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

Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

andyrutledge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#61

Post by jase_coop »

donohoe wrote: post #50
jase_coop wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In other words why not a mobile site. Well, very simple. The iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the full page. It was the first browser to do so - it don't require a lite version. You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag and get the full depth of the page. Other browsers - like those for Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that." That's your main reason for not having a mobile site? In terms of usability, zoomin…

That's your main reason for not having a mobile site No. I never said that. We do have a Mobile site. If you're not going to read the comment please state tl;dr so I can save replying and just go to bed. I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like. I am also a…

That justification is more acceptable, but still a poor excuse (which doesn't sound like your fault), and if anything highlights the problem with the focus of user-centered design.

I'm sure you'd agree, design isn't a democracy. Clearly, your users are wrong.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#62

Post by vacri »

rjd wrote: post #13

Well having been in the person in charge of a major news website myself I can say we all have lovely designs like this pinned to the walls next our desks. And while I really like his designs and have turned to Andy many times for inspiration, there are some serious context problems... and while I'm bored and off work I might as well write a critique... I had an near identical sports section to the one he designed pin…

I must admit that it was with some amused curiosity that the primary thing removed to make the site cleaner was "ads". That along with opening paragraphs were the two major changes in layout.

It seems that the author thought that his solitary 'subscribe' button would provide enough income to support a large media organisation and make it nicely profitable - all internet commentary to the contrary.

The other thing I took away was from the navigation bar. So what if it's long? If I'm a regular user, I prefer a mildly long navigation bar as long as the items stay in the same place. I can then get to the subsection I want very quickly, without having to wait for some eye-pleasing pretty animation slowly exposing the subs of some higher heading. Obviously this is a highly personal issue, but his 'prettier' version of doing this involved horizontal nested menus that take up a monstrous amount of vertical space. Most of us have widescreens (not tallscreens) on our non-mobile devices - and woe betide those folks using netbooks.

I think you're right - it's a nice layout for a blog, but doesn't really suit a rapidly-changing, info-packed news site.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#64

Post by mturmon »

faramarz wrote: post #10

Obviously he's not a NYT reader. I love the times. It's not broken. Their website is fantastic in every way. You can spend hours upon hours on it and digest more content, in whatever style you wish to navigate. It has a certain unity within the chaos. But it's not really chaos. The content is the layout. You won't find any other News organization who understands design more than NYT. They let the content design the l…

I agree, and I'll add that Andy's proposed reduction of the front page to a simple series of articles (as in the search interface) is a terrible idea.

He does not understand the value of a long-time reader's experience with parsing text-dense front pages, where headlines give way to subheds, and where reporters' bylines are visible. The whole point of the front page is to tell me what's important at a glance, and they really do a great job at that. It's clear that the editorial team puts a lot of thought into curating the "top half" of the front page, and the "series of articles" approach throws that out.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#65

Post by dredmorbius »

rjd wrote: post #32
dredmorbius wrote: post #19

I don't like the final result, and Rutledge dismisses many of the realities of site design. I think the existing NYTimes site is among the examplars of good Web news site design. My principle gripe is that there's too much whitespace around the primary content. That's probably a consequence of both a 1920x1080 display (laptop), and highly aggressive ad blocking. (Yeah, yeah. I'll stop blocking ads when advertisers st…

Video content brings in 20x the ad rate of display ads. The news agency I worked for had a "push video for all content" stance because of this, I assume all other news sites have the same stance. You bring up the biggest argument of them all, I had it every day with the site I was responsible for. I'm a minimalist myself, and the person I reported to was a everything and the kitchen sink guy. We had some heated argum…

The lifesaver for me has been the "Remove This Permanently" Firefox plugin (well, that an the Flashblock plugin).

If something's sufficiently annoying, I just find its xpath and remove it.

Does this put me in the top fractional 1% of browsers? I have no doubt. Does this work for me? Yes. Does the 1% bit bother me? Not in the least.

If anything, it's the final trump card in an argument I've had with web-design geeks that the end-user ultimately trumps style.

Video very likely does bring in the money. I can live with that. But so long as I can rip out the offending content, I'm cool with it.

