When a Website Redesign hurts performance, not improves it
When redesigning a website makes performance worse
Redesigning a website is not always synonymous with improvement. In many cases, a poorly governed redesign can reduce traffic, conversions, and digital reliability instead of strengthening them.
The myth of “new website = better results”
Redesigning a website is often perceived as a natural move: more modern visuals, updated technology, a new CMS, a new user experience. In internal company narratives, redesign almost automatically becomes synonymous with relaunch.
Reality is more complex. A new website does not improve performance simply because it is new. On the contrary, if the project is not guided by data, clear objectives, and a proper understanding of what already exists, the risk is achieving the opposite effect: traffic loss, declining conversions, and higher acquisition costs.
The problem is not redesigning the website. The problem is redesigning it without knowing what is already working.
When a redesign breaks what was already working
One of the most common mistakes is treating the existing website as something to be reset, rather than as a knowledge base. Established URLs, high-performing content, and information structures already understood by search engines and users are often removed or modified without proper analysis.
The result is the loss of signals accumulated over time: organic rankings, internal links, and navigation habits of returning users. Even when technically correct redirects are implemented, structural changes can still create friction that impacts visibility and conversions.
From a business perspective, this translates into weeks or months of “stabilization” during which digital performance is worse than before. A cost that is rarely budgeted.
Without a shared measurement baseline defined before the redesign, there is no real decline to analyze—only a lack of control. Traffic, conversions, rankings, and engagement signals must be captured beforehand; otherwise, the new website is evaluated based on perception rather than data.
Design, UX, and performance do not automatically align
A more visually polished website is not necessarily more effective. Redesigns often prioritize visual impact, creativity, or brand alignment, while neglecting fundamental aspects such as message clarity, information hierarchy, and simplicity of user paths.
Less visible calls to action, vaguer copy, unnecessary animations, or complex layouts can slow comprehension and increase friction. The result is an experience perceived as “beautiful,” but less functional.
When this happens, the data is clear: the new website is liked internally, but converts less.
Accessibility: the topic you can no longer ignore when redesigning a website
There is one aspect that many redesigns still treat as secondary, even though it has become structural: accessibility.
Redesigning a website today without considering accessibility principles is not only a short-sighted choice from a user experience perspective, but a concrete regulatory and reputational risk.
With the entry into force of the European Accessibility Act (EEA), an increasing number of websites and digital services must comply with clear and verifiable accessibility requirements.
This no longer applies only to public institutions: eCommerce, digital services, informational platforms, and companies operating in the European market are increasingly included within its scope.
The critical point is this: accessibility cannot be added at the end.
If a redesign starts without it, fixing issues later means intervening on layouts, components, content, interactions, and markup—with much higher costs and friction.
Accessibility does not mean only helping people with disabilities.
It means designing a website that is understandable, keyboard-navigable, readable by screen readers, usable with proper contrast, clear text, logical hierarchies, and predictable interactions.
In other words: a more robust website for everyone.
From a performance perspective, the impact is far from neutral.
An accessible website tends to have cleaner markup, less reliance on complex interactions, clearer flows, and better-structured content.
All elements that improve not only usability, but also SEO, AEO, GEO and overall digital reliability.
A redesign that ignores accessibility today does not only risk converting less—it risks being non-compliant tomorrow.
In this sense, accessibility is no longer a quality issue, but a risk management issue, just like security, privacy, and operational continuity.
For this reason, when deciding to redesign a website, accessibility must be treated as a project requirement, not a final checklist.
Ignoring it today means exposing yourself to future risks; integrating it from the start means building a stronger, more inclusive website aligned with regulatory and market evolution.
Technology changes as a risk multiplier
Many redesigns coincide with a change of CMS, framework, or technological stack. This is a legitimate choice, but it significantly increases project complexity.
Performance, caching, content management, technical SEO, analytics tracking, and integrations are often not replicated in an equivalent way. Features taken for granted disappear or behave differently, creating inconsistencies that are difficult to detect immediately.
In these cases, the website does not worsen because of a single mistake, but due to the accumulation of small deviations that over time impact reliability and results.
Another often underestimated factor is how the new website is released.
“Big bang” approaches increase risk by concentrating all changes into a single moment.
When possible, progressive rollouts, pilot sections, or controlled releases allow issues to be identified before they affect the entire digital ecosystem.
When redesigning the website is not the right answer
There are situations where a redesign is a disproportionate response to the problem.
If a website generates qualified traffic, converts, and supports the business, but has specific limitations, incremental interventions are often more effective.
Optimizing content, improving key sections, working on performance, accessibility, or conversion rate can deliver better results than a full redesign, with less risk and less disruption.
Redesigning everything only makes sense when there is a real mismatch between business objectives and the existing structure—not as a shortcut to “freshen things up.”
Why redesigning a website is a management decision
A redesign is not a graphic project. It is a strategic decision that impacts marketing, sales, IT, and day-to-day operations.
Treating it as a purely creative or technical matter is one of the most costly mistakes.
It requires a vision that brings together historical data, future objectives, transition risks, and the organization’s ability to manage change.
Without this direction, the new website risks being a well-executed project that is poorly positioned.
Different technologies, different impacts on performance (and control)
When a redesign worsens performance, the cause is often not visual design.
It is architecture: chosen technology, how content and assets are managed, plugins and dependencies, deployment pipelines, caching, and tracking.
There are no universally “better” stacks—only stacks that are coherent (or incoherent) with objectives, governance, and team maturity.
At HT&T, we work daily across different ecosystems (WordPress, Shopify, Adobe Commerce/Magento, headless projects, and lighter CMSs like Statamic),
and the recurring pattern we see is this: performance is not optimized at the end—it is designed from the beginning.
