Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#71

Post by whorleater »

hackuser wrote: post #41

After 20 years, they still are adapting to the 'new' platform. Look through their site with fresh eyes: If you were designing a news website (rather than moving a newspaper to this new platform), how many design, UI and functionality choices would you make differently? A quick start: * The separation of different forms of content: They don't really mix text with video, images and graphics, even though most web-native…

> The separation of different forms of content...

There's a point to be made about the separation of print and web, but you also should consider that text is much more easily saved than images/video/interactivity. The NY Times is a journalistic paper, and part of journalism is to create content that will be readable for generations later. If someone comes along 20 years from now and tries to read about an earthquake, are they going to be happier seeing a giant "video 404" or being able to read it?

> The font in their title...

While I doubt I'd launch a product with that font in my current design, there's not necessarily anything wrong with harkening back to a design scheme that over a century old. The NY Times logo and font associate journalism that's austere and unchanging, and for that I'd say they're serving their audience quite well.

>The discoverability of content...

I'm fairly certain you're not meant to complete the front page. It's not a bucket list of things you need to check off, it's to give you access to the news that's currently relevant. If you go to one of the subpages the content discoverability is much better.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#72

Post by ergothus »

mattkevan wrote: post #70
ergothus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only wish. The marketers were in full force. We'd do "slice and dice" design, where a designer would mock up the full page as single graphic in Photoshop, then we'd slice that image into multiple, and reassemble in tables (no reliable CSS!) with font tags. Today we argue about how much JS is too much, or if there is such a thing, but back then if you wanted the markup to change you sent a request to the backend and…

Oh, good grief. That brings back terrible memories of infinitely nested tables and transparent PNGs. And the font tags. The font tags.

I didn't even mention imagemaps.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#73

Post by hackuser »

whorleater wrote: post #71
hackuser wrote: post #41

After 20 years, they still are adapting to the 'new' platform. Look through their site with fresh eyes: If you were designing a news website (rather than moving a newspaper to this new platform), how many design, UI and functionality choices would you make differently? A quick start: * The separation of different forms of content: They don't really mix text with video, images and graphics, even though most web-native…

> The separation of different forms of content... There's a point to be made about the separation of print and web, but you also should consider that text is much more easily saved than images/video/interactivity. The NY Times is a journalistic paper, and part of journalism is to create content that will be readable for generations later. If someone comes along 20 years from now and tries to read about an earthquake,…

> I'm fairly certain you're not meant to complete the front page.

Agreed. The problem is that it seems likely that readers will miss many stories they would be interested in.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#74

Post by rconti »

epc wrote: post #24
mc32 wrote: post #7

My impression is the mercury news from san jose had an earlier, if paid, presence. Funny how the NYT wanted to charge nearly two dollars to allow you to print older articles. Asking people to pay for the own digitization.

I'm pulling this mostly from my decaying memory but nando.net (Raleigh? News and Observer) was neck-and-neck with the SJ Mercury with a web presence. Many of the early newspaper web sites were simply HTML variations on existing online presences (CI$, Prodigy, AOL, etc).

Wow, yeah. I didn't realize nando was a regional paper. I read it all the time though because it was the first good online newspaper.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#75

Post by hackuser »

lotso wrote: post #58
hackuser wrote: post #41

After 20 years, they still are adapting to the 'new' platform. Look through their site with fresh eyes: If you were designing a news website (rather than moving a newspaper to this new platform), how many design, UI and functionality choices would you make differently? A quick start: * The separation of different forms of content: They don't really mix text with video, images and graphics, even though most web-native…

>* The separation of different forms of content... Disagree. The NYTimes is at the forefront of dynamic content and page layouts. They inspired a couple of startups to build publishing tools after their Snowfall article was published http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne... For more interactive articles, check out this http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/year-in-interacti... >* The font…

> The NYTimes is at the forefront of dynamic content and page layouts

Perhaps, but it's not implemented in production; that is, it's not implemented in the vast majority of their content. I know Snowfall was a big deal to some, but I'll bet most readers of the Times have no idea what it is. I've never heard it discussed outside news/tech insiders.

Also, dynamic content and page layouts are not multimedia.

>* The font in their title... Serif fonts aren't dated, and this is part of their branding and aesthetic.

That font is dated, beyond a doubt.

> a company founded in 1851 will not have the same aesthetics as a company founded in 2016

That's what I meant. They are tied to 1851 and say it loud and clear. Others do update their branding.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#76

Post by unicornporn »

morgante wrote: post #30

It's pretty impressive how good a job the NYT has done of maintaining historical articles. You can even find quite old articles from key historical times and they're presented just like articles today. For example, the famous Crittenden Compromise is at http://www.nytimes.com/1861/02/06/news/the-crittenden-compro...

Aftonbladet, the largest news site in Sweden, went live on the web in 1994[1]. Here's a picture of their first server[2]. Aftonbladet was founded in 1830. Their article archive isn't nearly as impressive though.

[1] http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/aftonbladetse18ar/article1...

[2] http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/image/12090393/496/normal/5b4f...

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#77

Post by fsck--off »

criley2 wrote: post #29
lukasm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That awkward moment when website you made 20 years ago is better to read articles.

