New Yorker Redesigns

at 20:01 on 09 March 2007, David wrote:

Decent but feels like it's missing something. Some extra design details or something are needed. Overall not bad though.

at 22:16 on 09 March 2007, Ty wrote:

The contrast is too much. The black is almost full #000 and should be more subtle, something less than black.

Any dithering of optimized images, just gets fuzzy otherwise, like in the menus.

at 22:49 on 09 March 2007, Carlos Bernal wrote:

Need to work on it's typography...

at 03:19 on 10 March 2007, Chet wrote:

The New Yorker has a great history, and has always kinda followed a slow design Dogma. I appreciate that they have stuck with their brand and feel, regardless of current trends.

May not be my favorite but compliments the New Yorker very well.

at 15:10 on 11 March 2007, Heinous wrote:

The title and subtitle images have jagged edges. Everything's a link, but nothing looks like one.

There's no consistency in the use of negative space. I count at least 12 different fonts. There's an orphan at the end of almost every paragraph–I know text size is pretty much impossible to control but come on, this is with the true default text size in Firefox.

Are you actually looking at the content before you post?

And on a side note, enough with the web 2.0 sites. Web 2.0 sites are made by get-rich-quick half-talented programmers who think design is a pastel gradient, horsey type, rounded corners and diagonal pinstripes. It is such a bland look and it is only applicable to internet startups. Very few corporate / personal (if you want it to actually have personality) / e-commerce sites work within that aesthetic, and for a practicing designer these are the majority of one's work.

at 14:41 on 12 March 2007, Jeff S. wrote:

You're complaining about orphaned text on your own browser?? You've got to be kidding me.

at 14:21 on 13 March 2007, Heinous wrote:

Yes, I'm complaining about orphaned text in most of the paragraphs assuming no text size adjustment and the current cross-browser default size of 16 px. This is the text setting that the browser comes with. Isn't it safe to assume that a majority of users wouldn't adjust their brower just to get rid of orphans? That's kindof a designery solution, and ideally one shouldn't have to fix the design on his own at the default size. Come on.

at 21:29 on 13 March 2007, Jeff S wrote:

That's ridiculous. I've never heard of a website that would pollute their data with "br" tags on tens of thousands of articles just so the page looks good on ONE browser setting on ONE particular column width. What if they were to redesign in a year or two? What if they change the font size one day? Would you then complain that they didn't go through every paragraph in every article and fish out the orphans and widows. That's insanity -- and it goes against the very idea of separating content and presentation. And what a waste of time that would be. Not to mention the fact that the data would be polluted so that the text would look awful on print-only pages and mobile content. But, hey as long as it looks good on Mozilla, I guess you're happy.

Add a comment:

Keep the comment relevant, constructive and be polite.
A valid email address or URL to your site must be provided, or the comment might get deleted. Content seemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Avoid explicit language and words such as "sucks" and "ripoff". For more in-depth discussions use our forum. Email addresses are never displayed. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted - no need to use <p> or <br/>. Quotes & apostrophes are automatically converted to smart punctuation. Be careful when copying and pasting portions of entries or other comments. The following inline HTML elements may be used: <strong><em><pre><q><blockquote><code>. All other code will get removed before posting. Don't forget to close your tags.