs this many people working on it (or someone with insane mental capacity that can actually do half the stuff they recommend).
The mental overhead involved in modern web design automatically precludes the vast majority of either normal folks, or companies not big enough to have 24 people make a web page.
When we can reduce the effort needed to do this properly, then it'll be worth giving people a pat on the back. Not when it takes 24 people to make a page that works properly on a few devices.
[+] [-] jimsilverman|13 years ago|reply
but as far as i can tell, only the homepage is responsive. this is terrible. i understand that mountains must be moved in order for the full microsoft.com site to change to a single responsive layout, but in the meantime this may actually be a step backward in terms of mobile usability. users are going to be confused as hell navigating through from responsive to desktop and back again.
it's a little premature to celebrate a responsive victory.
[+] [-] shuw|13 years ago|reply
As far as I can see, Microsoft.com is an improvement on a single page. I would be far more impressed if the changes extended across the site.
[+] [-] eternalban|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RyJones|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] parasubvert|13 years ago|reply
In the Canadian region:
1. There are typos (Under Products hover, "Business Solutions" heading, there's a link "Microsoft in the [sic] eneterprise").
2. There are 404s (Under Products hover, "See all products" goes to a 404 page).
Just seems rather amateurish for such a big website, but then again, Canada is only the population count of California.
[+] [-] panacea|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcromartie|13 years ago|reply
Now I'm afraid their new logo and branding is repeating the same mistake as their old ones. It looks like a 2012 logo now, and in ten years it will really look like a 2012 logo.
[+] [-] evolve2k|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MartinCron|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bad_user|13 years ago|reply
I mean what's up with that girl on the front page, holding a butt ugly big and old laptop? Or the fellows who climb a mountain, which is somehow representative of Visual Studio - could they have picked a worse or less representative clique?
And of course, in every design I've ever seen on Microsoft.com showing people that look as if they are on crack while holding a laptop, it's mandatory for them to show at least one black/interracial dude at all times, even if the pictures are auto-rotating. Not that I have a problem with that, but they are so consistent in this policy that it reeks of design by committee and corporate policies.
Compare this to Apple.com ... one big picture of their newest product, one big title, clear as crystal top menu, 3 thumbnails of videos, either to keynote speeches, promos or Jonathan Ive.
[+] [-] seivan|13 years ago|reply
Execution (as in engineering) is the art.
As someone once said: "It's not an algorithm. It's not "idea" in, "product" out."
First problem is this;
"An engineering team implements the actual solutions that are designed by a group of marketers and designers; among other things, Pita's team oversees the proper execution of the projects."
Get rid of the different teams. Hire engineers that know marketing/copy writing and design. And get rid of the "management" and "overseeing" portions. If you're not executing, you're not doing.
Best quote. "Oh good, now it only takes 24 people to design and implement a page with 'proper' HTML 4/5 + CSS 1/2/3 + JS that is 'responsive'."
[+] [-] vhf|13 years ago|reply
I went back and tried again. Impossible to access the page I requested without signing up.
Too bad. I've been a happy Linux user for the past 10 years but I'm always curious about what others have to offer. They don't want me to see, fine. Sorry Microsoft, I won't sign up, I won't see your product, and you lost me again for the next 10 years.
Just as you did with the new outlook.com, by asking me to either {0} [1] or give my phone number.
[1] http://i.imgur.com/auM4J.png
[+] [-] jonny_eh|13 years ago|reply
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/products
[+] [-] lotso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cydonian_monk|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/sitemap.aspx
[+] [-] gokulk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lukeas14|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaidmo|13 years ago|reply
I would like to understand what process followed when designing the new site that will be accessed by anyone in the world. Did the project team do User Experience testing? If there was testing, did this happen at local office level?
[+] [-] tomelders|13 years ago|reply
Images that look like crap, and layouts that only work some of the time isn't normal... but with responsive designs it is.
I don't know what the answer it. But I know responsive design isn't it. Or at least, it's not the answer we should settle for.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
While I appreciate making bigger touch targets and lighter-weight images, I really like being able to scroll around horizontally and vertically, zoom in on stuff I want to see details of, zoom out and get an overview, etc., and as soon as you make your design responsive, I lose that.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rossjudson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zem|13 years ago|reply