KEH low inventory

[Roger Cole]

I don't like change just for the sake of change, especially when it impairs functionality.

The old site may have looked old but it worked well and easily. The new one looks shiny and is a PITA. I quit going to it and pretty much quit buying from them because of it. My money, my time, I'll take both elsewhere.

The looms! SMASH them! Too bad we can't throw wooden shows into the new web code...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Your specific website and KEH's have different goals, criteria, and ways of interacting The lessons learned from yours don't necessarily apply to KEH.

You say theirs was out of date. For a site that does its job well, what does that even mean? Numerous people here, albeit a small sample, have described very well how good it was for browsing - to the extent that a search was rarely necessary.

Again, if some people found searching difficult, that itself should've been fixed rather than upending the entire organization of the site.

I truly wish KEH would take a survey, because I believe a large majority of their responses would say the older site was better.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

You say theirs was out of date. For a site that does its job well, what does that even mean?

The web code standards and writing tools have changed dramatically over the past 15 years. Web pages USED to be set up in advance like pages in a newspaper, now they are dynamically generated to meet the needs of the viewing hardware; whether it be a desktop computer of handheld mobile device. I must admit that I prefer the old pages (that I learned to code), I haven't made much of an effort to learn the new web design elements like Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).

 

[hoffy]

Your specific website and KEH's have different goals, criteria, and ways of interacting The lessons learned from yours don't necessarily apply to KEH.

You say theirs was out of date. For a site that does its job well, what does that even mean? Numerous people here, albeit a small sample, have described very well how good it was for browsing - to the extent that a search was rarely necessary.

Again, if some people found searching difficult, that itself should've been fixed rather than upending the entire organization of the site.

I truly wish KEH would take a survey, because I believe a large majority of their responses would say the older site was better.

There are many things that cause a website (& especially a commercial website) to be out of date. They could have been using a content management system that was no longer supported. They code could have been done in a way that now has many security holes and vulnerabilities in it. And it could just look crap. In the end, the KEH site looked dated. It also didn't scale well when viewed in different orientations and resolutions. The new site does - I.E., you don't necessarily need to have a Mobile version to be able to use it on a smart phone (as a lot of sites do).

Here's a little test for you. Open KEH and then resize your browser window. Now keep on making that browser window as narrow as you can. Notice how the text boxes and such all fall into line. Notice how you don't have a horizontal scroll bar. This site has been built and designed to be used on anything from a smart phone up.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It's the external presentation that matters, not the underlying implementation.

For what it's worth, all my web browsing and interaction for the last two years -including right now - has been on my Android phone. APUG, DPReview, KEH, whatever (and I'm not using Tapatalk, either).

The old KEH worked fine on my phone. They got sold on "a solution" and they're emotionally invested in defending and keeping it.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

They got sold on "a solution" and they're emotionally invested in defending and keeping it.

And how much you wanna bet the new site was done by the owner's son, or nephew, or son-in-law and there's all sort of political fall-out to accept if they admit it was a mistake...

 

[Truzi]

Being able to dynamically alter to suit any viewing device does not necessitate breaking functionality, indexing, or salient useability. Making it look modern and slick does not either. To do so shows either a preference for one aspect, or inability to correctly implement (or comprehend) the other. (Also, dynamically scalable web pages have been around quite a long time by internet standards - long before tablets and smart phones.)

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Keep that in mind, that while there are 10 or 20 people whining that its all turned to shit, there are probably 1000's of people who are either indifferent or happy with what they see.......

PS - no, the changes were not reversed.

Some people just don't like change. We see it right here on APUG, don't we?

Bad design is bad design, no matter how much lipstick and excuses one slathers on the poor pig. It is what it is because it can't be what it isn't.

In these situations one of the biggest red flags in software design, development, and engineering is when the frustrated designers, developers, and engineers all begin to point the aggregate finger of blame back at the customers/users.

Those people are all stupid Luddites. They hate everything new. They won't take the time to learn anything. They're all just a bunch of whiners. It's really only 10 disgruntled jerks out of ten million otherwise deliriously happy users. Screw 'em all, we're not changing a damn thing.

And on and on it goes...

When I see and/or hear this familiar refrain, I know from almost 30 years of hard won experience exactly what has happened on the inside to get to this point. And what has yet still to happen before it all mercifully ends. I can hear the conversations as I type.

It's like attending your favorite ballet performance. It's the same dance every time, but performed each time as if no one's ever seen it before...



Ken

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Checkout the old page code (via the Wayback Machine) and the new code. There's a major difference. The new code appears to be created with a MS product I'm not familiar with.

 

[hoffy]

OK, my last comment to this thread. As much as I scream it from the rooftops, it is hard to change peoples opinions if they are set in their ways.

I respect what KEH did on a commercial level and I can see why they did it. They are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.....

