BBC Mixed Bag

I wasn’t a fan of the beta, and had that have been the version they released, I would have been equally up in arms. However, they choose the Beta route, and by the looks of it actually used feedback from that to really iterated upon that initial design, to the much improved version we see today.

I congratulate the BBC on the work they’ve here (and on the iPlayer too, which is equally beautiful and functional, and frankly, just plain cool.)

I agree with you on the font sizes although I think I have bigger concerns about the choice of font. Why on earth have they chosen Verdana? Whilst it works well as a body font (it was designed for screen use after all), for headings it is entirely inappropriate, and very un-BBC like. I also note that on the newer sites that the Beeb is rolling out based on this design, they are using Helvetica - so why the difference? Very strange.

However, I think your comments about lack of detail are a bit odd - I think they have obviously spent an enormous amount of time on the details. The pop-ups with the thick transparent borders, the drag-and-drop ‘zone’ design, the colour palettes, the various module options - so much better than the beta, and I would happily use ‘finesse’ to describe these changes.

As to the feature tabs changing the whole page colour, I whole-heatedly agree. However, have you tried customising the page? Upon doing so, this behaviour is corrected, and the page remains your selected colour choice throughout.

Whilst I originally thought that this design slightly dumbed down the BBCs image, when you compare it to the previous home page, it think it greatly enhances it. I think all that’s missing is perhaps headings using Gill Sans or such like, but still I would say it is a very professional outcome. Yes true, it is based on current online design trends, so hopefully they are intending to keep the design current, rather than let it date as previous versions have. I would definitely like to see this page evolve, rather than stagnate as before.

On fixed width, I can see your points (especially having seen my Dad complain that the site doesn’t fit inside his 800×600 window anymore).

But as you well know, creating and then maintaining a fluid width design is Expensive with a capital E (so not really suited to the publicly funded BBC). An alternative may have been to have two versions, based on your screen width. This is what ABC.com.au did, and works really well.

I love your ideas for further functionality, and such ideas may be in the works (I know they are talking about bringing the iPlayer to this page - a logo just sits there at the moment). However, you can’t make such a big change AND force upon people all this extra functionality, as it would get lost. Plus, it makes sense to launch these things in a more phased manor, so as to allow your web team a moment to get some sleep!

Finally, I’m really not sure why you posted your two mocks up in the state of completion that they are in currently, as they don’t help convey your ideas. They look like two separate designs actually as opposed to a proposal for an adaptive width solution. Furthermore - how would that feature graphic stretch to fit the page width - the problem you are trying to solve…

“I have to applaud the BBC who have been pioneers of pushing new web media web services”

You What ? The BBC has only been pushing the internet because TV viewing figures have been in the decline for the past 10yrs. They know the internet is the future and so have pushed hard hoping for the TV Licence to be replaced with an internet licence. The only people to benefit from this will be the liberal/left. The trouble is they know their a small minority as the opinion polls show in regards to the abolition of the BBC TV Licence

@Paul -

First, Thanks for your comments (if nothing else, they highlight the need for a re-design comments box - this current one is much too restrictive on large comments!).

You’re totally right about the choice of font, something I should have spotted and pointed out. This lack of detail here by the BBC is indeed weird.

Sorry mate, but I just don’t agree that you could ever describe this design as having ‘finesse’. Things like the drag-and-drop zones, pallets and borders are basic, simple things that should have been right even in the beta. This is the BBC we’re talking about here, not some 1 man band web developer with a passing interest in jquery.

As for my designs - I do take your point. However, I have no time to work on these any more, so it was a choice whether to post these in their current state, or not at all. Perhaps the wrong choice, but I’ll stand by it.

Thanks again for your comments dude, as always - welcome input.

@ John -

“The BBC has only been pushing the internet because TV viewing figures have been in the decline for the past 10yrs.”

…erm, yeah? Isn’t that kind of the point.

The fact that the BBC have recognized that transmission is dead and on-demand is the future, for the past 10 years, is the mark of pioneer in my view!

The fall in viewing figures simply reflects the trend for general TV habits. I have many friends who don’t watch ‘TV’ rather choosing to rely on on-demand services.

If the BBC weren’t producing some great output then I’d agree with you, but the fact they are suggests that rather than pushing none-transmission services as a knee-jerk reaction to falling viewing figures they have done this with foresight. For which I applaud them.

Thanks for your comments.

John - given your linking to the anti TV licensing site, I would imagine you would be up in arms with anything the BBC would do.

Before you start to advocate such an absurd cause, I ask you to live in the US for a time, and see how commercial television has lowed the quality bar, and how PBS struggles to get any funding, both from it’s government, and it’s viewers.

I therefore suspect your support of the abolition of the licence fee is down to purely commercial interests, or maybe a purely selfish interest in saving money.

I dread to imagine a country without publicly funded broadcasters, if only from looking at what is currently out there, and a glimpse at would would surely come.

I agree that the BBC spends far too much money on unnecessary projects, indeed I advocate the reduction in the number of digital only television and radio stations it has launched (only then to complain of funding shortages), but I think in this particular case they are spot on. As Jon rightly points out, the transfer of viewers to internet based transmission is coming, and the BBC would be remiss to ignore that.

hear hear.

Paul Lloyd I’m up in arms because I live in the 21st century but have a small minority trying to force the majority into paying for their liberal/left mouth piece.

Your comments about US TV are rather absurd because they have some of the best TV in the world and most of the programming I watch is US made (my CHOICE)

The problem with you people is you will always play the PSB card but when asked what the PSB actually is you tend to ignore the question because CH4 & ITV also fill this area for FREE.

Jon Roobottom, no that isn’t the point because they should tell them the FREE ride is coming to an end and that they should either go with adverts (which they do via the backdoor now) or subscription where all those people who think the BBC is the best thing since sliced bread can pay for it.

Tell me people why do you people think you have a god given right to extract the urine out of the British public. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again we no longer live in the time of 3/4 channels and so please pay for your own entertainment.

Hi John, thanks for your heartfelt (if not somewhat angry) comments.

Firstly to say that I now get your point, and it’s a valid one that no-doubt many people in Britain will agree with - Why should we pay a premium for something that is free (although full of adverts) elsewhere?

Well, for me it’s not just a question of quantity, it’s a question of quality. But you’re right, without being given the choice, a lot of people are simply abandoning TV all together to avoid spending money on a service 95% of which they don’t use.

I’m rather torn on this question, for me the BBC produces high quality output, but I can see that people would happily not watch BBC programming to avoid the license fee.

Anyone else got a point of view on this?

“But you’re right, without being given the choice, a lot of people are simply abandoning TV all together to avoid spending money on a service 95% of which they don’t use.”

Correct and I (amongst many others) have long suspected the BBC knows the click is ticking which is why they are pushing for an Internet Licence.

Below is a quote from the BBC website,

“If we saw, over time, that some people stopped receiving live broadcasts at all, stopped paying their licence fee, but continued to consume televison programmes, solely on-demand through the iPlayer (or other players), then we might have to consider talking to the Government about Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, so that they can then consider whether on-demand tv viewing might be brought within its aegis.”

“I’m rather torn on this question, for me the BBC produces high quality output”

But that’s just your opinion Jon because many love the shows on ITV, CH4 and Ch5. The BBC is just an overgrown dinosaur that’s served its purpose. I’m sure you have heard all “we need more money” etc from the BBC but guess what their going now,

Yes the BBC is putting a bid in for the Champions League even though it’s already shown on terrestrial TV. Now what’s PSB about spending £400 MILLION of taxpayer’s money on this when they’re supposed to be skint?.

It’s time to open the coffin and nail the lid shut on this antique.

(edited by Jon for link styles)

i John. You have some valid (if not emotive) arguments, so let me try and respond to these in as much detail as I can.

Firstly let me say, as I have already, I don’t for a minute think the BBC is perfect or exempt from any criticism. In fact being owned by the public it has a greater duty to those it serves and answer such criticism. I’ve believed for a long time that it is in need of more serious reform than those that have been proposed so far (i.e. making the organisation far bigger than it needs to be, at the cost of quality), and I think there is every reason to campaign against these excesses. £400 million for the Champions League is far too much, and the BBC shouldn’t be bidding for this (however, please ask yourself why these rights are so costly in the first place – you may arrive at a surprising answer).

But I have to disagree with your warped idea that an advertising supported BBC is one that would improve the (already descendant) television landscape in the UK. In fact, doing so would probably be the final nail in the coffin that this country seems all to ready to cart itself off in.

