t.gifThe New York Times discusses its redesigned web presence:

We also wanted to give our readers a greater voice and sprinkle a little more serendipity around the site by providing prominent links to a list of most e-mailed and blogged articles, most searched for information and popular movies. A new tab at the top of the page takes you directly to all our most popular features. [Redesign - NYTimes.com - Leonard M. Apcar - New York Times]
Serendipity: using data about what users chose to do on the site to give hints about what might be of interest. This type of data is an increasingly valuable way of improving the user experience through suggestion. They have also added so-called Topic Pages and a MyTimes feature.

I like the redesign - this is a rich website with a variety of navigation options.

Incidentally, Dave Pattern reports on the usage of some of his catalog enhancements which offer suggestions to users based on data and behaviors.

Related entries:

Comments: 0

Apr 04, 2006
Jeffrey Roseman

the redesign is great, but oh, the fonts are not pleasing to the eye (mine anyway)and some of the sub headers on the main page are all but illegible in my preferred typesize. Jeffrey

Apr 04, 2006
Leonard Pone

The redesign is AWFUL!!! It looks like some sort of local Pennysaver. What's more, the bright background and odd font make it VERY hard to read. I imagine people with vision problems will probably find it impossible.

Apr 04, 2006

my high hopes for this upgrade having been dashed.. on behalf of the estimated bazillion TREO users.. let me say.. neither the WAP version nor the suggested .today.s paper. version slice the proverbial mustard.. please make a version that..

. gets straight to at least some content without showing a java error or many.. many lines of advertising.. we scroll with our thumbs.. you see

. leaves the right kind of space between entries .non.headline articles. so our little browser can handle it.. rather than glomming everything together

. offers a link straight to a text.only.. single page copy of an article

and please don.t make me pay for this kind of convenient access.. don.t you have advertisers for that?

thank you very much

. kbz

ps.. please make your comment form parse basic formatting.. engadget can do it.. craigslist can do it.. surely the mothership can do it.. i should have to manually input html code? i .plainly. don.t even have the patience for proper punctuation and capital letters .another treo ism.

Apr 04, 2006

and now i see the form has added hard returns on top of the html returns i hard coded.. spreading my comments double wide.. not matching the preview.. hm

Apr 04, 2006

and now i see you are not actually the nyt.. how embarrassing.. apologies.. of course

Apr 04, 2006

Don't like it at all. Very drab. Old design much better. Very disappointing.

Apr 04, 2006

Tiny, tiny, pale text = Angry older readers

Why, oh why, is the New York Times so age-ist?
Their web designers most assuredly have young, arrogant eyes, which care not for lesser mortals.

Come on, at LEAST GIVE us personal preferences when we log-in, as to size & colour & font.

Apr 04, 2006

Why does the headline of one item smear over into the adjoining? Not well executed.

Apr 05, 2006

I would like the freedom to design my own newspaper, particularly its priorities. It would go: International; Washington; National; Education; Books; Arts; Movies; Theater, etc. Sports if they have to be included at all--the NY Times shouldn't pander to this kind of stuff--should be at the bottom. Also you still haven't got the javascript right for video and interactive for us Opera browsers.

Apr 05, 2006

The blue font is TERRIBLE and hard to read. I liked it when it looked like an actual newspaper. If I want this look I will just go to Yahoo! I'm beginning to regret my online subscription.

Apr 05, 2006

definetly bad fonts. good idea to make it wider, but now it's way too wide.

Apr 05, 2006

It may have been time for a change, but this new design has so many things wrong with it that one an only guess that it was done by hackers who do not read. There is simply too much here, with a font that is designed to be difficult to read, so that everything blurs together, and with too much information on each page. This is a classic example of bad design; information overload results in lessened information. It is also quite ugly. Go back to the old one (of course you will not) and start from the beginning with someone who actually reads.

Apr 05, 2006
Christina Forbes

Love new redesign. Much more open and airy, and uses more of the screen. Allows the eye to graze over the page more like actual paper page.

But, but, the pale blue is too weak to convey the energy of the headlines. Need to amp up the tonalities. Not too much (no screaming headlines, please), we are after all the educated classes who read the Times, but still a bit more eye grabbing would help.

I do like the idea that a post-post 9/11 world is a calmer, more deliberate and centered world. We don't anticipate skyscrapers on fire any more, and our media should reflect a more calm view of the world.

Apr 05, 2006

I've turned Cleartype on but still all I can say is that the font is easier to read in IE than it is in Opera. Not great in either case and I don't want to use IE.

Apr 05, 2006

I agree with many of the comments on font here. I like to see change and improvements, but this is hard to read. The blue font causes the headlines to blur. I do like the use of the wider page, but not at the loss of clarity. NYT give this your highest attention and leave the tricks for latter.

Apr 05, 2006
Oliver Mugweng

Not being a US citizen I always trusted the NYT to show me at a glance what really important was going on in the world. Not any more.

What headlines do I see now (besides bad redesign)?


1) "Couric Announces Departure From 'Today' Show"

Who cares? Who's she in the first place!?

2) BIG PHOTO: "Last Gasp of Winter in New York "

Oh really!

Ok, good old NYT finally had to bow to mediocre average American I-don't-care-what's-happening-in-the-world mentality. A sad day to me. Very sad.

Apr 05, 2006
S Miller

Too much information presented on the front page. An assault on the eyes and mind. I am moving to a different website for my front page news, after years and years with the NYT coming up first on my browser. A classic bonehead move by people who don't understand their readers. Evolution, not revolution...

Apr 05, 2006

I have received an email from the NY Times demanding that I increase my Font Size in my browser EVERY TIME I VISIT THE NY TIMES WEBSITE !!!! And then change it back smaller for Every Other Website.

Only the NY Times is the Gold Standard of website design, all other websites are WRONG, and the Fault is with them, and us readers !!!

The arrogance, the gall, the NY Times !

Apr 05, 2006

Is there any chance that the NYTimes.com might revert back to the original design? Based on the consensus I see here, I think it would be an inestimable service to the readers who passionately rely on the NYTimes to restore the original design. It's really an ordeal to try and sift through the anarchy reigning supreme on the new design.