apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

As soon as this loaded this morning (my homepage) I thought, Ugh, terrible. Call me old fashioned, but I like a newspaper's website to resemble a newspaper. The tiny font sizes (the blue type in particular) are especially irritating and hard to see. And I have 20/20 vision. And that AT&T ad -- could it be any more prominent? They've lost their way in so many areas. Sad.

And another thing...what's with that "Most Popular" link up at the top? Why is our preeminent national newspaper feeding us this meaningless trivia?

My first thought was that the columns are too wide now, I'm scanning too much horizontally and losing my place vertically sometimes.

It's ugly, it looks cheap, it READS cheap, and it seems less navigable, not more.

I absolutely HATE it.

I hate the new design. There is no longer that handy link that says "Read all headlines" for any given section. If there is, I haven't been able to find it.

NYT's issue isn't it's website, it's the talent who creates the actual content (ie. the writers).

The key improvement for me is that each subsection, like Home & Garden, Real Estate, etc. now lists the most recent articles. I can quickly see whether I've read that section's new articles, or whether they are still last week's articles. I just get a nice big overview of what's in the paper with far less clicking around.

I think it's funny how everyone hates ANY new design. I've never been on a website that did a major or minor redesign and wasn't inundated with complaints from the readers. Are you sure it isn't just about what you're used to?

i'm all for iconoclasm - but i have to agree, this doesn't work. maybe this just means i'm getting old...

I hate the small print and having the sections CRAMMED at the bottom of the home page. I find the whole thing very flat.

I had to pause when the page first loaded, at first it was shockingly different to what I was expecting. But I think the clean lines, and smaller fonts are quite an improvement over the old design.

I think any change to the nytimes website would draw some criticism. Everybody had grown so used to the old layout, that when they initially can't find what they're looking for they freak out. It's the whole new grocery store feeling...

I like the fact that there is more content on the main page, I had to always decrease the font as it used to be far too massive. I think the layout is much cleaner than it used to be, and that's what I like about it.

As for the 'most popular' option. It gives a different perspective to the content. Especially for content that might not be on the front page. I find that aspect to the website rather fascinating. What do other people consider particularly notable?

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/dining/index.html

It appears you can select the section heading, and get all the recent articles for that specific section. I think that has a similar functionality to what was there before.

I don't really have any major issues with most of the redesign. I'm sure it's just a matter of acclimating myself to the changes.

However, I do object to the wider format. The NYT explanation is right that people have bigger monitors/higher resolutions these days and they can fit more text on the screen at one time.

"We have expanded the page to take advantage of the larger monitors now used by the vast majority of our readers."

Well, I have a bigger monitor so I can have an array of windows on screen at one time. Not so NYT can fill all of it.

I kind of hated the old design. I carped about it all the time with my colleagues. Hated having to scroll all the way down...and down...and down for certain sections.

It looks to me like some of the sections haven't been updated to the new look yet, but it's coming. Please rest assured that this is like a "phase one" stage and that other changes and upgrades are on the way - I think the end result will be worth it.

I just find this difficult to read and it requires that I relearn the layout of the site -- why would they ask a dedicated readership to step up and do that?

Newsday did a print redesign about a year ago and it bombed. They slowly, quietly went back to much of their original layout.

However, Peter, NYT has always kept track of the five most emailed articles and most popular isn't all that different; I wouldn't call it trivia so much as standard marketing that drives readership.

I like the added features but I hate the smaller font. It's too hard to read, even with my reading glasses. (Okay, now I feel like an old fart, but I have to assume that a lot of NY Times readers are old farts too).

I never liked the old layout. I think this is very much improved. Although I like the online version of a newspaper to look like the paper version, it can't really be like the paper version, so it has to morph into something more useable. Time will tell, but my initial impression after reading this item was and then taking a look at the page was what's the problem? Looks good to me.

I hope it fits on my 12" powerbook screen at home.

I also hated the old design and having to scroll down four pages to catch all the content. The new design takes advantage of screen width, though it doesn't do anything in terms of organizing the content more effectively or efficiently. I'm still stuck clicking through ten ad-laden pages for an article that could have easily have fit on one page.

As a person who does this kind of thing (large scale web development) for a living, I have to jump to NYT's defense. People always HATE major redesigns the first time they see them! That's because people hate when things they spend a lot of time with change (it's a control thing)! Spend a few days with it, THEN vote. Usually as people adapt to a new site they learn to like it better than it's predecessor.

I like the redesign. I especially like "today's paper." My biggest complaint about the old site was that you couldn't see a list of the day's articles. The closest approximation was looking at the text version of each individual section, and that list would include articles from previous days. Now you can even look back at the individual papers for the past seven days.