>"That awkward moment when website you made 20 years ago is better to read articles." Am I the only one who thinks that the whitespace heavy and well designed NYT modern site is better? Good line height, good type choice, very good readability. As opposed to times new roman at 1.0 line height, is that really the pinnacle of readability? Eight grade book report format?

I use a low brightness setting on my laptop because I am uncomfortable looking at bright screens for extended periods of time. I prefer the body text to be #000 on something close to #FFF (this website uses #828282, which is fine for me.) The Times uses #333 for their body text which is probably enough contrast for bright screens, but it is noticeably poorer on the dimmer screen that I use. I don't see a reason to make the text more difficult for the people with poor vision, especially elderly, who on the whole have poorer vision, to read. I can use extensions and overwrite their CSS to change this, but I shouldn't have to.

The fixed headers are very annoying on small laptops, where vertical screen space is already limited. It makes no sense to stuff the main navigation menu into a hamburger bar on the FRONT PAGE of a newspaper web site so that a tiny amount of white space may be added to the sides.

A navigation bar shouldn't scroll down the screen with me and steal screen space when I'm reading an article. I would rather hit the back button, change tabs, or scroll to the top and click on a different section when I'm done reading an article. And the layout is just ugly when Javascript is turned off because there is no spacing between the full size images and the body text.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#78

Post by hackuser »

volaski wrote: post #49
hackuser wrote: post #41

After 20 years, they still are adapting to the 'new' platform. Look through their site with fresh eyes: If you were designing a news website (rather than moving a newspaper to this new platform), how many design, UI and functionality choices would you make differently? A quick start: * The separation of different forms of content: They don't really mix text with video, images and graphics, even though most web-native…

Just because something is in vogue doesn't mean it is the right answer in the long term. Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue but stick to being a reliable source of information. Outlets like Buzzfeed have their own place but that doesn't mean New York Times need to "adapt" to become one of those. That's the worst decision they can make. People who go to New Yor…

> Just because something is in vogue doesn't mean it is the right answer in the long term. Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue

Nothing I mentioned was abouut trends or short term page view revenue. It's about making their site more functional, improving their content by taking advantage of multimedia (hardly a trend by now) and making their excellent content more available to their readers.

> there are tons of articles with embedded media, here's one: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/nyregion/bronx-school-embr....

In that article, the photos are what I meant by 'decorative' media (I'll agree it's not a perfect choice of word). the not integral to the story - you could skip the photos and not miss anything. The video is separate from the text of the story; they are not integrated; from reading the story, There is no indication that the author of the text knows that the video exists.

What I see many amateur bloggers do is tell one story and use the right tool for the right moment. Where text tells the the story best, use that; switch to video/audio/whatever when that does best. The story is what matters, not the media used. As one possible example:

At New Visions Charter High School in the Bronx, here's how one innovative class starts its day:

Click to watch the full class (45 min.)

What you just saw is a new school program that seeks to use hip-hop music to reach teenagers who may not respond to more traditional counseling. Called hip-hop therapy, it encourages them to give voice to their day-to-day struggles in neighborhoods where poverty and crime are constants, and provides a foundation for school leaders to engage directly with them in a way that seems more enjoyable than intrusive.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#79

Post by untog »

volaski wrote: post #49
hackuser wrote: post #41

After 20 years, they still are adapting to the 'new' platform. Look through their site with fresh eyes: If you were designing a news website (rather than moving a newspaper to this new platform), how many design, UI and functionality choices would you make differently? A quick start: * The separation of different forms of content: They don't really mix text with video, images and graphics, even though most web-native…

Just because something is in vogue doesn't mean it is the right answer in the long term. Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue but stick to being a reliable source of information. Outlets like Buzzfeed have their own place but that doesn't mean New York Times need to "adapt" to become one of those. That's the worst decision they can make. People who go to New Yor…

Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue but stick to being a reliable source of information

Strictly speaking, their mission of the NYT is to make enough money to survive. In the long term, that will prove difficult if the audience does not grow.

It's all very well trying to be a reliable source of information, but a reliable source of information combined with frothy light articles is better than a bankrupt company.

Re: The New York Times Introduces a Web Site (1996)

#80

Post by lotso »

hackuser wrote: post #75
lotso wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* The separation of different forms of content... Disagree. The NYTimes is at the forefront of dynamic content and page layouts. They inspired a couple of startups to build publishing tools after their Snowfall article was published http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne... For more interactive articles, check out this http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/year-in-interacti... >* The font…

> The NYTimes is at the forefront of dynamic content and page layouts Perhaps, but it's not implemented in production; that is, it's not implemented in the vast majority of their content. I know Snowfall was a big deal to some, but I'll bet most readers of the Times have no idea what it is. I've never heard it discussed outside news/tech insiders. Also, dynamic content and page layouts are not multimedia. >* The font…

>Also, dynamic content and page layouts are not multimedia. Maybe you didn't see it, but a lot of those articles have multimedia.

>They are tied to 1851 and say it loud and clear. Others do update their branding.

They have modernized it, but it still acknowledges their past, which is in line with their branding. I don't think anyone looks at their typeface and is turned off by it.

Post reply on HN