 

[Tamara]

On a completely tangential note, I remember watching my dad lay out the KEH/APSCO Shutterbug ads on little strips of paper glued to balsa... Good times, good times. He learned to use a Mac to move the layout job over to desktop publishing.

This probably makes me a less-than-unbiased observer...

 

[pschwart]

I emailed KEH earlier today and asked if they planned to go back to the old web design as the new design was awful, and that I'm not the only one who thinks so. Here's the reply I received:

"We will not be returning to the old website design. Ironically, we had many complaints that the old sight was terrible at searching (which was true) so we designed a website that is phenomenal at search and refine (which it is!) and now people want the old menu system back. Change is always difficult! The new site is also much better for use with mobile devices. We are planning on launching a newly designed website very soon. In the meantime I would encourage you to type in what you are looking for in the search bar, then refine the results by clicking on the boxes on the left side, that works great! (though most often what you asked for will be the very first item listed in the results). You can also shop by brand, category, format etc., and selections are in the drop down menu under the “purchase” heading.

Thank you for your feedback, we appreciate your interest in KEH camera and hope to earn your business!"

A database report showing cumulative purchases and browsing history per user before and after the site "upgrade" would probably show there is a problem. I have spent thousands at KEH over the years, but I have not purchased anything in a long time. I used to browse the old site regularly, but now I don't often bother. The falloff in inventory has been evident for a few years, and prices have been rising even as the gear is aging. I provided extensive feedback on both the old site, and the new site when it was first rolled out, but got only perfunctory responses. Unless KEH sees how much this is costing them, they are not going to care.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

prices have been rising even as the gear is aging.

Isn't that to be expected? It's just a matter of supply and demand. With no new equipment being manufactured, the existing equipment becomes more valuable as it ages because some equipment 'breaks' and becomes no longer serviceable, thus reducing the supply.

 

[MattKing]

It is the organization of the site that brings rise to the complaints.

Most of us know what camera (note the singular) we are interested in - we want a page that lists and offers all the options available to us for that camera.

The old site offered that, the new site requires us to first decide on what option we want, and then helps us choose which version of that option (i.e. for which camera) we should buy.

Its like a store that keeps all the lenses together, irrespective of mounts, and all the viewfinders together, irrespective of for which camera, and all the ....

I would guess that it would be easy to organize the new site in a way similar to the old.

 

[pschwart]

Isn't that to be expected? It's just a matter of supply and demand. With no new equipment being manufactured, the existing equipment becomes more valuable as it ages because some equipment 'breaks' and becomes no longer serviceable, thus reducing the supply.

Not entirely -- cameras with electronics, especially LCDs, have a limited lifespan and often can't be repaired for lack of parts. The cameras may still take pictures, but without out some features that made them desirable.

 

[Roger Cole]

Checkout the old page code (via the Wayback Machine) and the new code. There's a major difference. The new code appears to be created with a MS product I'm not familiar with.

Well that could explain a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Whether the website is created with 1995 software or 2015 software should not matter.

Can we agree that the most important thing for a commercial website is the customer experience? A company would want its site to be visually attractive, easy to understand and navigate, allow items to be found effortlessly, and provide an enjoyable experience that keeps customers coming back to buy things. I believe that was exactly the case with the old website design (with old software tools) and could have been duplicated equally well, if not better, with new website software tools. Needing to provide extra security, robustness, and support for diverse devices does not preclude preserving the good aspects of the previous website.

I don't see the "old vs. new" debate as unwillingness to change an opinion or being too stubborn to learn new methods. Rather, it's a a realization that something that used to be effortless has been replaced with a process that is much less satisfying. Many on this forum and other photo forums have uniformly stated how easy it was to simply browse the old site, just looking around, and not needing to search. KEH, in their reply, reveal their mindset has a dichotomy that should not exist. They say people complained about poor searching and so they proudly state they created a site wonderful for searching. Yet, they are baffled when now "people want the old menus back". That's because they thought the choice was between keeping the existing website organization or tossing it in favor of a search-based organization. My belief is that people loved the old organization / presentation (what they called "menus") and didn't want it to go away - they just wanted a better search, not a totally new interface.

Ultimately, the market will decide.

 

[brian steinberger]

Isn't that to be expected? It's just a matter of supply and demand. With no new equipment being manufactured, the existing equipment becomes more valuable as it ages because some equipment 'breaks' and becomes no longer serviceable, thus reducing the supply.

I'm a bit concerned about all of us moving forward with this equipment. If film photography stays popular, or continues to slowly gain popularity don't you think someone should step up and supply us with some NEW cameras?? I'm mainly talking MF. Fuji has tried recently. But what about Mamiya? Pentax?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm a bit concerned about all of us moving forward with this equipment. If film photography stays popular, or continues to slowly gain popularity don't you think someone should step up and supply us with some NEW cameras?? I'm mainly talking MF. Fuji has tried recently. But what about Mamiya? Pentax?

