DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > Web Design

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-04-2006, 07:01 AM   #1
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default NYTimes Online Redesign?

Has anyone else checked out the New York Times web site since this weekend? Seems like a cruel April fool joke, but they've redone their web site and, IMHO, the new fonts alone are designed to repel the reader. UGH.

http://www.nytimes.com Free membership required to access the site.

http://www.bugmenot.com a great way to avoid free memberships, too.<G>
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 07:18 AM   #2
ktinkel
Founding Sysop
 
ktinkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In Connecticut, on the Housatonic River near its mouth at Long Island Sound.
Posts: 11,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Has anyone else checked out the New York Times web site since this weekend? Seems like a cruel April fool joke, but they've redone their web site and, IMHO, the new fonts alone are designed to repel the reader. UGH.
I was going to say I like it, but then remembered that I had told Firefox to force use of my font choices. I turned that off, and yikes!

I just love serif all caps (not!). In fact, except for display or occasional snippets, I would rather not read any serif type on a monitor. But the caps used in the nav at left is awful. Especially because . . .

The type in general is too small (another favorite of mine). I had to increase the size by two ticks so I could read, at which point those damned caps extend out of their alloted space over lie over the text in the left-most news column. (And the sub-topics, set in grey Verdana, become enormous as well.)

I could (just) read most of the text with one level of enlargement, but then the smallest type (“Noah Stays Unaffected by Crazy Atmosphere,” for example) is unreadable bits.

Other cavils: It does not flex to fit my browser window so I must either rearrange my window or scroll horizontally. Tsk.

I do like some aspects of the new design — its openness and lightness. But since I cannot easily read it, that becomes sort of irrelevant.

Do hope this gets some nice cogent critiqueing from our web mavens here — whoever perpetrated this mess needs some helpful advice.

   
__________________
[SIZE=2][COLOR=LemonChiffon]::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ktinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 07:23 AM   #3
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

Well, there is an article ON the web site (roughly halfway down the right side) with a feedback contact link in it. I'd encourage you to use that.

Supposedly this redesign makes better use of today's larger screens (huh?) and has other reasons to exist. Dunno. Maybe on an XP system the fonts don't hurt so badly, but even in a base MSIE6+ environment, they sure hurt my eyes.

I wonder, does joining their paid online subscription give back better fonts?<G>
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 08:00 AM   #4
ktinkel
Founding Sysop
 
ktinkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In Connecticut, on the Housatonic River near its mouth at Long Island Sound.
Posts: 11,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
I wonder, does joining their paid online subscription give back better fonts?
No. As a print subscriber, I get this as well, and it is no better.

   
__________________
[SIZE=2][COLOR=LemonChiffon]::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ktinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 11:43 AM   #5
iamback
Member
 
iamback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 4,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Has anyone else checked out the New York Times web site since this weekend? Seems like a cruel April fool joke, but they've redone their web site and, IMHO, the new fonts alone are designed to repel the reader. UGH.
Huh??
What I get (at the top of the page) is:
Quote:
Why does this page look this way?

It appears that your Web browser can not find this page's style and presentation information. 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 our download page. You may also try our new Today's Paper feature, a listing of all the headlines in today's New York Times.
I have the latest version, thanks.

Maybe the stylesheets are just too big? They're enormous! And they have a ton of property names with underscores (which the validator says are invald), as well as a ton of other errors found by the CSS validator.
(There's a ton of JavaScript as well - after all, why keep it simple if you can complicate things?)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	hsnap169.png
Views:	125
Size:	24.6 KB
ID:	514  

   
__________________
Marjolein Katsma
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces (soon!), My ArtFlakes shop and Flickr.
Occasionally I am also connecting online dots... and sometimes you can follow me on Marjolein's Travel Blog
iamback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 12:01 PM   #6
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

"It appears that your Web browser can not find" That's the reason I kissed Netscape 4.7 goodbye and moved to MSIE long ago. Not that I like MSIE, not that I endorse it, not that I get a penny from each sale of it.<G>

Simply because when I hear "your browser..." I can say "TFB, my browser is the one with the single largest user base in the world, *you* deal with it."

Aside from that...with all the CSS and nonsense, i have absolutely no idea what font my browser IS using to display that screen. Except, it sure isn't the "Arial, Helvetica, San Serif" that is all I find called in the source code for that page. Looks kinda like New Courier Cross-your-eyes-byopia, to coin a phrase.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 12:06 PM   #7
iamback
Member
 
iamback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 4,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Simply because when I hear "your browser..." I can say "TFB, my browser is the one with the single largest user base in the world, *you* deal with it."
When I hear "your browser" I can say: write standards-compliant code and it will work with my browser!

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Aside from that...with all the CSS and nonsense, i have absolutely no idea what font my browser IS using to display that screen. Except, it sure isn't the "Arial, Helvetica, San Serif" that is all I find called in the source code for that page. Looks kinda like New Courier Cross-your-eyes-byopia, to coin a phrase.
I have no idea... I just get the browser's default fonts, of cuorse, which on purpose I haven't changed to anything sans-serif so I wil note (in most cases) something's amiss.

   
__________________
Marjolein Katsma
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces (soon!), My ArtFlakes shop and Flickr.
Occasionally I am also connecting online dots... and sometimes you can follow me on Marjolein's Travel Blog
iamback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 12:22 PM   #8
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

"write standards-compliant code " That's another reason to go to MSIE.<G>

The W3C standards pretty much became meaningless in the time between HTML 3.2 and 4.x and at that time, MSIE was "the" mark to shoot for. Considering their market share, and the way that so many sites are designed and tested, I have to say that I still consider MSIE to be "the" standard and all the rest? Really, that's like asking folks to write web pages that will still work on DOS and *NIX ASCII terminals.

Just ain't gonna happen. Would be nice if it did, but the tail can't wag the dog.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 12:23 PM   #9
iamback
Member
 
iamback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 4,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
"write standards-compliant code " That's another reason to go to MSIE.<G>
Not!

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
The W3C standards pretty much became meaningless in the time between HTML 3.2 and 4.x and at that time, MSIE was "the" mark to shoot for.
I'm afraid we have to disagree there.

   
__________________
Marjolein Katsma
Look through my eyes on Cultural Surfaces (soon!), My ArtFlakes shop and Flickr.
Occasionally I am also connecting online dots... and sometimes you can follow me on Marjolein's Travel Blog
iamback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 12:35 PM   #10
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

As much as I don't like SUVs crowding the roads and parking lots here...If I were hired to build a parking lot (or paint the stripes on one<G>) I'd have to make the spots wide enough to fit trucks, because that's what the customers are driving. Everything else? "Nice but".

I'm all too happy to find a "compact cars only section" that *I* can make use of, but the market is, where the market is. I just call that bowing to the inevitable.

But meanwhile, keep up the good fight. Perhaps one day you'll win it.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Online Backups Franca Business Matters 13 12-03-2007 11:37 PM
Newspapers -v- Online Richard Waller The Corner Pub 10 12-18-2006 03:08 PM
Dictionaries, Online or on CD dthomsen8 On Language & Literature 17 01-30-2006 02:48 PM
Redesign Suggestions Needed BobRoosth Web Design 11 01-09-2006 08:57 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.