The dust hasn’t settled on the new Target.com redesign: the Web (OK, well, the web design community and a few actual Target customers) are looking for answers:

1. Why, Target? Why?
2. Who is responsible?

The first question may be a little easier to address, since Target has now responded to the criticism. They insist the redesign is based on pre-launch testing and positive post-launch traffic and sales, and promise to keep making adjustments as they learn more. Connections are also being drawn to the end of Target’s reliance on the Amazon website platform.

The answer to the second question is more of a closely-guarded secret. AdFreak checked in with some notable digital agencies known to be working with Target (Olson, SapientNitro, Huge, Razorfish), and all denied involvement. According to AdFreak, some said they believed the redesign was handled in-house.

An interesting comment on the Jezebel website by a friend of a past Target employee is a little chilling. Admittedly, we don’t know the full story behind why someone in management would address improvement suggestions by telling the designer, “not to bother.” Still, anyone with corporate experience is probably reading these words with a mixture of bitterness and resignation. In fairness to Target’s in-house team, the mess probably has more to do with pressure from above.

While it’s pragmatic to stop at, “this was tested: this is what worked.” It’s just as practical to recognize that testing still needs to be coupled with basic, purposeful design principles. Target in particular has been setting itself apart from the other big box stores for years with its emphasis on better design. In that light, this can also be considered a failure beyond visual identity, to brand.

In case you were curious, in an AdFreak follow-up piece, Target Defends Homepage Redesign but Still Won’t Say Who Did It.

Writers aren’t too happy about the whole Big Red Periods thing, either.

Are you responsible for the Target.com redesign? Would you admit it if you were? Let us know in the comments.

Follow Your Users’ Actions on your Website (Windows) – only $27!

Advanced technologies are affecting everything from our sense of privacy and free speech to the types of jobs that are available to the foods that we eat. In our best features this year, we got into these highly controversial topics.

By The Editors

Intel today announced an update including bug fixes and improvements to their now, second gen XDK HTML5 Development Tool.

UMBC chess director and CSEE Professor Alan Sherman just shared the final results of the 2013 Pan-American Intercollegiate Chess Team Championship which was held over the past four days in Lubbock Texas. UMBC place second after Webster Univ. and ahead of Illinois and Teach Tech.

The top four qualifying schools from the PanAms go on to compete in the Final Four of college chess, held in the spring. The winner is considered national champion and takes home the President’s Cup.

During the championship, UMBC defeated the University of West Indies, the University of Toronto, the University of Texas, Brownsville, Webster University C, and the University of Texas, Dallas A. UMBC’s only loss was to Webster University A, in round three. UMBC Team B won the Division V prize.

The UMBC Chess Team A for the 2013 Pan-Am Champioship had the following members.

• Board 1: GM Niclas “The Dark Knight” Huschenbeth (USCF rating 2610)
• Board 2: GM Akshayraj “The Indian Knight” Kore (2519)
• Board 3: M Levan “The Georgian Gangster” Bregadze (2469)
• Board 4: IM and WGM Nazi “The Black Widow” Paikidze (2378)
• Alternate: WGM Sabina “Sunshine” Foisor (2315)

See the UMBC Chess web site more information on UMBC’s chess program or contact Dr. Sherman at 410-963-4779 or Sorry, you need javascript to view this email address.