I also think the individual sections are better designed. You used to have to click on "more headlines" to see what didn't make it to a section front page. Now everything is displayed together on one page. Also, the organization is better. If you look at the Dining & Wine section, for example, recipes are placed in their own section instead of being mixed in randomly with text headlines.

A webiste that looks like the hard copy?
Never understood that meslef. Why not take advantage of the technology and give ppl a better way of reading.

For example, how many ppl have you seen on the subway that cannot fold their nyt in the tiny space afforded them? (I have that down by the way - heheh - and will offer my services for free to anyone who asks and can meet me in person - just kidding). The size and thinness makes it very difficult to read anything more than the front page in such a situation.

Same with the old style. You had to scroll too much.

For ppl who say the font is too small, you can change that in IE (sorry that's all we are permittde to use at work so I don't have Firefox or Safari to hand at the moment) by clicking on View>Text Size
and then selecting one of the larger choices.

You can change the type size on Macs really easily too.

What I really have been hating about NYT online is that lately they've been putting little ads at the beginning of their videos - as in David Pogue's little tech videos. VEERRRRY annoying. There's no way to get past them that I can tell, and if you're catching up on a bunch, you have to sit through the same ads over and over - most recently, ads for Huff, which I totally don't want to watch because of these stupid, time-consuming, invasive, annoying ads. NYT: are you listening?

I'm surprised at all the negativity. I like how it gets so much more on my screen before I have to scroll. And the photos are so much bigger! Also, I am a big fan of the "Most Emailed" lists, so I'm glad they're more prominent. Sometimes the most interesting stories are listed there, rather than at the front page. Same with "Multimedia," they really produce some wonderful packages, so I'm glad to see that get prominence of place.

I do have a nit to pick with the headline typeface. It should be heavier to give more contrast between that and the white background ... and thus make it more readable. The blue is fairly dark, at least on my browser and screen (I'm on a tiny Dell laptop) so the color doesn't seem distracting to me. If it looked robin's egg blue like it does in the screen shot with this item on the blog, I'd be annoyed.

Pixie - I hate those ads too, but unless the Times starts charging for their videos, I don't think those ads will ever go away. And if it's a choice between ads or having to pay for video, I'd take the ads any day.

it's terrible. very difficult to read, which is ironic as probably one of the reasons for the design is to boost readership.

I'm holding judgment on the new layout but I'm already disliking the font choices. The decision to use "Georgia" for the headlines, summaries and full article text is unfortunate. I find this serif font hard on the eyes for a nice long NYT read. It's additionally confused by the mishmash of fonts on the front page bouncing between Georgia and sans-serif fonts for the bylines, secondary navigation, etc.

I'm guessing that the NYT user-tested the new design and weren't working blind to their readers. I'm curious if they tested on the layouts and information architecture alone or on the more difficult to assess aesthetics as well.

"For ppl who say the font is too small, you can change that in IE"

I know, but that's an extra step, and then I have to change it back when I navigate to a new site. Yes, a minor annoyance but I can't understand why you'd want to make the font so small in the first place. For example, AT's font is very readable.

P.S. One of the many reasons I hate IE is that it won't let you increase font size by hitting CTRL-+ the way Firefox will.

About those annoying ads, I don't mind them if it means the CONTENT stays free.

Unlike the TIMES SELECT subscription content. TIMES SELECT seems a little odd to me. You make people PAY to read the thoughts of your most "influential writers." Hmmm...if no one decides to pay, then what happens to their circle of influence?

Besides, your local librarian can just pull those articles up for you for FREE.

Personally, I think the new design has waaay too much content 'below the fold'. I wish more websites were like ALDAILY.COM

I like that about Macs - you can hit CTRL+ to enlarge and CTRL- to diminish size.

Li,
I'm going to let you in on a secret, but only because you used the term "old fart".

Hold down Ctrl while spinning the wheely thing on the mouse up and down.

Except Mac mouses don't have those.

Speaking of news, did you guys read this article about GRUPS in NYMetro? I really enjoyed it...and think it describes a good chunk of AT readers. :)

What do you think?

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16529/?imw=Y

Holly

Anna, I tried it but nuthin' happened. (the computer knows I'm an old fart and it's toying with me).

Holly, I saw that and I had to laugh because that article describes the entire city of LA. I have some grup qualities but in general I get very impatient with people who work so hard to stay hip in middle age (see old fart comment above).

As much as I like AT, it doesn't really compare with my NYT obsession. For those who share in my obsession, here's more on the redesign from nyt.com's design director. He'll write more about the details in coming days.

http://www.subtraction.com/archives/2006/0403_the_awesome_.php

Thanks for adding to my ever-growing READ tag in http://del.icio.us you guys!

