Signatures 110 total
-
51
Name: Tom Wright on May 23, 2010Comments:Flag
-
52
Name: John Akhtar on May 23, 2010Comments: BBC low graphics was the quickest and most reliable website for getting straight and full information with the quality known to the BBC. The normal website is right but I dislike all the colors, flash, videos that is too much for me. Please at least enable the low-version website.Flag
-
53
Name: Pete Houston on May 23, 2010Comments: The BBC Log Graphics site was a fantastic alternative to the bloat of their main site. It was content-heavy, clear and for the most part well laid out. The "mobile" site is pointless for use on a normal monitor (>=800x600) as all the content is in the left-most 150px. BBC, you had a great service that cost next to nothing to maintain and you've annoyed a significant number of licence fee payers by removing it. Bring it back.Flag
-
54
Name: Anonymous on May 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
55
Name: Anonymous on May 24, 2010Comments:Flag
-
56
Name: Joy Dobmeier on May 25, 2010Comments: New Site does not work very. Hard to navigate.Flag
-
57
Name: John David Keys on May 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
58
Name: Karl Pritchett on May 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
59
Name: Jbandman on May 26, 2010Comments: The mobile site is a joke; given the BBC were planning the low-graphics switch-off they should have prioritised enhancing the mobile site to be its replacement. Please bring back the low-graphics version.Flag
-
60
Name: Dominic Hayes on May 27, 2010Comments: Mobile site NEEDS single sentance summary and MORE news items.Flag
-
61
Name: Anonymous on May 27, 2010Comments: Bring back text only news. Less clicks, quick access, much better than mobile version.Flag
-
62
Name: Bob Thomas on May 27, 2010Comments: I cannot abide the BBC news page - full of useless information. I tried "customizing" the page but it does not remember the settings I made so it appears exactly the same every time - BRING BACK THE LOW GRAPHICS VERSION!Flag
-
63
Name: John Foley on May 27, 2010Comments: One wonders at BBC's ability to comment on politics when they can take the decision to deliberately piss off 2% of their loyal constituency on the basis that it was "only 2%". The low graphics site was clear, logical and concise. It was an excellent synopsis of the main stories. By contrast the main page is a mess.Flag
-
64
Name: David Gobin on May 28, 2010Comments: BRING BACK THE LOW GRAPHICS VERSION!!!Flag
-
65
Name: Barry Anns on May 30, 2010Comments:Flag
-
66
Name: Chris Smith on May 30, 2010Comments: The new mobile interface is very badly considered in its design. The low graphics site was far superior due to the simple text based layout that regular news consumers prefer, the ability to read the content of the main site (not a massivley truncated view of it) and the ability to easily browse into the subsections such as tech/ business/sportFlag
-
67
Name: Paul Iredale on May 30, 2010Comments:Flag
-
68
Name: Laura Woods on May 31, 2010Comments:Flag
-
69
Name: Jusme on Jun 2, 2010Comments:Flag
-
70
Name: Ralph J. Ofuyo on Jun 2, 2010Comments: The site was un-matched!Flag
-
71
Name: Jusme on Jun 2, 2010Comments: When it is not broken, don't fix it!!!! Put the lo-page back on !!! Why do you ppl in charge think ur so smart?Flag
-
72
Name: Johnk on Jun 5, 2010Comments: Maybe I'm just odd, but I considered it a design triumph, with a UI that worked remarkably well on smartphones with relatively small screens. The new mobile version was obviously designed by someone who rarely uses the mobile version (or uses it on one of the large-screen touchscreen phones). I just visited the new mobile site, and the entire (320x240) screen of my phone was taken up with an ad for Luther, a "customise your homepage" option (which won't go away even though I have customised the page), and a search button. That's it. And why turn off the low-graphics version in the first place? Surely it's just another template being fed by a news database? Why remove the option for those of us who use it? Who benefits from that?Flag
-
73
Name: Sam on Jun 5, 2010Comments: Hope the message gets through ....Flag
-
74
Name: Iain on Jun 8, 2010Comments: The low graphics site was very handy for an overview & summary of the day's news stories before clicking to the ones I wanted to read. The new site shows far fewer stories on it's splash page, wastes space with graphics and ads for other BBC content, and takes a lot more clicking through to get the same overview that the low graphics version provided.Flag
-
75
Name: Julia Hargreaves on Jun 9, 2010Comments: I want content - news not graphics. Had a fast connection for years, but always read the low graphics version as it is so much easier to get information from.Flag
-
76
Name: James Annan on Jun 9, 2010Comments:Flag
-
77
