
New York Times Redesign - stevewilhelm
http://www.nytimes.com/redesign/
======
alphakappa
It's great to see newspapers trying to improve the reading experience itself
(single page stories that aren't broken up into a dozen pages for pageviews,
removing distractions etc), since many of the other news websites smother the
user in advertisements, popovers and social media buttons to the point where
it feels like you have to battle the site just to read the story itself. It
remains to be seen how this redesign will feel in practice, but it seems to
have all the right intentions.

When it comes to news websites, my current favorite is the design for The
Daily Beast.

------
ajays
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but: I would love to subscribe to NYT digital
editions, but why must the digital edition cost almost as much as the paper
edition? Imagine the waste involved (in energy and materials)! Current home
delivery rates are $8.75 for paper, and $5.00 for internet. That is simply too
much. Bring it down to $1/week and we'll talk.

~~~
crazygringo
The answer isn't environmentally friendly, but it has solid business logic
behind it.

From what I understand, upping their print circulation lets them charge more
for print advertisers (which pays more than digital advertisers), so NYT has a
strong financial incentive to make the prices for digital/print comparable, in
order to try to convince people to get the print version as well, instead of
just the digital.

Because all print advertisers know are the circulation numbers -- they have no
idea if you're actually opening it up or not, or just sending them all
straight to the recycling bin while you read them digitally.

Again, not environmentally friendly. At least it's all recycled though.

~~~
eurleif
>Because all print advertisers know are the circulation numbers -- they have
no idea if you're actually opening it up or not, or just sending them all
straight to the recycling bin while you read them digitally.

Presumably the price of print ads is in some way related to typical response
rate? Obviously there is less direct feedback than online, but advertisers
aren't flying completely blind and just assuming people see their ads, right?

~~~
dsr_
Oh, no. Print advertisers are almost completely unable to gather meaningful
statistics. Prices are determined by circulation x a fuzzy notion of impact.

------
dredmorbius
It'd be ... nice? useful? different? ... if I could get the video to play.

 _Edit:_ Well, waddya know, it's downloadable. And in Ogg format ("Ogg data,
Skeleton v4.0" per file(1)). So, no, doesn't work in my browser for whatever
reason, but I can download and play it locally, which works better for me
anyway.

Of the changes, the depagination is probably one of the more useful to me.
I've actually written my own CSS to drastically reformat how NY Times pages
render (a few screenshots here, among others:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1tm4ox/user_site_res...](http://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1tm4ox/user_site_restyling_multicolumn_vs_fullwidth/))

The side-to-side viewing stuff I've found really annoying on other sites,
especially if it's tied in to arrow-key navigation or other stuff. I tend to
find myself sliding off the page I want to be on.

------
k-mcgrady
Not a great start. Clicked subsribe and was brought to a page which said: "New
Features. New Navigation. New Experience. Try the redesigned nytimes.com, just
$5 for 12 weeks". So I signed up to give it a try and I've still got the old
design.

Edit: Just noticed an ad on the main page saying the design is actually coming
on Jan 8th.

------
kunai
Most of it is good, but the thing that kills it is the inline comments.

When I want to get down and read an article, I want to get down and _read_ the
damn thing, not be faced with comments that most often reiterate whatever's in
the article anyway.

Keep the comments where they should be – AFTER the article.

~~~
crazygringo
I wouldn't knock it until you see it. I'll be curious -- and NYT articles
generally have curated "Times' Picks" comments that often genuinely add to the
articles. Remember, most articles don't even have comments -- only the ones
which the NYT deems comment-worthy, and they do put forth editorial efforts at
quality control.

~~~
danielweber
People who comment on the NYTimes are literate and can use full sentences. But
beyond that it's about as useful as any other general-purpose comment board: a
whole lot of self-selecting, self-important, in-group tribal bullshit.

------
blueskin_
I really hope this isn't another bandwagoning AJAX infinite scroll
implementation. When will people learn those are a bad idea?

------
tambourine_man
Crashes iOS 7 Safari and Chrome on an iPhone 4S

~~~
baddox
Isn't quite crash on iOS 7 Safari on iPad Air, but it felt like it would at
any moment.

------
minimaxir
Text renders oddly on Windows/Chrome (lots of kerning issues)

~~~
dded
Did you actually find the redesigned site? When I go to nytimes.com, it
doesn't look any different than it has for quite a while. The
nytimes.com/redesign link itself vaguely reminds me of the Mavericks
announcement page that Apple had up before they actually released it.

In any case, nothing looks odd with kerning on Mac/Safari or Firefox.

~~~
stevewilhelm
Front page indicates the redesign is coming Jan 8th.

------
BadassFractal
Is this your doing, dnolen? :)

------
sp4ke
The font aliasing is awful