I've also seen some other good/bad paper designs. In the Bay Area, I'm continually amazed at how good the _design_ of the SF Chronicle is (the content's of course gone fully to crap), and how poor that of the San Jose Mercury News (in the capital of Silicon Valley) is. I actually did an analysis of how much (and respectively little) content was presented above the fold in each design.

Sadly each, even in their online incarnation, is becoming increasingly irrelevant and local-focus blogs/news services are emerging.

On the topic -- if you haven't read John Sealy Brown's _Information Rules_, I'd highly recommend his section on the community-binding element of newspapers (and sports teams). It's a strong indictment of micro-targeted / individualized news streams.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#66

Post by martinkallstrom »

donohoe wrote: post #42

Dear god, where to start. I worked on the Times web site for 7 years (dev, not design). Before I even saw his "redesign" I read his preamble. First, lets be clear, he is working from the wrong assumptions. He demonstrates clearly what is wrong with many news outlets but then he lumps the Times in with them too. Since his piece is about the Times I have to feel all assertions he makes are about that too, and not just…

tl;dr: Working 7 years at the website of the Times makes you bitter?

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#67

Post by rjd »

donohoe wrote: post #54
rjd wrote: post #13

Well having been in the person in charge of a major news website myself I can say we all have lovely designs like this pinned to the walls next our desks. And while I really like his designs and have turned to Andy many times for inspiration, there are some serious context problems... and while I'm bored and off work I might as well write a critique... I had an near identical sports section to the one he designed pin…

Thank you for a more clear headed response than mine.

And thank you for your response, and great work.

I can say your teams work has been in many more arguments and importance decision than you realize. If I go back to work for my ex employer I may just reach out to you.

Still 50/50 on it but writing that review has reminded me of the good times and not just the bad :)

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#68

Post by MatthewPhillips »

jase_coop wrote: post #55
donohoe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your main reason for not having a mobile site No. I never said that. We do have a Mobile site. If you're not going to read the comment please state tl;dr so I can save replying and just go to bed. I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like. I am also a…

"I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like." My point still stands. Just because Apple give you the choice to pinch and zoom doesn't mean that's the way it should be. The fact you already have a mobile site but choose not to put it to its full use baffles me…

Personally I dislike it when a site redirects me to some mobile version (often breaking the permalink and sending me to the main page). I think a URL should render the same no matter what browser it is being viewed from.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#69

Post by vacri »

dredmorbius wrote: post #19

I don't like the final result, and Rutledge dismisses many of the realities of site design. I think the existing NYTimes site is among the examplars of good Web news site design. My principle gripe is that there's too much whitespace around the primary content. That's probably a consequence of both a 1920x1080 display (laptop), and highly aggressive ad blocking. (Yeah, yeah. I'll stop blocking ads when advertisers st…

I sit in the middle of blocking ads - I block flash, but leave images. Animations are distracting, and 'proper' advertising tends to use low levels of animation in their images (by 'proper', I mean that newspaper sites don't tend to have "you are the 1000000th visitor!" animated gifs)

The worse ad culprit I ever saw was an ad on article pages that would wait on a timer that would have you about halfway through the second paragraph... then expand to cover the article text. I can't imagine what kind of fresh marketing graduate thought that that would be a winner.

Also, regarding your comment on microcontent - it's often a necessity in the news world because Subeditor Bob has come up with a wacky headline that sounds witty, but out of context has nothing to do with the article. I'm all for the brief illuminating blurb.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#70

Post by [deleted] »

donohoe wrote: post #48
timsally wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually read the online edition of the Times and I find it highly readable. A very enjoyable experience. I suspect this designer isn't a regular reader. News organizations are viewed as easy targets for designers trying to increase their brand by writing a sensationalist article (did we really need any more convincing after "news itself is broken"?). So don't be bitter. The good work being done at the Times is sel…

I sound more bitter than I am. I guess I am defensive. Very it seems. I know the people in the design group at the Times and Andy writes like there is no Design group, thats its all slap-dash and easy-peasy to fix. That fact that Andy is a design profesional makes my blood boil. Andy should know that is easy to look in from the outside, make grand statements without knowing the truth and reality of why things end up…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN