I think we're at the tipping point for a new era of long-form content that's designed natively for the web, and I, for one, am very, very excited about it. There's a whole crop of sites and apps (Svbtle, Medium, Quartz, The Magazine) that were born on the web and are dedicated to long form content, but now with initiatives like this we're seeing the old guard finally come around to the fact that the web is not print made digital, it's a whole new medium with a whole new set of possibilities.
I think there is plenty of appetite for real journalism, thoughtful opinion, and gasp long form content subscriptions, but the implementations have lagged behind the technology, while opportunistic content farms like HuffPo and short form (but tech savvy) sites like Buzzfeed have moved more quickly to capitalize on the true potential of the web. Hopefully projects like this can turn the tide and prove that content on great content can be a great business on the web.
I really like the redesign, but fixed headers are driving me nuts. When I read my eyes fix on the top portion of the webpage, when a fixed header is there I feel like I must retrain myself to start reading a little bit below the header.
I've noticed I don't mind fixed footers, they are not within my natural reading area.
Fixed headers are terrible. I once asked a whole room of designers if any of them could think of a single design they liked that used a fixed header, and none could.
This is interesting... I always read at the bottom of the page vs. the top of the page. I wonder if the style of fixed border elements really will train us to read more near the center?
Congratulations on the engaging and thoughtful redesign - this is a huge improvement on the current article pages, which are so cluttered the article feels like an afterthought - squeezed in between social sharing boxes and the related column on the left. Reading that first paragraph has always upset me on articles - where you have to follow a narrow river of text down to the body of the article to continue reading, and ignore all the distractions on the way.
Making the content the star of the show fits far better with what I value in the NYTimes, and what made me a subscriber. Now fix the home page please, it still has that same old cluttered feel!
PS It would be great to see a blog post in future about the work that went into this redesign.
It looks beautiful, but, as a daily reader of the Times, there's one thing that's holding me back from signing up: it's designed (like the iPhone app) to show you other content from the same section.
Here's the thing: When was the last time you gave a damn about the section?
I understand caring about Fashion vs the Science Times. But while the number of sections the Times has makes sense in print, on the web, the differences between the Metropolitan, New York, Business Day, International, National... it all seems fairly artificial. Is the war in Afghanistan national, or international news? Does education reform go under politics or education? The answer is, of course, both, but the Times has to choose. Sure, it makes sense to group them on paper, because it's the best way to help you find things that are like what you're reading. But digitally, without the ability to quickly flip through, there's a lot that just gets hidden from the reader.
As someone who spent five hours yesterday laying out a newspaper, I have a lot of respect for the designers at the Times. Here's to hoping they find a better way to move their IA to the web than in hundred-year-old silos.
As a frequent user of both the iPhone and iPad apps, I can tell you that I appreciate having articles categorized in various sections. Mostly I like browsing the metaphorical paper while skipping sections that I know rarely have articles I care about (hello Style section!).
As for articles that could belong under multiple sections, they are often actually just cross-posted in both. For instance, today there was an article about Harvard searching through staff emails that ended up in the U.S. section and in the Tech section.
This looks like an excellent step in the right direction, but I do have one worry here: native apps.
The New York Times has had several experiments over the last year that indicate a desire to move everyone on to the web and out of native apps. They had an experimental website aimed at tablets that they marketed to NYTimes iPad app users and, while nice, it was a definite step down from a native app. And the iPad app has been increasingly sluggish, despite occasional updates — seemingly a sign of disrepair.
I design and program for the web, so I definitely understand the allure, but mobile web apps are, at best, an approximation of the experience provided by mobile native apps. Just ask 37 Signals, arguably one of the biggest proponents of web apps. Maybe mobile web apps will catch up, but we're not there yet, and I would strongly argue that we won't be there very soon.
I have an inkling that this redesign will be accompanied by a renewed push away from native apps. I just hope that The New York Times doesn't stop development of their native apps.
As tablet and phone hardware matures, they should get faster processing power and additional memory that will make these web apps Good Enough (tm). Until that time, like you, I hope the NY Times and others keep making native apps.
Hi, designer here. Sorry about that, you haven't actually been subscribed to a newsletter - you've been put on the waiting list, but we haven't updated the message in the confirmation email. Fixing this now.
It looks nice, but I'm still waiting for someone to figure out how to do multiple columns well online -- I'd like to use more than a 6 inch wide column of my laptop or desktop screen if possible.
The new layout looks like it is based around a concept I always liked about msnbc.com's article layout--it divides the page into a series of horizontal "screens", with the article text connecting them.
See how, as you move down the page, different elements like pictures, boxes on the right, and graphics divide the long article text into a series of stacked "sections", each of which fits into a horizontal screen orientation.
This makes better use of the (now) more prevalent widescreen 16:9 screen orientation, which normally would be considered poor for reading long articles.
