How should news sites handle dissatisfied and grumpy readers after going through the rigours of a major redesign?

Here’s how two major organisations handled it.

Google News, which recently introduced major design changes, oriented mostly towards better personalisation, gave back readers a bit of what they wanted: "…some of you wrote in to say you missed certain aspects of the previous design, such as the ability to see results grouped by section (U.S., Business, etc.) in two columns….We made the option to switch between List view and Section view more obvious. And today we’re adding a third option in ‘News for you’….," said a post in the Google News Blog, responding to feedback.

Categorizing reader responses and deciding on the ones that warrant a design rethink is a tough task, for the responses could be based on idiosyncratic expectations or reflect real problems being encountered by users. Feedback survey forms are often used after redesigns, but the one Google News used, I thought, was pretty well structured in terms of defining user experience inputs.

The BBC, which also went for a major redesign, came up with a detailed FAQ explaining the changes and posts on the BBC Editors blog went into the rationale behind them. Again FAQs are not uncommon after a redesign, but the BBC went to some lengths to cover a lot of ground. The FAQs have been updated many times over, but in a post today the BBC blog said: "Most of you commenting here on the Editors blog have been critical, with many urging us to change the design back to the way it was. … Reverting to the old design is not something we’re considering, but building and continuing to improve on the changes we’ve made certainly is."

There is yet another (perhaps, very demanding) way of going about it: the Chicago Tribune made use of a platform provided by a third-party social support application to individually address issues raised by readers after a redesign in 2009.

Instant feedback is a double-edged sword: it provides invaluable insights into how the redesign is working (or not), but at the same time websites are responsible for convincing readers that their views have been taken seriously and that at least some of their concerns are being addressed. Emotion cannot be de-linked from design and that makes this task even more difficult.

Food for thought:

- A balance has to be struck between the feedback of a vocal minority and the covert reactions of a silent majority - who may not want to spend time discussing the redesign.

- Should redesigns be set in stone? How far should a site go in rolling back changes - notwithstanding the hours of user testing and studies that have gone into the redesign.

- A well structured feedback form could be pretty useful in generating actionable input.

- Detailed explanations help in getting readers to understand the rationale behind the changes and mollifying them - but is that good enough?

- Metrics can point to broad trends in user reaction to the redesign. - Meaningful and specific questions that are worth answering should be answered.

- Running a beta site is an option.

- Should a community platform be used to address issues on an individual basis?

Here are some related posts:

 BBC presents screenshots of site redesign, unveils new look; to launch US, Cananda edition

Google News redesign - how far do the changes go?

Incremental vs radical redesign of news sites - which is better?  Usability expert Jakob Nielsen had in an Alertbox column last year said that "users hate change, so it’s usually best to stay with a familiar design and evolve it gradually." …. Read on

Getting the readers going duirng a news site redesign It’s important to find ways of introducing readers to a major news site redesign: not only do they have to come to terms with it but also be motivated to provide feedback on it. …. Read on