I'm sure if the market demands it, someone will. But from their perspective, the market isn't there yet. But I doubt it will be one of the big players - more likely a new niche constructor making boutique cameras. You're more likely to see a new Linhof medium format film camera than you are a Mamiya or Pentax.

 

[Hatchetman]

My hunch was that they were selling a lot more modern digital equipment and having a lot less problems with regards to returned equipment, etc.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'm sure if the market demands it, someone will. But from their perspective, the market isn't there yet. But I doubt it will be one of the big players - more likely a new niche constructor making boutique cameras. You're more likely to see a new Linhof medium format film camera than you are a Mamiya or Pentax.

I wonder if Ilford would ever contract out the making of a new camera or cameras to someone like Linhof, etc. I could actually see that happening down the road.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I wonder if Ilford would ever contract out the making of a new camera or cameras to someone like Linhof, etc. I could actually see that happening down the road.

Given that the furthest they're going in recent times is the Titan pinhole, I don't see them going whole hog into a 2 1/4 SLR or rangefinder. They've sold badge-engineered rangefinders in the past, IIRC, though, so that's not entirely out of the realm of consideration.But those were 35mm cameras, in the heyday of 35mm film (1950s, I think).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Anything affordable to make nowadays would involve CNC and injection moulding by contract. Things like dies used for durable parts like
Linhof uses can cost 100K apiece. A single serious camera contract would probably exceed Ilford's entire budget and be guaranteed to bankrupt them. You're in dream land unless your talking about something like a Holga. There's an absolute glut of classic high-end MF gear on the market right now, better made and more durable than you'll ever see again, even if KEH has less and less in their own inventory.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Being able to dynamically alter to suit any viewing device does not necessitate breaking functionality, indexing, or salient useability. Making it look modern and slick does not either. To do so shows either a preference for one aspect, or inability to correctly implement (or comprehend) the other. (Also, dynamically scalable web pages have been around quite a long time by internet standards - long before tablets and smart phones.)

Whether the website is created with 1995 software or 2015 software should not matter.

Can we agree that the most important thing for a commercial website is the customer experience? A company would want its site to be visually attractive, easy to understand and navigate, allow items to be found effortlessly, and provide an enjoyable experience that keeps customers coming back to buy things. I believe that was exactly the case with the old website design (with old software tools) and could have been duplicated equally well, if not better, with new website software tools. Needing to provide extra security, robustness, and support for diverse devices does not preclude preserving the good aspects of the previous website.

I don't see the "old vs. new" debate as unwillingness to change an opinion or being too stubborn to learn new methods. Rather, it's a a realization that something that used to be effortless has been replaced with a process that is much less satisfying. Many on this forum and other photo forums have uniformly stated how easy it was to simply browse the old site, just looking around, and not needing to search. KEH, in their reply, reveal their mindset has a dichotomy that should not exist. They say people complained about poor searching and so they proudly state they created a site wonderful for searching. Yet, they are baffled when now "people want the old menus back". That's because they thought the choice was between keeping the existing website organization or tossing it in favor of a search-based organization. My belief is that people loved the old organization / presentation (what they called "menus") and didn't want it to go away - they just wanted a better search, not a totally new interface.

Ultimately, the market will decide.

Both Truzi and Theo summarize the issues perfectly. The commercial software industry specifically—and high technology in general—has been plagued by this type of mutually-exclusive, one-or-the-other mindset for decades.*

There is no reason that a move to more modern backend technology (to address IT-level issues not visible to customers) must of necessity preclude the continued existence and use of the customer-facing features those customers find useful. And which keeps bringing them back to spend more of their money.

Essentially it's the difference between a code port and a functional port. You may need to toss out the old code base entirely and begin again from scratch in order to move to a more modern development environment. But you don't want to also toss out the software functionality with it. Functionality that is the sole reason for the software's existence in the first place. Otherwise the newer iteration only becomes something alien to the original users, and in a competitive marketplace you run the risk of them walking.

It's the recurring money spent by those users that's the critical path issue. Not the one-off money saved on the backend by changing technologies. And Theo is further correct in that the market will be the ultimate arbiter of the wisdom behind those changes.

I suggest we revisit this issue in, say, three years. That ought to do it.

Ken

* One could make the argument that Antonio Perez fell victim to the same mindset, and paid dearly for it...

 

[Tamara]

(what they called "menus")

But... but... the menus are on the left side of the screen.

Say I want to check out all the old screw-mount Leica bodies they have in stock....

Click "shop by brand" at the top.
Click "Leica" when the bar of brand logos pops up.
Now on the left edge, click "bodies"
If you want to refine that, on the left edge under "mount type", click "M39-Leica screw"

Bam. There's everything they have that fits that category.

I now click "Price (Low to High)" on the drop down "Sort By" menu in the top right and determine that everything I can afford is broken, and leave with a heavy sigh to come back and browse another day.