I hate it.

One of the other admins of an FB group I help run described it as "Facebook for toddlers".

Its mobile first design, in fact really mobile only design. Why they want to do it when most people using FB on mobile will be using the app, I do not know.

I don't like it, either, but I'm sure that I'll get used to it.

(Funny how the mind works--I now prefer The Washington Post's mobile interface to the desktop interface, for example, just because it's less busy visually. It took a while for me to make the adjustment, though.)

The new "look" is slower (due to the more advanced and rather hidden data collection techniques) .

Though it be fairly cartoonish with regard to it's so-called over-the-top simplicity, it can never match the total dysfunction of the new Twitter layout.

*wondering when they'll take the crayons away from their junior developers*

People still go to Facebook?

When I first tested it a few month back I thought it'd be improved. Sadly, the opposite, it got worse.

There are some fundamental problems with it. For example, there are more clicks required to reach the destination.

Large screens suffer frrom lots of mouse movement to reach a button. It's not meant for desktop.

It really is, as you say, unsophisticated.

@RhinoFish - Not I. I left FB in my rear view mirror. I use Mewe and usa.life.

I also hate it, but in general I don't like/enjoy FB, funny thing is still don't hear a single comment in near circles on liking it.

The design makes no sense in general or specific but it's like said above: there is something underneath, I guess they also need better tracking of the mouse and the attention over the separate areas to "detect" what attracts you (non clicks... behavioral analysis). It's amazing how 3, 2, or even 1 tab can increase the power consumption of devices such as laptops, desktops and iPhones (the Lite version for Android doesn't hurt that much), you can even experiment on resources going up while you are not even doing anything on those tabs: too much things trying to track/measure/sense/analyze the users.

i was forced into it and immediately looked for the revert button!
not looking forward to what september brings.

Definitely more clicks for certain functions, which might be deliberate, which is bad for productivity. I wonder if tge addional clicks create more page views and more opportunity for ads.

BTW, today i'm seeing duplicate posts in group newsfeeds. Very odd.

@engine They were discussing that on a page and group admin page this morning. If you delete one of the posts, it deletes both of them, so it's probably best to leave it alone and just report the problem.

The duplicate listing just makes it a mess, and ends up with users clicking multiple times. That may be the objective, but, surely not.
It looks so spammy.

@azlinda, thanks, yes, I've reported the issue when I first saw it.

It's a hideous wall of white. I can't use it on my laptop, it's just so awful. I still use it on my phone, and it's okay, but to be honest, I use FB less and less. Messenger is fine, and it's connecting me with my very sick mum, that's pretty much all I use FB for. I 'follow' probably 50-80 pages/groups, and it's the same two or three I see. With the all white design and the 2-3 pages I see, it's boring as hell.

I wonder if there's at least one user who truly enjoys the interface, otherwise - why would they even do what they do?

I have no doubt that all kinds of user testing was done. What we don't know is how that testing was EVALUATED by the dev/marketing teams, or whether they accepted the results or decided they knew best and did it anyway.

As noted above, it might be about ad space displays, fitting into mobile, or some other aspect not immediately obvious.

What I do know is that a number of my friends who LIVE on fb 4-8 HOURS per day are not that impressed. Part of that may be nobody likes change or having to learn something "new" when it was perfectly comfortable in the first place. That said, because they are so embedded in fb they will stick with it, but weep and moan in the meantime.

I wonder if there's at least one user who truly enjoys the interface, otherwise - why would they even do what they do?

Because their aims are not the user's aims.

For example, one thing that annoys me about the new interface is that it takes two clicks, instead of one, to mark all notifications as read.

That is bad for me (as its something I need to do a lot) but slightly increases the chance I will do it less frequently and therefore see notifications for longer and pay attention to them, which leans to more engagement.

What we don't know is how that testing was EVALUATED by the dev/marketing teams

I am sure it was evaluated, but usability or whether users like it is secondary. What is important to FB is what effect it has on engagement, time on site, advertising click rates etc.

What I do know is that a number of my friends who LIVE on fb 4-8 HOURS per day are not that impressed. Part of that may be nobody likes change or having to learn something "new" when it was perfectly comfortable in the first place. That said, because they are so embedded in fb they will stick with it, but weep and moan in the meantime.

So why should FB care what they think?

One of the key aspects of this interface is the effect it'll have for marketers. If users can't find things and get frustrated it'll have an impact on those promoting and marketing on Facebook.

This new look is just disgusting. It's good that Facebook will update. But they have totally changed their previous design. They shouldn't have done that. Even it is quite difficult to find some functions that I need instantly.

If users can't find things and get frustrated it'll have an impact on those promoting and marketing on Facebook.

Yes, users will spend more time on FB looking for things, improving their use engagement numbers, and seeing more ads/