Technology determines how much control you have over that design and how much debt you carry over time.
WordPress: fast to launch, but governance is mandatory
WordPress is effective when you need to move quickly, keep editing simple, and maintain a clear content structure.
But if it grows through layering (page builders + plugins + third-party scripts + heavy themes),
performance becomes fragile—not only in Core Web Vitals, but also in stability, security, and maintenance costs.
In practice, the quality leap happens when WordPress is governed as a platform:
clear criteria for plugins and scripts, reusable components, solid caching, properly managed images and fonts,
and one simple rule—fewer exceptions, more structure.
Statamic and content-first CMSs: lightness, versioning, control
Solutions like Statamic (and more broadly content-first or flat-file CMSs) become attractive when you want predictable performance,
controlled content structure, clear editorial workflows, less database dependency, and cleaner HTML output.
The practical advantage is that pages tend to be clean by design: less overhead, more readable markup, fewer layers.
The trade-off is the need for stronger project discipline: defining content models, components, editorial rules,
and a deployment process closer to development than to click and publish.
Shopify: performance and reliability, but with constraints (and theme governance)
Shopify is often the most sensible choice when the goal is to reduce operational risk and focus energy on merchandising,
conversion rate, and growth. At the infrastructure level, many variables disappear:
hosting, critical updates, scalability, and part of security are managed by the platform.
Performance can still degrade if the theme is overloaded: too many apps, redundant tracking, scripts loaded everywhere,
universal sections multiplying assets. In these cases, redesign fails because the website becomes a stack of layers.
The rule here is: fewer apps, cleaner integrations, and strict governance of Liquid, assets, and page-level scripts.
Adobe Commerce/Magento: power, complexity, and the cost of discipline
Magento / Adobe Commerce makes sense when advanced logic is required: complex multi-store setups, large catalogs,
sophisticated pricing, deep ERP/CRM/PIM integrations, and enterprise governance.
But it is also a stack that does not forgive: if the architecture is not solid (caching, indexing, infrastructure, module quality),
performance and operational costs deteriorate quickly.
In a Magento redesign, the key question is not which theme do we choose?,
but which bottlenecks are we inheriting?
If you do not measure and resolve them, you are simply redesigning on top of an already strained system.
Headless and composable: maximum control, maximum responsibility
Headless and composable architectures are ideal when you want full control over UX and performance
and have an organization ready to sustain it.
But they are not shortcuts: they move complexity from the CMS to the project.
Without governance, you risk building a system that is more expensive, more fragile, and harder to maintain.
How to choose in practice
If your goal is to reduce risk and accelerate go-to-market, a managed platform with clear rules around themes and tracking often wins.
If your goal is editorial quality, speed, and markup control, a lightweight, well-modeled CMS may be the best choice.
If your goal is commercial complexity and deep integrations, a more powerful platform is required—but only if you are ready to govern it.
The point is not which technology to choose, but avoiding the most dangerous choice of all:
selecting without a governance model.
That is where redesigns worsen performance, because the website is born with technical and operational debt already built in.
Conclusion: new does not mean better
Redesigning a website can be a growth accelerator or a silent brake.
The difference is not the chosen technology or design, but how the decision is made and governed.
A website works when it supports the business, not when it simply looks updated.
Before redesigning it, the real question is not how we want it to look,
but what we cannot afford to lose.
FAQ: redesigning a website without hurting performance
When does redesigning a website really worsen performance?
When the redesign wipes out existing signals (SEO, content, conversion flows),
does not start from a measurable baseline, and introduces structural changes without governance.
The issue is not the new website, but how the transition is designed.
Is it better to redesign everything or intervene incrementally?
In most cases, an incremental approach reduces risk and disruption.
Optimizing key sections, performance, accessibility, and conversion often produces better results
than a full redesign not guided by data.
How important is technology choice in a redesign’s success?
It matters insofar as it aligns with objectives, governance, and team capabilities.
There is no universally “best” technology—only choices that increase or reduce control,
technical debt, and long-term risk.
Why has accessibility become a central requirement in redesigns?
Because accessibility is no longer just a UX best practice, but a regulatory requirement
(European Accessibility Act) and a structural quality factor.
Ignoring it during redesign increases costs, risks, and future remediation efforts.
How can you avoid “losing everything” at go-live?
By defining a pre-redesign baseline, planning controlled rollouts,
and monitoring key indicators immediately after release.
Without these steps, go-live becomes a leap into the dark.
Who should decide to redesign a website?
Redesigning a website is a management decision.
It impacts marketing, sales, IT, and daily operations,
so it must be governed at a strategic level, not delegated as a purely creative or technical task.
References and further reading
The topics covered in this article are based on official guidelines, industry research,
and regulatory documentation related to performance, accessibility, UX, SEO, and digital project governance.
European Union.
European Accessibility Act (Directive (EU) 2019/882).
European directive defining accessibility requirements for digital products and services.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/882/oj
W3C.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2.
International reference standard for web content accessibility.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
Google Search Central.
Core Web Vitals.
Official Google metrics for evaluating page performance, stability, and interactivity.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/core-web-vitals
Google Search Central.
Helpful, reliable, people-first content.
Official guidelines for creating useful, people-first content, relevant for SEO and AEO.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
Nielsen Norman Group.
Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.
Foundational usability principles applicable to UX, accessibility, and information architecture.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
Google Developers.
Site migrations and redesigns.
Official best practices for site migrations and redesigns without SEO performance loss.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/site-move-with-url-changes
HT&T Consulting – Magazine.
Related insights:
Marketing trends 2026
Server-side tracking and measurement
.
Continua a leggere
5 minutes of reading
12 minutes of reading
And it consumes less energy.
To return to the page you were visiting, simply click or scroll.