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

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#81

Post by dredmorbius »

rjd wrote: post #73
dredmorbius wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I've found ghostery and ad block plus do the trick for me :)

Cool, I've added ghostery, will play w/ it.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#84

Post by Tomek_ »

rjd wrote: post #28
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…

Also probably worth mentioning while on the subject all my research and experience added up to designs that are very close to Al Jeezera. Perhaps I just favor it because it resembles my own thinking but I believe they have one of the best designed news sites out there: http://english.aljazeera.net Clean, crisp, clear, all gridded up nice and tidy. Handling information overload well. Being a new kid on the block, no l…

I think they've learnt a lot from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ (also in terms of how they coverage news).

Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk might be even better example of a good news site design.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#85

Post by petercooper »

I suspect that while this is a reasonable and logical redesign, it misses out on some non-rational behavior of the majority of people who read news. I know that, non rationally, I quite like a bit of "jumble" from my newspapers and news sites so I can just "wander" around from thing to thing for a while. The redesign showed here turns it more into a blog and I think I'd have trouble wandering around it.. I'd need to know what I was looking for.

I dislike the Daily Mail but I know their site is almost entirely driven by numbers and what catches on (and what doesn't): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ - it has a certain formula to it but it still has an element of randomness and chaos because, I suspect, that's what readers are going for, whether we like it or not.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#86

Post by parallel »

parallel wrote: post #52
josscrowcroft wrote: post #21

Am I the only one who thinks his 'redesign' just looks like any other blog?

"Newer isn’t better. Better is better." Sometimes it takes courage to put forward a design that doesn't have the glamour of the new. Things that work well can often be boring. EDIT: quote is from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2803681

Few downvotes there. Like to hear why people disagree or if I've said something clearly wrong.

Note that my comment was specifically about criticism of the design being familiar and not innovative. I'm saying these things are ok if the design works well.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#87

Post by tjogin »

I think Andy's design is very stylish and presents the content in a tasteful way. I have no significant qualms about his design in any way.

When he goes into business territory, however, he loses his shit. This is the money quote:

"Since news is accessed only via subscription, most of the ads can be eliminated from the pages. Story pages could still have one or two tastefully-presented ads, but preservation of the content is what will keep readers happy, engaged, and willing to continue paying their subscriptions…just like in olden times."

People didn't pay for news in the olden times. They paid for printing and distribution, and then the advertisement covered the rest, with some tiny variations on that theme. Not significantly different from today.

If you were to make the content subscription only, and some publications have tried this recently, you'd lose 90% of your readers. That means also losing 90% of your ad revenue. Now the remaining 10% of your readers need to make up for that loss. That makes it a rather expensive subscription, losing a lot more subscribers, and around it goes, the vicious circle.

That doesn't mean digital news isn't horribly broken, it is. Just that making it subscription only isn't the solution.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#88

Post by notahacker »

rjd wrote: post #53
notahacker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your take on the strong emphasis he puts on separation of "news" and "opinion" and whether an editorial team could adequately resolve that? As a reader the distinction seems very artificial. I can see how senior newspaper executives might like his argument about emphasising the volume of "editorial writers ... promoted as exclusive, valuable properties" though.

Editorials and blogs are the same thing. They are opinion pieces, they are not news, they are bias, and often have an agenda. Sometimes they are satire. That isn't news its entertainment. From a purist point of view the news should be factual and impartial. Editorials fail to impartial most of the time. You have to choose what side of the fence you sit on, are you the BBC or are you Fox News? are you news or entertai…

I agree that provocative regular columnists and guest feature writers are the equivalent of bloggers, and his bold use of regular columnists' names is one of the things I like about his design. I guess that my original point was more that the tendency to editorialise in and around news articles themselves is widespread in modern news media (my perceptions being shaped by a UK print media that wears its biases on its sleeve) and the readers seem to demand it; it seems odd for a designer to come along and assert editors ought to separate anything with any semblance of commentary into a distinct section "separated from news" and apparently subordinate (at least in page position) to it.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#89

Post by starwed »

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…

I think one of the original ads for the iPhone used nytimes.com to show off how it could browse the "real" web.

Re: Andy Rutledge Redesigns NYTimes.com

#90

Post by FargoNorth »

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…

You call this professional? Calm down emo kid.
Post reply on HN