Name: I Adored Low Graphics on Jun 10, 2010Comments: I live in a Third World part of the USA. We no longer get broadcast TV or daily newspapers here. I get only 2 decent radio stations-- only one of which carries much news. Many of us similarly situated will never ever have high bandwidth or speed. We are the forgotten 2% of the world now. I used BBC Low Graphics News as my default news source for many years. I was so grateful for access to fast-developing, heart-wrenching stories like the earthquakes, repression of Tibetans and the tsunamis. I was so grateful the BBC had not forgotten people like me. Now, your news stories seem abbreviated and more superficial, as does the Front Page. I much prefer in-depth text, with pictures I can choose to look at if I wish. "Accessibility" should include those of us in remote, rural areas, those of us in poverty and with outdated equipment and connections, and those of us with hunger for real knowledge about the world.Flag
-
78
Name: Neil on Jun 10, 2010Comments: Please restore the Low Graphics version of the BBC News and Sports sites, or at the very least bring the story levels up to parity with the main desktop site. 6 stories per section is not enough!Flag
-
79
Name: Margaret Niehaus on Jun 11, 2010Comments: PLEASE restore the classic "low graphics" news site. It was uncluttered, and gave a very helpful amount of information beyond the headline for each news item. It was my home page and I have found nothing worthy to replace it.Flag
-
80
Name: Andy Owen on Jun 12, 2010Comments: Bring it back beeb I really miss it....Flag
-
81
Name: Peter Huntr on Jun 15, 2010Comments: Please bring the low graphics back. the css layout on text only devices looks absolutely horrible. why force a new solution on us when the old one was not broken. if the css is so good let users decide. bbc news on lynx is terrible.Flag
-
82
Name: Hyperstar on Jun 15, 2010Comments: It is good to have a choice BBCFlag
-
83
Name: Leslie Hanna on Jun 16, 2010Comments: It was clean & fast. Bring it back please.Flag
-
84
Name: Patrick Cain on Jun 18, 2010Comments:Flag
-
85
Name: Anonymous on Jun 22, 2010Comments:Flag
-
86
Name: Karun Roongta on Jun 23, 2010Comments: PLEASE BRING IT BACK . . YOU HAVE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TI CHOOSE .BY TAKING OFF LOW TEXST VERSION . I EPITOMISE BBC AS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF JOURNALISM DON'T TURN IT TO EULOGYFlag
-
87
Name: Stephen Nothnagel on Jun 25, 2010Comments: Browsed this site regularly from my mobile. No 3g were I live (Trinidad and Tobago)... browsing the full site over GPRS is impossible. The new mobile site has completely missed the point... we need less graphics and lighter pages, but NOT less content. The old Low Graphics page had all the news content of the full site but in a mobile friendly package.Flag
-
88
Name: Anonymous on Jun 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
89
Name: Andrew Millman on Jul 3, 2010Comments: I used the low graphics site many times, every day no matter how fast my internet connection, because it was a simple, efficient way to access the news. The full site may be pretty with eye candy, but is painfully cluttered and slow to load, The mobile site is seriously lacking in content and it's menu system is awful by comparison with the low graphics version. Why on earth has the BBC taken such a retrograde step ?Flag
-
90
Name: Jeff Atker on Jul 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
91
Name: Ken Brown on Jul 13, 2010Comments: it's the best site to use on a mobile with non 3G connectionFlag
-
92
Name: Steve Kane on Jul 18, 2010Comments: Please keep it open. Its good for mobile users who don't have an iPhone (i.e. the majority)Flag
-
93
Name: Anonymous on Jul 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
94
Name: David Christensen on Jul 31, 2010Comments: Shame on you BBC for further widening the technology gap that divides the developed from the developing. Please bring back the low graphics version.Flag
-
95
Name: Tim Barnard on Aug 1, 2010Comments: I used the low graphics version both when living in Africa on slow connections and also on my phone in the UK. Like others, having a large number of articles on one page with summaries is much better than the new mobile site.Flag
-
96
Name: Nigel Cain on Aug 6, 2010Comments: I much prefered the low graphics and not because of dial up. It was content driven. The new one is just multimedia crap. They should have the option to turn the graphics off. I hardly use the bbc now.Flag
-
97
Name: Pauly B on Aug 11, 2010Comments: For those of us (ex-pats) in far flung lands where the internet is a very expensive and often slow experience, BBC's low graphics version was a boon to find out what's going on back 'home'. Now I don't even bother looking because of the slow load times and useless videos and ads. Bring it back, and I'll be first at the door!Flag
-
98
Name: Christopher Askin on Aug 14, 2010Comments: AAAHHH BRING IT BACKFlag
-
99
Name: Olivier Avon on Sep 21, 2010Comments: I love the former low-graphics version it was perfect for mobile useFlag
-
100
Name: Heloise Howarth-Moore on Sep 29, 2010Comments: I loved using the low-graphics version...so much quicker with the mobile.Flag