My, I feel old. I didn't dress or act like that in my 20s, and I sure don't now.

Hmmm, I don't know Li... it worked on the NYT page, but not on the NYMetro in Explorer. Maybe I have just enough old fartiness of my own!

It always seems to work in Mozilla.

Pixie - I just registered for del.icio.us after reading your comment. It's great!

On Grups and the casual workplace:

Does anyone call their boss "Mr." or "Ms." anymore? Or anyone for that matter? Why am I on a first-name-basis with near strangers? How old do you have to be to request that people address you formally? Do you have to be a suit?

I just realized my own double standard:
but I'm not telling you my last name!

I guess I can live with informality since it provides some anonymity.

I'm such an old fart that I haven't gotten over not having the index and the quotation of the day on the first page of Metro below the fold! I called the Washington bureau about that.

Anna, control-wheel worked for me. Each little turn of the wheel makes the text bigger or, if you go the other way, smaller.

Jimmy--I'm hooked on del.icio.us.

The grups article is your typical irrelevent to most nycers nymag piece much like their Alpha Moms article, the doctors earning only 300K complaining about having to buy a Toyota instead of a Lexus, the bitchy mothers making the playground just like your worst high school memories piece.

Yes, I was into New Order et al, yes I went to see these bands live in my youth, yes I went to the Hacienda during its heyday, and yes I can hear the Buzzcocks and New Order in many of these new cool bands, and yes I still enjoy listening to music, both the originals and the bands that were influenced by them but I don't feel any need to cling onto a part of my life that will never be the same now that I am a parent. This is an exiting time for me and I relish the opportunity to spend time with my children at their level as they develop. If that means going to a Dora or Wiggles concert instead of a Bloc Party or even a reconsituted New Order one (last year) then I'm fine with that.

BTW, I don't buy nymag but my close to 70 year old MIL does and gives me her copies when she's finished with them. Maybe she is the grup and not me.

Wiggles? - whatever happened to Sesame Street?

I hate the typeface. It looks casual and the NYT just shouldn't look casual.

The NY Times is my home page and it really threw me when I opened the computer this morning. I don't like it but I'm sure I'll adjust.

All those annoying flashy ads were off to the right side on the old site and could be closed off by simply moving the right side of the frame until you don't see them anymore. But on the new site they have info surrounding the ads so I can't do that anymore. AARRGGGHHH

Oh, and one more thing - I HATE Times Select. They make you pay for what used to be free.

It's awful! Looks cheap and cheesy.

yuck! the colour of the type face is too light - it almost looks faded - and definitely makes it harder to read. i can only hope they darken it...or that i get used to it...

Too much clutter. Something I never say here.

My fave online paper layout is the Guardian's.

I like it. I always thought the old design was terrible. As someone who works in interactive, I can also tell you that people hate change. There's always an adjustment period.

As for all the people complaining about ads and Times Select--well, if you want to continue to get the rest of the content for free, that's the only way it's going to happen. You basically get to read a newspaper for free (minus the columnists now), which is a darn good deal.

It's definitely harder to read, due to the sizing and fonts that they chose. Either it's time for me to get bifocals, or they are trying to appeal to a younger readership!

I liked the old site just the way it was, and I don't get why NYT and NY Mag both have to look like cheap blogs now. Maybe it's just the font that bothers me so much, but it looks terrible and everything is absurdly spread out. I am bummed because it's my fave source of information and now I can barely look at it.

I HATE the new site. Ugh.

I was unpleasantly surprised to see the newly-designed New York Times pop up yesterday (set as my homepage). I can't stand it. The font is very hard on the eyes and makes reading articles difficult-- a huge step back from the easy-to-read Times New Roman of old. The effect is that the entire thing now looks like a blog rather than the New York Times. Though I enjoy this look for blogs, for the Times it looks casual and superficial. I do not buy the print copy of the paper; I read the Times online, at length, every day. Their font and layout choices have now made that difficult rather than pleasant. The layout is also far too spread out and requires too much scrolling in all directions. I am just hoping they will come to their senses and return, at very least, to the old font.

for the last year, I've had nytimes.com as my homepage. But this new format has irritated me so much all day that I'm going to switch away. Where are the stories? Isn't access to editorial content (not Times-related blogs, not "multimedia") the presumed point of reading a newspaper? If I wanted to hear from other NY Times readers, I'd start my own damn blog.

Change it back, folks, or you've lost me!

