Comments
On April 3, 2006 9:41 AM Thame said:Love it. It's simplicity like this that makes me just want to give up :D
On April 3, 2006 9:55 AM ionut said:I don't know.. something's missing in it, it doesn't have the spice, it's just TOO simple, and I also get a feeling of crowded info.
On April 3, 2006 10:17 AM Diogo Chaves said:I´d like to know why 'The New York Times' site was choosen. I´m a Design student, but I can´t see why this site is here. If you may help me, I´ll be very happy :)
Thanx in advance.
On April 3, 2006 10:24 AM Jared Christensen said:The code is not so good. They used tables for to get the layout to work for them. Not grade A work.
On April 3, 2006 10:38 AM Geof Harries said:Tackling the design of such a monstrous news site would be very daunting. I feel they've done a fantastic job and it's a significant improvement over the previous 5-year old version. Saying that it's too crowded isn't respectful of what has been achieved here. It's not a blog or a small corporate website. This is the New York Times.
On April 3, 2006 10:43 AM Alex Giron said:You guys are looking at this the wrong way.
The way I see it, a major institution has made a great effort towards web standards... yes it's not perfect, but the benefit of having yet another large institution going for web standards is a good thing.
Have you seen the interior pages? I think they've done a great job on typography and layout overall.
On April 3, 2006 11:16 AM Adam Michela said:First some backround. I've been at the NYT for a few weeks trying to help them bring this together.
We started with a jumbled mess, an inconsistent design, and got something that looks reasonable given the timeframe.
Now, as you may or not know, I did most of the coding for The Onion this summer. And I think most would agree - it's fairly clean. So you know where I'm coming from here...
Like Alex said, you're looking at this all the wrong way.
There's a huge battle going on here between new & old and bad & evil. While the bad are not up to most of our standards, they're completely well intentioned.
Sure, there are a ton of mistakes (like the executive decision to use tables on the homepage for legacy browsers) - but - THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS EMBRACED WEB STANDARDS!
For better or worse.
The world's oldest, stodgiest, crustiest mega-corp has made a valiant attempt at doing things a better way.
They had an insane deadline, a mis-managed project, and a complete lack of talented resources - yet - they got something half decent out the door in short order.
It can only get better from here for the NYTimes, and all of us who need to convince large companies that they should adopt standards (even if we need to put a *footnote on our argument - hehe).
Cheers to Geof & Alex for approaching this with an open-mind. You both speak like people who have real-world experience working outside the bubble of blogs and mom-and-pop redesigns.
On April 3, 2006 4:52 PM sam s said:I feel this is a major step forward for webstandards. NYT is a major renowned publication, I imagine the user base is comprised of users who care little for validation of mark up & css, user who care more about the quality, integrity and freshness of content.
A less complicated layout might well be easier to code (to validation) but would not meet the expections of the user base.
I recall the relauch of abcnews.com the team behind the re-design stated that 'We believe in “progressive improvementâ€. The site was to large to make it happen over night.
NYT's validation errors are mostly simple to correct eg unencoded entities in urls, empty tags, and some presentational mark up mixed in (required for dinosour users who have not upgraded their browser since installing the OS - this is common).
A site this size, with such a large daily user base is a daunting task this is a great job! Of course some improvements can be made, real web dev & design needs the progressive approach
THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS EMBRACED WEB STANDARDS
this is a move forward; the more sites that take this step (& are not about promoting webstandard design) the better, design is all about compromise and putting the user first
On April 3, 2006 8:50 PM George said:hmm i snooped around most the site and see that the rest of the work is fully CSS based.
so i guess they made some desicion to approach the homepage differenly.
anyways, continue :)
On April 3, 2006 10:00 PM Eric Shepherd said:This is great! I know full well the difficulties that come with working on large, corporate sites with red tape and marketing departments and beaurocracies. And there's always someone who comes in at the last minute and says "just put it in a table."
It's great to have another example of a large company doing things the right way. It would have been wrong to not feature this site because of validation errors or bits of presentational markup. Those who make an issue of this imperfection simply have never worked in a large-scale corporate environment.
- On April 4, 2006 9:57 AM Adam Michela said:
@George: Yes, the decision to use tables for layout on the homepage was an executive decision from the top in the final quarter.
@Eric: Exactly. Thanks for the reality check.
On April 4, 2006 12:48 PM Pat said:We can't be as absolutist as "They used a table for layout. It's crap."
As Eric said above, anyone who's criticizing it for having imperfect markup is just demonstrating a lack of understanding of the magnitude of a project like redesigning the NYTimes.
While I've never worked on a large corporate site, I have been tasked with re-coding a slew of small to medium sized corporate sites built on a hosted CMS. The CMS strips closing tags in content regions, capitalizes tags, and various other nightmares. However, I was able to write much better code (even if it couldn't validate as HTML 4 Transitional!), reduce page sizes, and use CSS for 99% of the presentation.
That's the way the cookie crumbles - you do the best you can with what you're given and you take pride in the fact that you've made the web even a little better.
The team at the NYTimes has done a great job. Everyone involved should be very proud of themselves.
On April 8, 2006 11:50 PM Daniel Swartz said:I also don't know why this design was included in this CSS gallery. Yes, I do think the design looks nice. But this is a CSS gallery, and the coding behind the site clearly is not standards compliant as it is very tables happy and is not even remotely close to validating. I think by putting this site in this gallery takes a bit of the focus of what this gallery is all about. My understanding is that it is a gallery of great looking cites that use CSS for its layout.
On December 30, 2006 2:12 AM Gel said:How can I get a CSS template like NYTimes??? Anywhere to download it?
On June 20, 2007 5:56 PM copycat said:it reminds me of ( http://alistapart.com/topics/design ) a list apart design elements. it also reminds me of another more similar design that i can't find right now... there is something borrowed about how simple it is.... will look into the css files...
- On June 20, 2007 6:00 PM copycat said:
ok. so the copyright in the CSS files is humorour, the dialog in the javascript is a derivative of Dreamweaver's language... no. hand-coding vs. application built is still a world apart to me...
On June 11, 2008 2:49 AM juegos gratis said:Thanks great works.
On June 11, 2008 4:01 AM Yemek Tarifleri said:The code is not so good. They used tables for to get the layout to work for them. Not grade A work.
On June 11, 2008 4:03 AM Kadınca said:First some backround. I've been at the NYT for a few weeks trying to help them bring this together.
On June 11, 2008 4:04 AM Gebelik said:This is great! I know full well the difficulties that come with working on large, corporate sites with red tape and marketing departments and beaurocracies. And there's always someone who comes in at the last minute and says "just put it in a table."
Post a comment
Note: The author reserves the right to delete inappropriate comments.
- Foul and offensive language will be edited or deleted.
- Personal attacks will be deleted.
- Advertising or spam will not be tolerated.
Formatting: Linebreaks will be converted automatically. Basic HTML tags allowed: a href, strong, em, ol, ul, li, blockquote, code, acronym title, abbr title.
Gravatars are enabled.