Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Where the Web is Going: The Great Magazining

whoaAnthony De Rosa pointed out last night this striking similarity in real estate and scale and concept between the new New York Times opinion web page and the new beta Gawker design. Is this what people want their web to be? It strikes me as an anti-Craigslist, an anti-Google. It's a magazining of web content beyond anything we might have expected. It's attractive! But it's also a whole lot less.

39 Comments / Post A Comment

dntsqzthchrmn (#2,893)

In the future, everybody's fingers will be fat.

Blackcapricorn (#4,791)

To obtain a special Dialing Wand, please mash the keypad with your palm now.

katiebakes (#32)

Whoa, Adrian Chen got struck by lightning!?

coryballs (#4,647)

There is a god, and he does NOT like fatuous, pop culture blogging.

saythatscool (#101)

Bit seriously, what's the deal with Glee and airline peanuts?

Art Yucko (#1,321)

Somebody pissed off Ceiling Cat.

coryballs (#4,647)

I dunno, I kinda dig it. Gawd knows the NYTimes was a cluttered mess. I was just bitching about their home page yesterday. Besides, I access a majority of this content through Reader, so…

Bryan Keller (#3,804)

Actually the NY Times is probably the best designed news site in the world.

dntsqzthchrmn (#2,893)

> probably the best

I would go with the FT.

Rod T (#33)

1. Fontapalooza. I count at least four. The "See Replies" font being the most egregious.
2. I like to scroll down the screen to review the headlines.
3. They need to up their game on headline writing if they want click-though.
4. I read it all on Google Reader anyway, so maybe I'm not the target here.

MSP (#7,417)

They have copy people who can write strong headlines, but the way web search engines work make that difficult to achieve maximum traffic/page views. People tend to search online with key words, and they've found that "The Health of Reform" garners more hits than something more creative or sly. It's why headlines, especially for web, don't deal in irony or humor like they used to. Search engines can't optimize on that.

Bryan Keller (#3,804)

people actually include the word "the" in searches?

I do. Because I'm KIND OF DUMB.

Mindpowered (#948)

"the" Situation.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

Yeah, but it worked on you too since this is what you are talking about now instead of talking about how the quality of writing at Gawker has gone down.

saythatscool (#101)

Good point.

David Cho (#3)

Well, it's worth noting that if Gawker and the Op Ed page are on one side of the content presentation argument, then the new Vulture is for sure on another side? There is something crammed in every nook and cranny of that page! (Not in a bad way, I really like the way it looks)

YES. That is really interesting. I was just looking for something on Vulture and I was like WHOA HOLY GOD. I sort of admire it!

LondonLee (#922)

The whole NY mag site is a beautiful example of cramming tons of shit into one space and making it look great.

David Cho (#3)

NYTimes homepage is also an example of cramming a lot in while doing it very effectively.

Anthony De Rosa (#4,202)

I disgree. I think the NYTimes homepage looks like shite. (design-wise)

Bryan Keller (#3,804)

I always question the design changes at Gawker until I get used to it and realize that they are good.

This one, though…

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

Says the guy without a costume, at the Halloween party. This Facebook shit here just creeps me out.

La Cieca (#1,110)

Is it gratuitous to point out that both designs look like The New Yorker circa 1952?

How so? (Actually curious, if you feel like breaking it down for someone who is blind to this sort of thing).

La Cieca (#1,110)

The cutesy spindly hed fonts, mostly, but also there's the "stacked boxes" effect reminiscent of an inside New Yorker page: square illustration, hed, subhed, square block of text, square cartoon.


Interesting. Thanks.

keisertroll (#1,117)

This is just one more step in the de-evolution into AOL's front page.

All I can conclude is that Gawker just got less gay.

I mean, look at those thumbnails. Rowr!

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

No tits, no clicks. Dude.

brent_cox (#40)

What makes me scratch my head is giving so much real estate to a single op-ed/post, and then scrunching all the rest of the content into a sidebar that one might mistake for advertising.

Holy balls, that perma-story-carousel thingy in the right rail is terrible.

Three different arrows to click through an undifferentiated set of posts, and you have no real idea whether you are scrolling forward, back, sideways or into a wormhole.

Clicking through, you lose context of where you are on the site, or how to get back to a post you may just have accidentally clicked on. What?

It's worth noting that all web pages (including this one, sorry guys) are about 1/5 as aesthetically pleasing as the most jumbled and incoherent layout in the average service magazine. The web, my friends, is ugly ugly ugly.

Leon (#6,596)

So I open Gawker beta and current-school Gawker in seperate tabs.

Old Gawker, I quickly scroll through, opening in new tabs articles with an interesting headline or lead and open a few in new tabs. My eyes follow down as I scroll.

New Gawker, I open – where do I look? Adrien Chen hit by lightening? No thanks. The other stuff is just generic reading headlines. I scroll down and it is links to categories? Well, nothing here I want. I'll move on, as there is still dailybeast, salon, slate, and thisrecording to read before lunch ends.

Leon (#6,596)

Basically I think I'm saying – I don't go to Gawker just for Gawker, I go to a bunch of sites, one of which is Gawker, for shit to read w/ my Naan. If nothing is dope on your landing page, smell ya later.

Anthony De Rosa (#4,202)

The people creating the content and the web designers at the companies behind these efforts are far more in love with this concept than the readers are.

There's a disconnect between how people want to be delivered their content and the people who create it.

Dylan Martin (#7,661)

It may be a whole lot less, but I'd prefer less clutter when I'm trying to read/decide on what I'm trying to read. This design is really easy on the eyes, so I'm all for it.

Post a Comment