Two Views of the Times Redesign
Eric Umansky is ‘not really digging it’ – too much whitespace; Jack Shafer, however, is blown away:
Hello, New York Times? I’d like to cancel my subscription today. No, I’m not protesting your Middle East coverage, your treatment of any ethnic minority or weird religion, and I am certainly not upset about some petty delivery problem. Nor am I angry about the gruesome picture you recently printed on Page One or your deletion of my favorite continuing feature.
I’m canceling because the redesign of your Web site, which you unveiled yesterday, bests the print edition by such a margin I’ve decided to pocket the annual $621.40 I currently spend on home delivery.
Oh, that’s not to say that I find the Web version superior in every regard. For one thing, if I give up the print Times I’ll have to find other morning bathroom reading. I’ll miss dividing the paper into its respective sections, hoarding the best sections and distributing the leavings to my family. I’ll also long for the big J&R ads that run on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. But seeing as I already read huge chunks of your newspaper online, sometimes with the print version in my lap, I might as well go all the way. Online better fits the way I live and work. Your spiffy new design is the tipping point I’ve been waiting for, and I’m convinced it will ease my transition to a paperless newspaper.
Interesting that Shafer echoes my own early reaction, that it looks more ‘newspaperish’. I haven’t changed my mind – I find it an intriguing design that is a sizable improvement over the old one…
I am a graphic designer and visually it’s better, but I think it was far better before…I liked their clonking horsey type. I’t was unique and easy to read.
In fact, I felt it was the only unique and endearing quality the Times had going for them. Too bad.