
UX: How MSN went for beauty and got it dead wrong - danjayh
MSN Money redesigned their stock charts a couple of years ago. They&#x27;re beautiful - interactive, deep data archives, very nice chart styles. However, when they did the redesign, they removed key features that are necessary for financial data. The most glaring example is the lack of logarithmic display in the current revision. Since financial asset prices grow exponentially, logarithmic display is critical to providing a meaningful view of the kind of excellent long-term data that MSN has. Along with the utility downgrade of the charts came a downgrade of the stock summary pages - specialized but necessary indicators, like bid and ask, were removed from that page.<p>Just curious if HN has any other examples of major sites that have destroyed their utility in the pursuit of beauty? I think that the key issue in many of these cases might be UX designers who understand what makes for a good design, but don&#x27;t understand the data that they&#x27;re designing for.
======
volaski
Please ask the question in a straightforward manner instead of using a
clickbait headline. You are not doing your otherwise good question justice.

~~~
nness
Funnily enough, MSN Messenger was the preferred chat client in Australia for
many years (before mobile apps proliferated). I read that title and thought it
was about the chat client not the site.