You make an good point about Channel 4, which is a publicly owned broadcaster supported by advertising (I wouldn’t class ITV on the other hand as a PSB, although it does have to meet certain public remits – if not begrudgingly – such as regional content and amount of news coverage). But Channel 4, was set-up to provide focused programming for minorities, be they based on disability, religion or colour, but I ask you to show me where that content is? Instead we have those ‘excellent’ US imports, and Big Brother. If it wasn’t for it’s public stewardship, I’m sure the intelligent programming that does remain would have disappeared along time ago also.

As to your assertion that the US has some of the best TV in the world, let me just put that into perspective. The programming that we import accounts for a very small percentage of the overall output from its channels. These shows appear between 8-10pm every night, yet what surrounds it, is of a much lower quality (i.e. news programming, which is often sensationalist rather than constructive). Some of the best shows that come from the US aren’t actually shown free-to-air, but on subscription channels such as Showtime and HBO, meaning those on lower incomes aren’t able to afford it. So whilst the US may export some of biggest and most popular comedy and drama franchises, these are not representative of the entire broadcast landscape in that country. I’m talking from experience by the way, having lived there for the last 18 months.

Now, to my fundamental problems with your suggestion on scrapping the licence fee:

1. When you start to bring advertising into the mix, you start to get programming that is designed to be viewed by the demographics your advertisers are trying to attract. This tends to be younger (18-30) audiences (disposable incomes) or those with higher income. A such, you start to ‘lock out’ other groups of people, as there is less advertising money for these demographics.

2. On hitting a format that appeals to these segments of society, a commercial broadcaster becomes less innovative and resistant to trying new programming (the shear amount of reality based programming on commercial channels is evidence enough of this fact).

3. When your business is not guaranteed an income, and is reliant on your advertisers, you start to get a number of side effects when this funding decreases:
- You show more advertising
- You try and cut costs (cue imported television programmes and the influx of US programmes you talk of). Acute evidence of this trend is in children’s television. The BBC shows a greater percentage of home grown and European produced shows, opposed to ITV, Nickeloen etc., which have a heavy US bias. In fact, I think ITV no longer has it’s own children’s department (it used to be based in Birmingham). I can only assume retaining UK-based jobs is not an important consideration in your point of view?

The overall effect of having an ad-supported service is essentially an inability to cater to minorities, or special interests, and reflect a nations own values and ideals - and that is the whole point of public-service broadcasting.

Of course this is paradoxical.

To ensure this public service is seen as providing value to the licence payer, it needs to compete with the commercial broadcasters and not be seen as catering just for the minorities (which is an area you seem to have little concern about). It’s for that reason the BBC finds itself showing similar shows to that of ITV.

Having said that, would ITV have tried Ice Skating if the BBC hadn’t embraced Ballroom Dancing - both minority interests. I think not.

Another example is when the BBC competed against PopIdol, with Fame Academy. Whilst ITV’s format was purely focused on the emotional aspects, the twists and turns of this talent show, the BBCs alternative provided a greater insight into the music industry, and actually sort to find multi-talent artists. They also set up a bursary that is still running and supports young musicians (http://www.bbc.co.uk/fameacademybursary/). Where have the proceeds of PopIdol gone?

Then there is news coverage. Why has ITV brought back News at Ten, a programme they all but abandoned? You need look no further than the BBC who took that slot and showed it could work, and appeal to a large percentage of the audience.

Finally, if it was up to people to have the ‘choice’ on whether they wanted to pay for the BBC or not - i.e. the BBC became a subscription service - you wait and see how much choice you end up with. Look at the 100’s of channels on satellite today and show me the choice there. I’m sure there is some minority programming that isn’t publicly funded, but when was it made, where was it made, and of what quality is it? Of the other content available commercially, how much of it is original (i.e. not a repeat)?

Where are the commercially funded national radio stations for Black and Asian minorities? Where is the commercially funded equivalent to the World Service? How much regional programming is there left on ITV? How many hours of politics does ITV show? How much religious programming is available on Channel 5? What time is The South Bank Show shown? How much content on ITV is preceded with ‘Celebrity…’?

These are the questions I ask myself as I weigh up whether the BBC deserves to be funded by the public.

We are obviously on two sides of the argument here John, and I suspect neither of us will change our stance. But you have yet to give me any reason to agree with your core proposition, aside from it means you wouldn’t have to pay to watch the television.

And as to being liberal, if by that you mean ‘open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others’ then I happily except that label you have given me.