We think that Stadium's output deserves a bit of love in this regard and we've been working on a couple of skins for future releases. Take a look at these and let us know what you think.
 |
| Simple blue |
 |
| Inside the Stadium |
 |
| Minimal black |
 |
| Shiny black |
Monday, 16 May 2011
A new look for Stadium
One of the things that impacts people's experience of a piece of software is the product's appearance. In fact, a lot of studies have shown that people tend to think that beautiful things work better.
We think that Stadium's output deserves a bit of love in this regard and we've been working on a couple of skins for future releases. Take a look at these and let us know what you think.
We think that Stadium's output deserves a bit of love in this regard and we've been working on a couple of skins for future releases. Take a look at these and let us know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the Inside the Stadium look!!!
ReplyDeleteSimple blue for me
ReplyDeleteIf the time to load the pages are all the same, I perfer the 'Inside the Stadium' look
ReplyDeleteI prefer Simple Blue
ReplyDeleteI love the shiny black but it would be a bit of a culture shock to many user communities. The simple blue is probably the safest option. I assume that being skins we wont be limited to one only and would have access to a range of skins to select from.
ReplyDeleteLove the simple blue, but if we could have maybe the functionality to create our own templates and safe them. That would be awesome. Thank you :)
ReplyDeleteI also like the 'Inside the Stadium' the most
ReplyDeleteI also like simple blue and inside the stadium, definately not shiny black.
ReplyDeleteI agree if we could create our own skins that would be great, because at nedbank everything has to be green
I think simple blue is the safest option aswell.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a good idea to let the analyst define the colour though, like having a colour wheel/ box for RGB colour values to replace the 'blue'. This will work well because clients can be quite fussy when it comes to colour matching stadium to their corporate colours.
I also agree with having the option to create your own skin. That would be great!
Great job.
Simple Blue I think with the option to define colour.
ReplyDelete'n Klip in die bos . . . knowing I'm going to get slaugthered . . . from a self confessed I-hate-front-ends person . . .
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need to customize the colour scheme and logos in our STADIUM applications so extensively? If a company normally buys an application regardless of the vendor, that application comes with the colour scheme and branding of the product, not of the client.
Do we change the colouring and branding of Central Park and Bank Recon on client implementations? I would think we should not do it.
So, when we build a STADIUM application - yes, it's customized for the clients needs (functionality wise), but we are still delivering a product developed by us - so the option to give a specific identifier for the product (application/product name and product logo only should be enough - to my opinion having a logo at the top that says "MyCompanyName" does not make sense, hopefully the users know they work for "MyCompanyName" and they know the colours of the company) is useful as we create different products using STADIUM. But shouldn't the look and feel of all STADIUM applications be similar with STADIUM-branding and not client-specific branding?
We are providing our product to the client. We need to ensure that all STADIUM applications have some basic info for our marketing, i.e. users must know it is a STADIUM product and it is developed by us. Why? Because we want to expand and grow the product. The best way for this is by users of our products. The users must see every day when they log in, this is STADIUM, this is a Twenty57 product, this is developed by DIGIATA.
So, I am basically asking - don't we focus on the wrong thing here? We should focus on our product and branding - at the moment, at a lot of our clients users only see their own company name, their own colours etc. Most of them won't know about DIGIATA or TWENTY57 . . . they might know the word STADIUM at some clients - and at some like NEDBANK will only know NITRO, but that means we are missing an opportunity to grow the "brand" . . . these users, if they like your product becomes the "word-of-mouth" when they move on to different areas in their company or different companies - they must know who we are.
I really like the "Inside the Stadium". It feels very user friendly, web appy, very Web2.0 as Franz described it. It feels un-intimidating to use. In all of the designs, I really like the way in which the functionality has been grouped -> user stuff separate to adminish stuff and the application nicely contained in a different section.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Albertus that there should be some sort of Stadium reference though. Maybe a "powered by Stadium" in the header or footer. Just something to show that it was created by Stadium. Maybe that reference could be removed for an extra fee. :-)
Simple or Inside. I agree with Albertus, we need something that refers to Stadium and Twenty57 even if it is very small.
ReplyDelete@ Albertus.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, no slaughtering is allowed while Annu and I are moderating.
What is an "I-hate-the-front-ends" person? Someone who prefers the command line? :)
I agree that the Twenty57 needs some brand building. (Digiata too, but I'm almost afraid to mention the two together - it took some time to explain the business relationship between them to people at a recent SPIN presentation!) Interestingly, when I look at the interfaces of applications I use regularly, I know which ones are Microsoft, Adobe, Techsmith or Apple, even though Microsoft is the only one showing any kind of logo within its (Office) applications. These are all applications that are meant to be used for reasonably long periods of time (like Stadium's apps). The interfaces are all gray-blueish - possibly not to distract users or tire their eyes. The only definite branding happens in splash screens that show on startup.
My second thought is that Stadium is a special piece of software. It produces applications and the users of those applications don't need to be aware of Stadium to complete their work or ever use Stadium Designer. We know that some of our clients are determined to style their Stadium-apps to suit their business' branding. If we take that feature away, we are certain to cause pain, and this needs to be weighed up against the value we gain from putting a (non-editable) stamp down on all Stadium apps.
Last thought: It is true that when people like a product, they talk about it. The visual design of a product plays a role in whether users like something, but it plays a relatively small role in products that are not used by choice, but by necessity. I think that a better look will add value to Stadium (whether it is a "forced" Twenty57 style or a customisable template), but to create a truly delightful experience for the users of Stadium's output, we'll need to put some effort into how users are interacting with Stadium applications at the moment and try to think of ways that we can improve the learnability and efficiency of the applications.
'Inside the Stadium' and 'Simple blue'. Those are the two I favour most. I like the look of the filter from 'Inside'. Also think the inclusion of a section that gives a bit of background on the page is a great idea.
ReplyDelete