I hate it. The font size and color is difficult to read. the page layout appears to be a mish-mash with no apparent structure. I liked the old style. I found it easy to read and to follow. NYT.com was my home page and I checked it constantly. I have a visceral reaction to the page everytime I see it. This is a shame because I counted on the Times to inform, educate and entertain me and a smart, sophisticated way.

I hope they re-visit some of the common concerns voiced on this blog as well as others. At least return to the old font style and color.

I wrote to The Times to complain that the screen view for my 17" monitor forced me to scroll back and forth in order to see the complete page. They sent back instructions to re-set my display settings tab slider to 1024x768 and the problem would be resolved. I did that, the problem was resolved but it created problems with every other website I visited. The print was too small everywhere else even when I tried to adjust the font. I then switched back The Times to the original setting and will have to take that inconvenience so that I'm not inconvenienced everywhere else. As I noted to The Times, "It wasn't broke, why did you fix it?"

Warren Cassell

An Open Letter to Khoi Vinh, nyt.com design director:

Sorry, Mr. Vin, smells like designer ego. Worse, it reeks of me-too'ism. (See, I can invent illiterate, almost unreadable whimsy too.)

"I think its a sterling piece of work, a great example of how to evolve a user experience rather than reinvent it."

Evolve? Call the previous design old-fashioned, but the headlines were Times New Roman for a reason. They were readable, almost luxuriously readable, and supported the weighty importance of the subject matter. What more could you ask of a font?

"The best reaction it could receive from readers ... would be something along the lines of 'The new design looks just like the old design.'"

Huh? Did someone put something in your tea?

"That would suit me fine, because it would signal a continuity ..."

Back to the tea, I mean fonts. Sorry, still jumbled up. Guess mixing Georgia and Arial with strange, wimpy weights will do that to ya.

Hmmm, the multimedia content? On that I think you're ahead of your time. Even with my relatively fast DSL (3Mbps) connection, I don't have time to wait around for the content to load. Applause for multimedia but it's not integral to the story (yet) unless I make an appointment with myself to go back and find/read/view the link(s) and content.

I could go on. However, why don't we just quietly revert to the previous layout and pretend this never happened.

I look forward to becoming friends again.

Thank you.

Horrible. Hard to read, hard to navigate, bad typeface, have to scroll side to side. Did I say I hate it?

New design is excellent in terms of navigation. It's much easier to get around all of the different sections. I now find myself browsing information I wouldn't have known was there previously.

Making the enormous quantity of content in the NYTimes more accessible was a great improvement.

Any redesign takes some time to get used to aesthetically. I think this one is quite successful though.

I love the NYT--it keeps me sane in living here in the midwest, but can we please have an option for the width of the online page we see? That would make it perfect for all. I'm a Times Select girl, so can it be one of the options I'm paying for? Scrolling left to right is tedious and combatting tedium is what the NYT is about for me!! Could we let the "big monitor" folks enjoy this new format, and let those of us with "perfectly serviceable non-corporately provided monitors" use the narrower format? Hopefully submitted and Muchas Gracias!

It's utterly horrific. Why? Why would they choose to dumb down their content? If I wanted a website news source that was like USA Today, I would just go to their website. Maybe they'll just change it back to the way it was? Shouldn't they test things like this first before they go and alienate all of us who have already paid for Times Select?

I get a daily delivered NY Times at my front door here in Vancouver, BC by three in the morning. I read the web version when I want to peek at the book review a day early and that sort of thing. After some delays I was able to get my free Times Select even though my carrier is the Globe and Mail and not the NY Times. For me the site has lost its elegance. It looks mundane and more like a web page. I don't like it.

I found the font too light and harder to read.
I kept wanting to make it bolder. Tired eyes.
The moving ads are irritating but that's not new.
I do appreciate "most emailed articles" and other highlights.
I do prefer the old format, in terms of visuals. It was much more striking and again, easier to read.
It looks like the majority of readers that have responded feel similarly.

Much harder to read. Pale font colors, small type. Strange organization of material. Bring back the black type!

First: HOW can I "access a website" -- OR: How can I "access the puzzles directly"? After twenty minutes search, I find myself HERE! Also, I do not know what a URL [above] is, nor do I wish to!
As a very old NYTimes reader, in more ways than one, I wish access was easier, to the puzzles which I paid for.

As I tried to ask before I was rudely interrumpted: HOW CAN I GET THE INFO I NEED IF I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO ACCESS THIS SITE? cAN SOMEONE SEND ME A HELPFUL E-MAIL?

aS i WROTE BEFORE: I neither know nor care what a URL is!

I think that the NYT should stop being complete ID**TS and take a user poll so that they can get the fact that no one likes it.