The NYT's new "TMagazine" drove me up the wall. I just can't see it. I feel like it's constantly flying away from me with all that animation. I can tell that they tried to make something beautiful and innovative, but it's profoundly irritating.
AND: Why would you want an innovative fashion magazine that is not visible on an iPhone? What is better fashion than an iPhone? Why would you tolerate that disconnect?
December 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
"Drove me up the wall " pretty much describes my impression, too.
My (in their early 20's) daughters gave it look and described it thus:
"Looks like some old people are looking to capture the MTV vibe. Good luck."
The Natalie Portman schizophrenia thing was laughable and 3 of the "articles" misloaded into another article.
Not ready for prime time, yet.
But then again . . . yawn.
I can tell that they tried to make something beautiful and innovative, . . .
Please Ann. The New York Times? With all that is beautiful and artful in New York that could daily be displayed in the "Paper of Record" . . . when has that been true?
Your photos, Ann, on this blog represent far and away more beauty, and - yes, sometimes - innovation than most of what you would find in any randomly chosen day's edition of the Times (shameless pandering, sincerely felt).
Yes, I totally agree with b about your photos, which are now the most beautiful part of the blog...
The intro flash is actually kind of cool. But the rest of it is incomprehensible and in accessible.
Just give me text, either on the printed page, or displayed on the screen.
Too busy, too fussy, I just want to read articles, not click them.
Trey
During the '73-74 oil embargo, the price of oil quadrupled...inflation everywhere...if that happens again....
Today the NYT costs $12.80 for home delivery (where I live) or $665.60 a year.
Here's are the post-oil shock offers...
a) Keep getting the print version and pay, oh, $1,299.99 a year (or more), or;
b) Pay $719.99 for the on-line version only, plus a free tote bag and a free Kindle, v3.0....
The NYT is just getting ready for the inevitable.
Well, I just clicked on your link, and a very nice picture of Natalie Portman popped up. Very nice. Also, a nice seque to your next post. Natalie was enought, I didn't bother to go deeper in.
quote
T-Mag
Browser Requirements
The New York Times Style Magazine requires JavaScript and the latest Flash plugin to operate. Download the Flash Player.
Contact Us Media Kit Privacy Policy NYTIMES.COM © 2007 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
unquote
That's about all I'll ever see, I expect.
They'll be bought up by the Clinton News Network soon anyway.
Awful awful awful ....x108awfuls.
The chick on the cover is hot
Hi Ann- does the TMag site work on your iPhone? Does it work on your Kindle (do you have it yet?) Do you feel New Media designers should consider these new technologies (and their limitations) when designing sites?
Non-indexable Flash content goes against the very foundational principles of the WWW.
The "Styles" section mentality is 50% responsible for destroying that newspaper. Nice to see them taking the idiocy to a whole new structural level.
I don't care for it but I doubt very much I'm their target audience.
I hate animations. They make me click away.
The design of that page is all about maximizing adevertising revenue.
You read an article in little pages of a few paragraphs each, and each page has a new advert. Everytime you click next they get credit for you seeing the ad.
Very surprising. I thought Flash sites like that peaked about 2 years ago. They're still great for artists sites or doing additional content but to have the whole thing Flash suggests to me a designer who had all these skills going to waste and a boss who didn't know the trends.
The one handy thing about a Flash site is that you can't pluck off content, so in a way it's a much more controlled format.
Answer: No. The text is too small, and can't be resized in the browser. The page images keep moving around to center on the mouse, which is distracting. The audio is also distracting.
The Times appears to be confused about whether they're trying to create a web page, a movie or a TV program.
Oh, it's not that bad. I've read online mags occasionally that are formatted like this.
There are worse formats, too, like fifty words on a page surrounded by ads.
But it doesn't add, is the problem. So it's a lot of effort for a largely negative effect.
the verdict: It's complete crap for an online magazine.
It's beautiful from a graphics and design standpoint,.. for a flier or interactive digital advertisement, but a magazine? I'm surprised at the move, they probably paid a team of developers a lot of money to design it. It's a really poor business decision, in my view.
Post a Comment