I guess it's pretty but the linked demo(?) page is quite confusing. The top article scrolls uncontrollably fast; at first I thought I had some input, thought I causing it to go up/down but couldn't figure out the UI. Why the bleep wouldn't it stop so I could read? Finally realized it must be a canned demo scrolling on its own, but a disorienting experience.
Handful? Do you mean dedicated product guys? Otherwise, I'd make a wild guess there's much more than a handful. Almost every one running a small business selling their own product has to be the product guy.
So is there anything going on differently on the backend? The article display shows images embedded in the body layout, as opposed to just the standard lede image spot (and sidebar embeds). Does the CMS have features allowing online producers to easily intermix words and multimedia, in the way that Verge and Polygon do?
From what I've seen of the design and know of the CMS I would say this can be done without minimal changes on the backend (though you never know - simple things can have complex repercussions....
The big change is that the embedded Video is traditionally off to the left-side of the page. In this redesign the question is how to determine where within the text they're spread out.
Compare the design to the original article to see what I mean.
[+] [-] thesash|13 years ago|reply
I think there is plenty of appetite for real journalism, thoughtful opinion, and gasp long form content subscriptions, but the implementations have lagged behind the technology, while opportunistic content farms like HuffPo and short form (but tech savvy) sites like Buzzfeed have moved more quickly to capitalize on the true potential of the web. Hopefully projects like this can turn the tide and prove that content on great content can be a great business on the web.
[+] [-] duopixel|13 years ago|reply
I've noticed I don't mind fixed footers, they are not within my natural reading area.
[+] [-] sp332|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctbeiser|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanlinehan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] untog|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greyman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grey-area|13 years ago|reply
Making the content the star of the show fits far better with what I value in the NYTimes, and what made me a subscriber. Now fix the home page please, it still has that same old cluttered feel!
PS It would be great to see a blog post in future about the work that went into this redesign.
[+] [-] ctbeiser|13 years ago|reply
Here's the thing: When was the last time you gave a damn about the section?
I understand caring about Fashion vs the Science Times. But while the number of sections the Times has makes sense in print, on the web, the differences between the Metropolitan, New York, Business Day, International, National... it all seems fairly artificial. Is the war in Afghanistan national, or international news? Does education reform go under politics or education? The answer is, of course, both, but the Times has to choose. Sure, it makes sense to group them on paper, because it's the best way to help you find things that are like what you're reading. But digitally, without the ability to quickly flip through, there's a lot that just gets hidden from the reader.
As someone who spent five hours yesterday laying out a newspaper, I have a lot of respect for the designers at the Times. Here's to hoping they find a better way to move their IA to the web than in hundred-year-old silos.
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|13 years ago|reply
As for articles that could belong under multiple sections, they are often actually just cross-posted in both. For instance, today there was an article about Harvard searching through staff emails that ended up in the U.S. section and in the Tech section.
[+] [-] voxmatt|13 years ago|reply
The New York Times has had several experiments over the last year that indicate a desire to move everyone on to the web and out of native apps. They had an experimental website aimed at tablets that they marketed to NYTimes iPad app users and, while nice, it was a definite step down from a native app. And the iPad app has been increasingly sluggish, despite occasional updates — seemingly a sign of disrepair.
I design and program for the web, so I definitely understand the allure, but mobile web apps are, at best, an approximation of the experience provided by mobile native apps. Just ask 37 Signals, arguably one of the biggest proponents of web apps. Maybe mobile web apps will catch up, but we're not there yet, and I would strongly argue that we won't be there very soon.
I have an inkling that this redesign will be accompanied by a renewed push away from native apps. I just hope that The New York Times doesn't stop development of their native apps.
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xSwag|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notatoad|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdc|13 years ago|reply
"Request access to the prototype" yielded an immediate email: "Thank you for signing up for a New York Times newsletter!"
[+] [-] tealtan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kefs|13 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4950054
[+] [-] glitchdout|13 years ago|reply
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/
[+] [-] pseut|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|13 years ago|reply
See how, as you move down the page, different elements like pictures, boxes on the right, and graphics divide the long article text into a series of stacked "sections", each of which fits into a horizontal screen orientation.
This makes better use of the (now) more prevalent widescreen 16:9 screen orientation, which normally would be considered poor for reading long articles.
[+] [-] fernly|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffclark|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hboon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jschuur|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donohoe|13 years ago|reply
The big change is that the embedded Video is traditionally off to the left-side of the page. In this redesign the question is how to determine where within the text they're spread out.
Compare the design to the original article to see what I mean.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/marketing/prototypeSignUp/media...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/magazine/hollywoods-year-o...
The big question in my mind is where the ads will go?
[+] [-] erdogan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] azar1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saurabh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wittekm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] recuter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tbassetto|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duaneb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hawleyal|13 years ago|reply