Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The New Web 2.0 NBA.com
nba.com — NBA.com has been given a complete overhaul for the upcoming season.
KrazyA1pha- 300 diggs
- digg it
- r3m1x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm digging the header, I like how all the features stand out more. I really hope NHL.com follows suit because navigating through NHL's website is a pain in the ass.
- ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree about NHL.com... They definitely need to step it up. First test I always run is what does your site look like with no styles or on a mobile browser. This one still looks like crap. Secondly, where's the fluidity? Why is there so much wasted space in the center of the page?
I do see the gigantic advertisement, revenue is always big. I do see the gradient nav images. At least they are taking steps in the right direction. - jcims, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1It appears to be completely broken in Firefox (1.5 and 2). Scroll down and look at the your opinion block on the left...blahh!
Looks fine in IE7 of course.
Hope the folks that put it together didn't have their heads in the sand _that_ much! - isuisorisuaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2looks fine from where i stand...using 1.5
- VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4talk about the money they are saving on bandwidth. the graphics last time i bet used alot of bandwidth for hosting.
- jcims, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hrm, still broke for me:
http://www.imagebucket.net/bucket/8363/nba.jpg
Pretty vanilla install. Maybe the 2.0 install hosed 1.5 for me...dunno. - dandiemer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1thats fugly. where are the soft gradients and shiney logos?!
- ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree about NHL.com... They definitely need to step it up. First test I always run is what does your site look like with no styles or on a mobile browser. This one still looks like crap. Secondly, where's the fluidity? Why is there so much wasted space in the center of the page?
- rbishop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I hope all the teams follow suit. Most of their individual sites are convoluted messes.
- tallguy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1All the other leagues, and such, you mean?
- ersnyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Same for the NFL.com team sites. Pro Sports are not very Web friendly.
- Razster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I like it, though the news page is eh. The rest is a O.K. with me.
- DanSheldon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Okay, who shocked Brushed Metal back into existance. Whoever you are, you are in so much trouble.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19what's web 2.0 about it?
- floppyparty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2it has a lot of grey, and it has webparts. oh wait, no one knows wtf web 2.0 is. doh!
- bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's not web 2.0ish in anything except layout.
- coolusername, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Not a damn thing. But would anybody (including myself) have clicked this article without "Web 2.0" as part of the title?
- jasz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd guess it's because they're making it more "user oriented" (see the part about "Fan Voice"), they're trying to get rid of tables (to do layout) and using more CSS.. oh, and a little AJAX...
But then again, there are older (not-known-as-web2.0) websites that have the same features....
At least it looks clean (although I never visited NBA.com before today)
I'd like to see more websites from larger corporations and organizations like NBA here that at least are interested in providing better accessibility.
@mwolff .. I've seen messier code :P
- budyhead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Enough with the Web 2.0 already. I am kinda sick of it already...
- marnaq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah, let's move on. 2.1 anyone?
- Parasocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been ready for 3 for months.
- kenmantx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, all of the Web 2.0 sites are still in beta, thus making its parent, Web 2.0, still a beta as well.
You'll have to wait until Web 2.0 goes 1.0 until you can even think about Web 3.0.
- No13Baby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's very clear. The layout elements don't compete with each other. Very nice!
Of course, once you go to one of the team pages that all goes out the window. - imspacevanman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it's great that these large sites are moving away from Flash-based designs (aside from the video highlights) to speed up the load time and increase compatibility. As long as they post relevant scores and highlights on the home page when games are going on - I like it.
- vishusdelishus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's really slow, must be bogged down
The design is a lot better than it was - it used to be mad cluttered and all the little drop-down menus on EVERYTHING made it a pain in the ass sometimes.
Either way it's nicely done!- Lemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seems to be a LOT faster than the previous design to me.
I just wish they had a better stat sytem.
- Lemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seems to be a LOT faster than the previous design to me.
- schemogroby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1boring. what´s so special about it? i don´t get the point.
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's cool that they updated the look...but....There is no such thing as Web 2.0.
- riquock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1definitely better layout. it's too bright for eyeball. Shouldn't use white background
- backinnblack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol.....funny its too bright cuz its white.......digg is white
- TheBrawnyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The homepage is nice looking, but I don't particularly get web 2.0 out of it. everything cool and dynamic about it is done with flash. the only callback appears to happen on page load, and it looks like its used to generate the Standings and Stats boxes on the left.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perfect opportunity to flex the muscle of the new Flash Player 9 for Linux. *grins*
- mwolff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look at the code, what a mess :S
Like the looks though- mitzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well, that's what you get when you have a ton of editorial staff. Not all adhere to making the code look clean as long as it looks right.
- mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2man, i think this is the first sports website that doesn't tear your eyes out when you look at it...
- gbacci, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I like simplicity, it feels like Web 2.0 has made everything go stale. It's all starting to look the same, the creativity in web design is going to poop because tables are out and divs are in. Everything looks like blocks stacked upon blocks now. If anything ever lacked pizzazz, it's Web 2.0.
- truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The site is much more simpler then it was before. Before it seems so much cluttered
- keitho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2so much so. i hated the old design. the new one is much more refreshing.
- xindustries, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0This is not Web 2.0. This is all Flash, and it's ugly as all hell.
- kenmantx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I concur, this is not Web 2.0. It has some new(er) technologies and techniques, but it is nowhere close to a true Web 2.0 presence. It's just a clean redesign, that's all. Simply adding a couple glossy logos and a RSS feed do _not_ make it Web 2.0...
Why is it not Web 2.0?
> They try to use "pretty URLs" and fail miserably. ex: they have "stats" as a category in navigation, but going to http://www.nba.com/stats/ is a 403. Their other "pretty URLs" all end in .html as well...
> They use Flash.
> No Wiki, no "friends list", no "Digg" buttons; in other words, no user-driven content.
> No AJAX that I can see.
> No CSS transparency.
> No fancy javascript toolkit features (i.e. lightbox).
> Almost completely broken site if Javascript is disabled (but no prompt to enable it). Ok, that doesn't pertain to Web 2.0 but it does point out that it's a poorly-coded site.
For those asking "What is Web 2.0?", see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web2.0
Oh, btw, the front page actually looks alot different than the single news article that was linked, check it out:
http://www.nba.com/ - indraneel24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the middle part with the headlines is much better. the previous one was a pain.
- SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Take that ESPN.com, you overbloated, resouce-hogging, try-to-do-everything-on-one-page loaf of a website!
- 10scott10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I preferred the old style. it was clean and simple. but as long as they update the lakers scores regularly, i will be fine.
- slickrate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the old site was ok but this is a lot more slick looking. also the old site had this terrible drop down ad that moved the whole page up and down while you were reading something. im glad thats gone.
- frogpelt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wish ESPN.com would overhaul their website. It is way too graphics-heavy.
- yhufnagel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What an awesome design job; easy navigation. NBA.com has come a long way since it launched. A must for NBA information. Very Web 2.0
- expertblogger, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0It's very clear. The layout elements don't compete with each other. Very nice!
Of course, once you go to one of the team pages that all goes out the window. Though I preferred the old style. it was clean and simple. but as long as they update the lakers scores regularly, i will be fine. http://beywas.info
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
