new NYT online design

it feels a lot more like the intl. herald trib. site to me now

Especially down at the bottom, with the long lists of headlines. It fuddles the brain.

I think forcing me to open my browser window wider so you can get more junk above the fold is rude. But I'm sure we've been over this before.

you're joking, right? because it does, and it was done by the same design people that redid The Onion online!

what i don't get is why they don't fully justify their columns, they're a newspaper FFS.

also, the way-generous linespacing somehow cheapens the feel of the stories. along with full justification of type, surely another part of newspapers' visual "branding" is that everything's packed in tight?

i miss the thick black lines in the column breaks (as opposed to the very light, thin, gray lines that you have to squint to see). the black broke up the page better -- the way it is now, my eyes aren't really sure where to "go."

Get one dummies guide to HTML

JUST CHECKING!

I notice that the css is called with the @import hack, which deliberately hides the stylesheet from a lot of old browsers.

LIKE IE3? SHEESH

Seriously. Backward compatibility forever is not the goal. I'm happy that the NYTimes is using divs and css. Thrilled.

IT'S LIKE ALL THE WEB2.0 SITES: DON'T WORK ON OS 9, WON'T GET COVERED BY NEWSPAPERS LIKE THE GUARDIAN (STILL ON OS 9). WHICH THEY MIGHT NOT CARE ABOUT, BUT STILL.

and yeh, you don’t need backward compatibility forever, but the goal of design should surely be that when some chod in darkest africa or a croft logs on from a clunky old browser in a webcafe he still sees some sort of usable page, even if it’s plaintext. the good stuff can layer on top of that.

1) Give up the serifs. Georgia is nice for headlines, but not for text, especially when you're trying to cram as much text down our throats as possible. And having the headlines in Georgia and the text in (rather standard) 11px Verdana would not be awkward, it would be a great stylistic improvement.

2) You did the blue all wrong. It's ok to have the headlines a different color to make sure that people know that each headline is a link (whereas making them black and not underlined would look *too much* like a newspaper, and no one would immediately know what to click), but the blue you picked it too subtle. This is not about subtlety. It's not a bad blue, it's just not blue ENOUGH. It's unclear that these are links.

3) As for the idea of making links underlined when once you roll over them, this is backwards. If you've only found out that something is a link after you've rolled over it, you've found out too late. Why make people roll all over the page to find the links? Also, these rollovers are slow in IE, like they were done with some kind of complicated javascript or something, instead of simple CSS. The site is optimized for Firefox, which is just as bad as it being optimized for IE. Worse, arguably.

4) The forced wide width assumes that everyone like to keep their browser windows open all the way all the time. This is far from being the case, and very close to obnoxious.

Getting more advertising, or at least more readers, is the point of any redesign, or indeed any design. This is not inherently bad.

at the nyt, delivering the news comes somewhere behind "get more advertising" when it comes to priorities.

There is a tiny part of my liberal lizard brain that understands your point of view, but my Real World brain thinks that your whole tirade is hilarious. Advertising is the only thing that makes the news possible, and this is not some huge upset in the social order. This is business as usual, and business has given you a very long time to get used to these facts. If this seems bristly to you, you do not have business to blame. You can only blame your inability to suck it up.

Likewise with newspapers. They need to become relevant again, and whining about how nobody buys newspapers anymore is not going to do it. They need a whole new game plan.

Yep, and increasing the advertising until the news squeaks is like Altavista adding yet another feature to their "portal" after Google had arrived.

I'm surprised that the top headline is now bigger, in point size, than all the others. I feel like they're really trying to force me to read that one, rather than the other ones. Isn't being at the top enough?

Between the TimesSelect and the new design I find I visit the site much less than I used to. If page hits go down, ad rates do too, I assume?

still, when i'm at work (and most likely to read the NYT), i have to use the website.

New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

looks like the NYT is going paid!

times getting p appy w/this 9/11 section http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/sept-11-reckoning/viewer.html

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytdesign/2011/sectionFrontViewer/civil-rights.jpg

the word 'rights', but spelled out in toilet paper, a vivid visual allegory for the decline of civil rights post-9/11

lol

(p sure thats fabric tho)

highly recommend this chrome extensh

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lejiflopkadmkjajbalpkglfhmkjchol

yeah i fucked w/that for a min, p nice, doesnt work w/the nytclear paywall borkmarklet tho

so the question mark trick doesn't work anymore for getting free access huh?

yeah, although my dad (who i originally told about the ? trick) told me that anything linked from twitter will get u through the paywall, maybe something to do with those abbreviated links?

is there a way to get around this damn paywall or what

Private browsing mode in Firefox or Chrome seems to do the trick.

heh i tried to post the article link on my own twitter, then click it, but that didn't work

will try that, thx

btw, if you google the headline of the article you want to read, then click through from google, voila

anybody notice the "google the headline" trick not working lately?