Bond By Design

Dan Thornton beat me to it.

Most communities hate brand new interfaces. It’s too new!

If you get past the hate, they might grow to love it. But that’s a risky ‘if’.

The solution is simple, have a small budget (or a talented volunteer) to make a smaller improvement every month. Let members vote on what they want improved. It keeps the design fresh without risking the backlash.

Comments

[jenx67]

Does this refer to relaunching newly designed Web sites? Is that what you mean by new interfaces? I remember reading a couple years ago that the "go live" date of a new Web site was passe. Customers/users like small changes introduced over a long period of time.

[Pace]

What I've often found, especially with sites with registered members, is that the users complain about the changes but then they get used to them and even start liking them.

So another way to solve the supermarket problem is to do things that make your users stick. They can be as small as a username and password or as large as a tribe of like-minded people that the user would miss if they left. Then you can make larger changes and your users will stick around even if they grump about it.

Marketers know that people don't always want what they think they want. (:

[Tabitha "Tabz" Smith]

This was -so- true of a couple message boards I was a power user on. So much so that the last redesign sent most of us away.

[Richard Millington]

Jen, I'm not sure it's entirely redundant. I would say that all websites should be continually in development.

Pace: I think you're entirely right. Sometimes, like Facebook, people do get used to them pretty quick. It's the same with a lot of things. But it's still a risk, in the meantime someone might create an interface looking and working remarkably similar to the ones you have. They might take all your members.

Tabitha: Would anything convince you to go back?

[Mary@SimplyForties]

One thing I have noticed is that when the site owner comes out and says they've made a big change and asks for feedback, it seems to give the readers some sense of ownership in the change. They look, they comment, they don't seem to mind as much.

[Tabitha "Tabz" Smith]

If the website owner/admin would invite us back and install some moderation. The couple times I returned there was so much vile for the older people who had left it was appalling. :)

[Stephen]

Doing changes gradually is a very good idea. Especially in the blogging world where themes can be changed like clothing if you desire. I experienced this when I switched to a more magazine format on my site, at first people complained. I listened to what specifically they didn't like and worked with them, now I think everybody is happy.

[ChangeForge]

Very solid idea... This way members feel as though the platform is progressing and there is hope their vote will be heard...

In my humble opinion, it is important to keep hope alive and allow others to see what they want in your product/brand. This does not mean you should underwrite haphazard brand creation - however, it is extremely important to consider connotations of your brand as well as be inclusive to your expected participants/customers.

[Dan Thornton]

Cheers for the link!

I agree both with the approach of making small incremental changes, or letting the community get as much ownership of the website development as much as possible.

Both are capable of reducing the fear of change.

But what I also wanted to highlight is that even the best possible approach in the world will still meet with some resistance and negativity - that doesn't mean you shouldn't make a big change if it's what is required, but that you shouldn't allow anyone to overreact if there is a small percentage of negativity.

It's when things like website analytics become very important to highlight that the hopefully small number of complaints might be contradicted by a huge number of silent people who are happy with the changes.

[Richard Millington]

Thanks Dan. Your wisdom is certainly always welcome here.

The spiral of silence theory is very relevant. The people who don't comment negatively might be far more appreciative than the people that do.