NYTIMES redesigned

[mzkhadir]

http://www.nytimes.com/


Looks neat and tidy

 

[JDrake]

No big difference

 

[Epic Fail]

The new font they are using is hard to read, for long articles online, anything other than san-serif font is a bad choice.

 

[Pepsi90919]

i...can't...see...anything

 

[Babbles]

That font hurts my eyes.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Too much wasted space IMO.

 

[vexingv]

i dont like it either. and i dont like how so many sites are transitioning to designs with small fonts especially when viewed on high res monitors.
i'm on a 1280x1080 lcd and i have a minimum text size (16 pt) in firefox so as to not strain my eyes. but at that setting the layout is garbled. same goes for many sites like staples and gamespot.

 

[bigrash]

i like it

 

[MrChad]

Better than before, but still inferior to http://www.washingtonpost.com.

 

[Shlong]

They should've left all the fonts Arial but it looks much cleaner then before.

 

[screw3d]

That font, Georgia, is designed for screen use. Doesn't mean that they can't mess up the size though.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Better than before, but still inferior to http://www.washingtonpost.com.

That site looks just like www.cnn.com

Anyways, the NYTimes looks much better, although the font could be better. I'm glad they don't require a subscription any longer, that was a pain in the ass.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Better than before, but still inferior to http://www.washingtonpost.com.

well said. that nytimes page looks pretty bad.

So much wasted space, small fonts, bad fonts etc

 

[thirdlegstump]

It looks like a cheap blog site now.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
It looks like a cheap blog site now.

true. hell newsvine looks so much better than them