But so many other similarly complex sites offer two versions of their Web site during this transition period: The stable older version and the newer version that viewers know will have bugs.

Wouldn’t this have been an effective way of alleviating these concerns?

I would be browsing the new site instead of complaining about it, but it’s still not loading on any browser or machine I try it on.

I typed in http://www.dmagazine.com/ when I got to work at 8 a.m…. It’s still loading. I’m hoping the site loads by the time I return from lunch.

You know how many web developers it takes to relaunch a web site? 62. 2 to do the work and 60 to jump on and say how they would have done it better.

Or are the ads not showing up just another bug that has to be fixed? You do realize that you can create two versions of your site. You could have kept the old one running while creating a beta version of the new one.

Redesigns are tough; I get that. People usually reject change at first and then grow accustomed to it quickly. But when you create a site with so many design flaws and bugs, you may never get the audience to appreciate your product.

If you had anyone on your staff with knowledge of color theory, they would have laughed when you chose this color palette. The colors don’t complement your logo, and (as others have said), the baby colors send a message that your site is puerile. Actually, that’s probably fitting.

I know I’m seen as a DMN apologist, so let me continue that trend. People complain about the DMN Web site, but this redesign perfectly exemplifies the difference in philosophies here.

The DMN’s Web site is poorly designed and has annoying ads, but it works. The stories are right there to read when you want them. The page doesn’t take years to load, and the information is easy to find. You have to ask yourself: Do you prioritize design or functionality? When you look at D’s new Web site, it’s clear that functionality isn’t a priority.