LTT Labs Website feedback (can't find an official thread for this)

[Jonathan Tanner]

On WAN show they launched the new LTT Labs website (https://www.lttlabs.com) and seemed to be asking for UI/UX feedback, but I couldn't find anywhere to give such feedback.

[Jonathan Tanner]

I scrolled down on a product reading, then wanted to add it to the Compare Cart, I instinctively clicked on the Compare Cart, but it wasn't there, then I realised I had to scroll right back to the top. It'd be nice to have someway to do this from the navbar no matter the scroll position.

[Spotty]

I guess this is the thread for feedback now, unless LMG posts something official later.

Having a quick look here's some of my first impressions.

 

Taking the Intel Arc A850 page for example. https://www.lttlabs.com/posts/sparkle-intel-arc-a580-orc-oc-edition
 

• The graph for thermal performance is very odd. Goes from 90°C to 2°C within 4 seconds. I hope this is just random data filled as an example and not actual labs test data.
  
   
• The line graphs (Efficiency) are difficult to digest with the overlapping colours. Assuming this is fake data, hopefully real data is more consistent and isn't overlapping as much and is more easy to digest. Hovering over a single line to have the others fade is about the only way to make sense of it without it straining my eyes.
  
   
• In the Productivity chart there is a large block of empty space above the chart. This void is not present on the Gaming charts.
  
   
• Instead of having two separate charts for Ray Tracing / Non-Ray Tracing results it should just be a toggle button to show ray tracing results since you already have drop down menus to change the game and resolution on the chart. If Ray Tracing is toggled on grey out the games and resolution that don't have test data for ray tracing.
  
   
• The Productivity charts are split up in to individual charts on the page. This is inconsistent with the Gaming charts which has the data compressed in to 2 charts. The productivity charts should be a single chart with a drop down menu to select between the different productivity benchmarks, consistent with the gaming chart having each game in the drop down menu.
  
   
• Having a large image next to the table of data in the Hardware tab is annoying and makes it harder to read the table. It's also inconsistent with the Functionality tab. You should remove the large images from the data tables and just put the tables side by side (separate elements and make them stack vertically on mobile devices and expand to the width of the section for situations of odd numbers of tables).
  
  Instead of this:

Do this:

 

 

• Product images should be displayed in a single carousel. Not split up in to multiple carousels or single images.
   
• Images in a carousel should be more obvious that there are multiple images to scroll through. Right now it's difficult to see that there are multiple images in a set, made worse by the inconsistency with there being multiple images shown on the page in various sections with some having a single image and some having multiple.

 

• Having to expand each of the sections to view the data is annoying. I would rather a long page that I scroll through rather than having to click to open everything. It's fine to give the option to collapse the sections by clicking on it, but it would be better if by default they are expanded.
  If you follow the above suggestions of removing large images from the data table and condensing Performance charts in to a single chart there's really little reason to collapse all of the sections.

Spoiler

This

 

Spoiler

is

 

Spoiler

annoying

 

• Key Specification data is inconsistent in both what is shown as key data and how it is rated. The Arc A580 key specifications has memory bandwidth, release date, and memory size. The RX 7600 has Memory Size, Slot Width, and Card Length.
  • The A580 has 8GB of memory marked with a red X. The RX 7600 has 8GB memory marked with a green tick. Is 8GB good or bad?
  • The RX7600 has a key detail of 20.5cm length which is marked as bad with a red X. The A580 has a length of 22.4cm which isn't listed in the key features. If 20.5cm length is such a bad thing that it's considered a key detail why isn't it listed for the longer A580?

The "Key Details" section seems far more subjective than the rest of the report which is only objective data. I would be hesitant on mixing subjective opinions in an otherwise objective report, you don't want to end up like userbenchmark where it's littered with negative comments about AMD from the editor.

 

 

• The "Test Bench" section which specifies what hardware was used in the benchmarks should not be in the Gaming section. It should be its own section at the bottom of the page.
  I would also recommend including the date that the test data was collected or the date that it was first published, along with assigning space for a changelog for any revisions or corrections made to the page.
  Bonus points if you include the models of testing/measuring hardware that was used (thermal probes, oscilloscopes, etc).

 

• On the comparison page when comparing two cards the performance graphs for the cards are shown as two separate graphs that the user has to slide between to view. It would be much better if it just created a single new graph that only included the data from the cards in the comparison cart.

 

 

I didn't watch the WAN show so if any of these have been addressed already oh well...