The NEW New York Times

The Times did a relaunch of their home page and navigation scheme.

I like it a lot.  It packs a lot more content above the fold and it just looks a lot better.

I particularly like the Popular page.  I think I'd prefer that to be the home page, but I understand why the Times wouldn't do that.

Imagine if the Times gave you the ability to modify the layout, add delicious popular, digg, memeorandum, and a couple other "web popular" lists to their popular page.  That would rock.  Maybe that is what My Times will be when it launches.  I sure hope so.

Comments

[Justin]

Another key feature of the new layout is loading time - which was dramatically reduced. You wouldn't believe how impatient web surfers are - a few seconds loading time can mean 5%+ of your traffic lost.

I love the new layout too.

[simon]

i think its great .... the whole web broadsheet style for papers and magazines works very well and this trend is really starting to push its way accross..

[David]

I think it sucks.

[Girish Warrier]

Is this the missing convergence of the media - the missing link. Or in other worlds - the convergence of the URLS - personal and corporate. Great article on the power of the URL at GigaOM - http://gigaom.com/2006/04/04/socialnets-the-power-of-the-url/#more-6182.
But isn't that nice - a personal Times where you choose what news you read. I guess what is interesting is how this is changing mainstream media.
By the way is blogging considered mainstream media?

[George Nimeh]

Yes, the wider layout is pretty good. On SixApart, Anil Dash goes so far as to suggest that the 6-column design and other features are influenced by blogs. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

The My Times you describe would be nice, but why should they pre-promote something that doesn't exist when they have so much else to talk about? It has taken so long for them do it in the first place, why all the rush now? This is not typical of Martin and co.'s strategy, and I wonder what is driving it? Is it the bad industry news over at the Tribune? Pressure from above? What's your take?

Personally, I think the Times has lost some of its personality with this redesign. It just looks more like other sites that it ever has before. Is it just me?

At their last major redesign (5 years ago, I think), they added to the user experience (much better navigation and better use of photography and breaking news, for example) but they did not take away the feeling that I was on the New York Times site. Other than the masthead, I'm not sure if I still feel that way. This could be the Wash Post or Herald Tribune. They're great publications and sites, don't get me wrong. But the Times is the Times and this new design does not reinforce that.

On Monday, I described the good, the bad, and the ugly of their redesign on my blog. Maybe you'd like to check it out.

~G~

[Evan Rudowski]

It looks pretty good. But it's been crashing my Internet Explorer browser repeatedly. This only happens on the New York Times site. Anyone else having this problem?

[steve]

all us spoiled gadget freaks and techies dont even notice, but an interesting aspect to the redesign is that the NYTimes has widened their layout basic spec to be wider, pixel-count-wise, than 800x600.

i applaud forward-looking thinking but we design casual games, for the masses, and we think maybe its a bit early for that. but maybe NYTimes thinks (knows?) its readership is sufficiently upscale, or comfortable changing settings (i think monitors and PCs all still ship with 800x600 set as default)