April 3, 2006

The new NYT web design.

The NYT redid its webpage. I find it incredibly hard to judge because I was so used to the old look that the new look feels uncomfortable. The right sidebar is so wide now that the page feels lopsided to me. Is that only because the old page is burned into my brain?

The print has gotten light. There is something elegant about gray and not black print, but when you're used to black, gray gives you that failing eyesight effect.

I do like the way it looks from about mid-page down. The line of square photos is especially nice.

I'll get used to this, I guess. And the fact is, I've long preferred the paper Times to the webpage, because I feel I have a better view of things. Will the redesigned page beat the paper version? Do they want it to?

12 comments:

pr9000 (paul) said...

still one of the best designed papers in north america ... i recently got a home subscription, and there's not a day that goes by that i'm not blown away by at least one page of the paper.

as a former paper designer, i love the times. as a fan of unbiased reporting ... well, there's always drudge. :)

Dave said...

The Times web site is maddening and poorly designed. The notion that you have to click through multiple pages to read an entire article is an idiotic, print-based way of thinking.

Short NY Times stock; they clearly don't understand the web or how it is obliterating their business.

In 20 years I predict the Times will have gone through a major restructuring, akin to what GM is going through now. Their time has passed.

divine angst said...

NYTimes has simply done what CNN did recently (and what the Washington Post did last year): make their page wider. All three papers' websites are now fixed at 1024 pixels wide.

For those of us who use small laptops, whose monitors are no more than 1024 pixels wide, what this means is that to effectively read any of these papers online, I have to let my browser window obliterate everything else on my screen. From a usability standpoint, this is extremely poor design, because the design forces use, rather than being flexible for a variety of users.

(Of course, from a marketing perspective, I'm sure all of these paperes want their pages to be the only thing a reader is seeing at any given time, but that's egotism and will drive many users off. At any rate, I almost never go to the main page anymore, and just click through to the articles I want via Bloglines.)

HD_Wanderer said...

Questionable design at best. Too cluttered and busy. They're still basing their design as if it were on paper. They need a new unique approach, not small changes to a poor design.

brylin said...

My preference is for the 800x600 because of my older eyes.

StrangerInTheseParts said...

I agree with everyone that 1024 across is a really dud move...who reads that small? Who can sort through all the information they cram into all that space?

Dale B said...

The Wall Street Journal did the same thing two weeks ago. The front page is now fixed at 1024 wide. They also moved some links that used to be in the left margin into drop-downs along the top of the page. Very much harder to use.

Henry said...

The new design has a recurrent JavaScript bug:

Line: 782
Char: 1
Error: 'Accordian' is undefined

Because of my job, I have my browser set to display all errors. It's really annoying when a major Web site has such an error and does not immediately correct it.

mcg said...

Well, thanks to their new design, I won't be reading anything in the right-hand half of their new sidebar. I hope they don't put important stuff there :-)

Henry said...

The JavaScript is fixed now. The tabbed interfaces down the right column all work now. I guess they're working out the bugs today.

Dave said...

The interior design blog Apartment Therapy takes on the Times' new look:

Although we applaud the Times' restless efforts to get more webby and we love all the video, slideshows and generally interactive fare (minus Times Select), we think that in terms of web design, they have added new features and navigibility at the expense of readability.

I repeat my comments made at 9AM this morning: the New York Times is clueless.

katiebakes said...

Ann,

I thought you would be happy about one of the new features: the tabbed "Most Popular" sidebar that has a "Blogged" tab in addition to "Emailed"!