The design of CodeProject has changed over the years, as one would hope and
expect. The design, however, was often a result of expedience over planning and
as such it often became, well, a little haphazard and often more thought was put
into cramming as much as possible on a page instead of thinking about what
should actually be on a page.
A common complaint of the site - in fact, the complaint regarding the
site, was that the look was old, tired, and cramped. You hit the site and you're
bombarded and confused. We loved the old look, though, in the same way a dog
loves it's old, scuffed up shoe that it drags around everywhere. It was comfy. We
knew how it worked. It had everything we needed.
And yet we were looking for a change, and the motivation came from an issue
that many developers share: we were running out of hours in the day and we
needed to cut down on the things we were doing and things we maintained. This
lead us to remove some parts of the site that were not being used by many
members (I'm guessing you probably haven't even noticed their departure) as well
as trimming down the feature sets of other parts to make them simpler to use.
Doing this started us down the track of thinking about what each page was meant
to do, and more importantly, what each page should not do.
We also started focusing on the articles themselves since they are what keeps
us at CodeProject passionate. Safari's "Reader" mode made a big impression on us
since it allows you to focus on the content, not the chrome, and that theme was
one we kept coming back to. Make the content the most important thing on the
page, and give the content room to breath. Fairly simple ideas, and,
conveniently enough, ideas encapsulated in the Metro Design language that
Windows 8 was built on.
A stroll down memory lane
2000, soon after launch
2005 - evolution has occured.
2008 - our biggest redesign
2011 - clearing out some debris
The Design Language Formerly Known As Metro
I'm not a fan of many of the implementations of Metro that I see around. I
caught a glimpse of the CodePlex redesign before it was live and it was
beautiful. However, at launch it seemed to have all character washed out of it,
and noise had crept in. I completely understand the compromises they had to
make, however, and so I started wondering if we could or should do our redesign
using the Metro philosophy.
Our initial requirements were pretty simple
- Obviously CodeProject
- Easy to read
- Everything we need to show goes on the pages.
I explain item 1 by using the example of a developer walking past another
dev's desk. When someone walks past someone else's desk and glances at their
screen, they should know instantly that the page is showing a CodeProject page.
I want to be loud and proud. I do not want another design that is distinguished
from the others only by something such as text link colours.
Item 2 is obvious, but item 3 is where the real work begins, and it involves
some subtleties. Does all content on a page need to actually be visible all the
time? Can it be shown in a flyout or dropdown? Or a tab? Or a click-through?
Where should it be shown - above or below the fold?
An important aspect of item 3 is to place our information in a hierarchy.
Decide what's most important, then next important, and so on down to the least
important. It focuses your thoughts wonderfully.
Articles, obviously, but also our community, discussions and questions and
answers. Articles first, though. Always articles. On the homepage we want
to make it clear what is possible, but it's pointless trying to show off
everything - a mistake we were making in the past. Besides, the homepage is not
the most popular page on the site, the articles are. Readers don't Google or
Bing us (is that a verb yet?) and go to the homepage. They go to an article or a
question. If we need to highlight something then the article page is the place
to do it.
What do we want our readers to do?
Read lots, submit lots of articles, enjoy themselves and click our
advertiser's ads like they are going out of fashion. All very simple, but how do
you achieve this?
The obvious answer is you guide your readers to actions you think will
benefit them (or benefit the site)., but this simple requirement is one I see
ignored on site after site - and we were guilty too. The bible in this regard is
the book Don't Make Me Think,
and so we needed to provide instant guidance for new readers still looking to
get their bearings.
Putting this together our requirements were
- Promote the branding
- Promote the content, reduce noise
- Relax the layout - less cramped = easy to read and find things
- Provide guidance
Take a quick look at the philosophy behind Metro and you see it's based on
two core things:
- Content over Chrome
- The use of negative space (ie whitespace)
Metro is no about tiles. That's an implementation of Metro used on touch
devices. I'm really not a fan of this outside of a touch environment, and having
seen it overused again and again I was initially hesitant to go down the Metro
path. Further, the examples we had seen were washed out and bereft of branding.
If we were going to do this we'd have to stay focused on what we needed, not
what had been done before.
This seemed a fit so we started putting together some wireframes to explore
The first one shows the initial ideas and is, essentially, the direction we
chose to go. There was lots of talk of the links being orange, of the top bar
being too orange, and of the spacing being way too big in comparison to the font
size, but the idea is there: Say what you need to say and no more. Keep it
This then evolved into a more familiar form:
We had some fundamental issues with this. It was laid out nicely, it was
clean, but it was boring. The soul was lacking, and most importantly, it was
giving us a headache trying to read orange on white. The debate raged on and
finally we reached a compromise and moved to dark headings.
On top of this there was a concern that the tiles on the homepage were
exactly what I didn't want: large blocks that really served no purpose other
than to take up screen space. They were adjusted.
However, now the issue was that it was impossible to see which items were
links and which weren't. Eventually blue links were brought back and arrived
where we are today.
The big issues
We've tried redesigning the site a number of times since our last redesign
and they all failed because we were trying to hold on to our old way of doing
things instead of starting with a clean sheet. We were trying to skin instead of
redesign, and that will never solve fundamental information architecture issues.
Once we were down the path to thinking about the content as the primary focus,
and in directing our readers to that content, things fell together very, very
quickly and the biggest issues turned out to be the smallest. What icons do we
use? Do we even use icons? How much padding between articles? What background
colour for the forums? And the biggest headache, what colour for the links.
Below is what we wanted to do. I love it. Absolutely love it. But it gives me
a headache. A grey/orange combo does not shout "fresh" or "read me when you're
tired". It whispers, insidiously, "eye strain". So the compromises happen.
What really changed?
Fundamentally not a lot, but in essence, everything. The homepage saw the
biggest shakeup (or shakeout, really) and the article pages were the most
Progress in pictures
Once the designs were finalised and the mockups submitted it took me 115hrs
over a 9 day period to implement the CSS, layout and backend code changes. I use
.LESS extensively and so took the opportunity to break our monolithic CSS file
into smaller chunks that were more easily manageable. I cannot recommend .LESS
highly enough. It's what CSS should be.
Primary work was done using Firefox /
Firebug, and then Chrome and it's dev tools, and finally IE, especially
Graphics were done using an aging, creaking version of Fireworks (I know, the
shame) and coffee was provided by Te Aro.
Here's small small screen grabs of progress for your amusement.
Initial skinning. Argh. My eyes.
A close to final version showing dim headings and orange links
An initial draft of the new article page. This required a little replumbing,
but considering the extent of the changes there wasn't a huge amount to do on
And a close to final version. Tags still had outlines, the top nav menu was
still being finalised, and heading sizes were going up and down like a yo-yo
that day. Caffeine levels were getting dangerous.
The final screen grab is from 30 mins before launch. For crispness we
wanted dark links so the entire page looked clean and consistent, but in the end
the potential confusion around which links are clickable and which are not
A final word
When designing it was critical that we not only had a firm goal in mind, but
a clear understanding of what we felt was most important. At every step we asked
"do we need this" and actively tried to remove items we felt didn't add value.
This design update is just the beginning of our latest round of changes and
we don't expect this design to settle in comfortably for at least a couple of
months. We'll always find loose ends, and we still have a TODO list of minor
pages and design elements we didn't get a chance to finish. We love your
feedback, especially the "yay, we love it", but we understand it's not to
But we ask you to do this: let it sink in. Give it time.