Gothamist: BREAKING: New York Times Gets a Facelift!

Karl Prigge

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:14:37 -0500

Sorry -- it's still a single newspaper in content and in format. The frontpage of reddit is not only cleaner, but the content is broader and better.

Jason

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:44:19 -0500

Everyone should check out the internet's "Way Back Machine" for a look at how nytimes.com looked over the last several years... http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nytimes.com

aingealis

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:50:43 -0500

it looks an awful lot like nymetro.com. i like it, but not enough to distinguish the two. also not as easy to read as before, but that might just be because i'm not used to it yet.

Squid Ink

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:11:40 -0500

I wish they'd redesign the print edition. It's one of the worst looking newspapers in the world.

Tim N.

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:54:50 -0500

Ugh.

lacy

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:04:01 -0500

i like the style. i think it's just hard to read.

peakguy

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:52:18 -0500

The real news continues to look more and more like The Onion!

sarah

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:40:50 -0500

I hate it. Nothin but love for blogs, but the Times has taken its love for them one step too far.

romary

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:38:13 -0500

it's awe ite - going to take some getting used to - had to find the obits as they weren't prominently displayed and don't say you never read them.....

ryan

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:36:43 -0500

This could be a great redesign, maybe, once they break it in a little.

steph

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:25:44 -0500

ooops. i guess khoi didn't do the design :) he just implemented it. anyway...

beth

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:18:14 -0500

What font are they using?

steph

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:18:06 -0500

ah yes! it does look a lot like the onion because the major designer on both projects is the same. thank khoi vinh (http://www.subtraction) and his team for bringing the nytimes up-to-date.

John Cooney

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:36:50 -0500

It looks like they copied it from The Onion. Perhaps we can expect better quality news now.

april fool

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:13:17 -0500

had to take a second look because i thought it was a prank nyt. but so far it's easier on my eyesight. i couldn't find the weather for the life of me. that's what brought me over to gothamist this morning!

Carmen Victoria

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:52:55 -0500

I LIKE IT! Your new format, style is refreshing.

huhwhappened

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:44:44 -0500

Very little visual hierarchy, looks quite awful on a laptop screen, the lower half of the page appears to have been completely ignored by the designers, and the decision of which dynamic HTML elements are applied and when/where seems to be completely arbitrary without any thought put into actual utility. Bah.

jt

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:31:54 -0500

Looks horrendous on my browser, which has javascript turned off -- oh here's their warning "It appears that your Web browser has disabled JavaScript, or does not support JavaScript. You are welcome to use the page as is or, for the best experience, upgrade your browser to its latest version by visiting your browser's Web site or NYTimes.com's download page. You may also try our new Today's Paper feature, a listing of all the headlines in today's New York Times." No thanks.

Matthew K

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 03:23:30 -0500

The font there looks awful on my computer....way too bold. I'm viewing on safari - it just doesn't resemble the NYT signature font right now. Am I mistaken? is it a match?

Brightliner

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 02:37:54 -0500

Still slow response to clicks on Safari. I don't know what kind of strange tricks they use that cause the multi-second delay. At least the sections navbar gets rid of the awful pop-up menu that didn't work well with Opera. The new, smaller font size is a pain in the butt. I've got Opera set to default to 120% zoom, which brings it up to a decent size, but that also makes images fuzzy. I want to know what rocket scientist set the stylesheet to 83.5% Georgia for the body text. Why would anybody in their right mind want body text smaller than what the visitor usually sees in his browser? Besides, if you're going to go that small, at least use a sans serif font that has a nice, uniform thickness to the stroke and no serif clutter. If they don't come to their senses, I'll visit with Firefox, which would let me override their font selections.

King Kong

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 02:16:55 -0500

I'm actually digging the new design even as I wish for a larger screen on my computer. It "feels" very blog-like and newspaper-like at the same time. I don't know if blogs were initially intended to mimic newspapers in their layout, but this design, the NYT got right IMO.

rikomatic

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:26:10 -0500

The whole, "most popular / most emailed / most blogged / most searched" feature is nice. The experience of flipping through the NY Times newspaper often results in me reading stories on subjects that I wouldn't normally read because of how that story was advertised on other parts of the paper, or because it is in front of a major section with an attractive graphic. Finding ways to translate that kind of experience to a web interface is challenging. This is obviously not exactly the same thing, but it might result in people going beyond their one or two favorite sections of the paper to maybe explore other issues and news.

adoniram

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:18:16 -0500

The old design recalled designs from the late 1990's, and I doubt anyone would argue it wasn't well out of date, clunky, and had a generally ugly UI. The new version looks good at first glance, and at my personal screen res, isn't too small. I mostly appreciate it resembles newsprint layout, maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to have a bit of gravity that the last iteration lacked.

joe

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:01:39 -0500

The Times website was looking very old and sad but I am mixed on the redesign. The 1024 px width is a pretty bold step since 800 was pretty much the understood limit in web design. While it's true that screens are generally higher-res now, on some smaller laptops it will take up the entire screen, and it's no good for mobile users. They should also release a WAP version. I also think it is kind of cluttered, the ads are so irregular and spaced so oddly. They should have tried to simplify the content a bit more. But at least it looks fresh and as if the Times is a leading publication.

Gnopple

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:59:28 -0500

I like it a lot. Very easy to use. I think you'll get used to the middle section. NYT.com is meant to be a portal for news. I think this is a great step in that direction.

redaBB

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:36:31 -0500

If it ain't broke... This is not better. Text is now harder to read (smaller? light blue color, etc). Page is too wide. Less pictures is not hot. Definitely not inspiring me to buy into Times Select.

jared l.

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:07:08 -0500

their article page looks similar to the nymag...

Rik

Sun, 02 Apr 2006 23:56:57 -0500

Teh suxx0rs.

truongn2

Sun, 02 Apr 2006 23:50:00 -0500

Its always fun and cool to see new designs for web pages. Keeps thing fresh and interesting.

Dave

Sun, 02 Apr 2006 23:44:48 -0500

The times website has been in need of a facelift for some time now. Unfortunately it still has the cluttered, lets-fit-in-as-many-small-ads-as-possible look. Not really an improvement, just more of the same.