Anil analyses New York Times redesign

The New York Times online has a spiffy new redesign and Anil Dash says it is influenced by blogs. Actually, his post is interesting cause it points at a bunch of stuff about the redesign. I also like that the redesign uses the Georgia font, developed by Microsoft. That font was developed for high readability and it sure does help make the NYT look great.

56 thoughts on “Anil analyses New York Times redesign

  1. Yeah, and speaking of fonts, how come very little press mention of Frutiger NEXTgate? Well, if I kick into gear, that’s about to change…

    As rightfully observed by the Applicant and uncontested by the Holder, the prior design and the RCD are to be considered identical. The typefaces of
    both designs have the same stroke thickness. The ratio from cap-height to descender height is equal. The proportion of character height to character
    pitch is identical. The type face in the specimen text does not show any differences. The minuscule “a”, “c”, “e” “g” and “t” have the same proportion in
    the prior design and the RCD. The height of the crossbeam at the “e” is identical. The height of the bow at the “a” is identical. The “c” shows the same shape and the same loophole. The lowercase “s” and the capital “S” show the same sweep. The capital “G” and “S” are totally identical in both designs. The
    numeric characters “3”, “5”, “6” and “9” do not show any difference.

  2. Yeah, and speaking of fonts, how come very little press mention of Frutiger NEXTgate? Well, if I kick into gear, that’s about to change…

    As rightfully observed by the Applicant and uncontested by the Holder, the prior design and the RCD are to be considered identical. The typefaces of
    both designs have the same stroke thickness. The ratio from cap-height to descender height is equal. The proportion of character height to character
    pitch is identical. The type face in the specimen text does not show any differences. The minuscule “a”, “c”, “e” “g” and “t” have the same proportion in
    the prior design and the RCD. The height of the crossbeam at the “e” is identical. The height of the bow at the “a” is identical. The “c” shows the same shape and the same loophole. The lowercase “s” and the capital “S” show the same sweep. The capital “G” and “S” are totally identical in both designs. The
    numeric characters “3”, “5”, “6” and “9” do not show any difference.

  3. Bloggers want to take credit? Fine. As it sucks.

    They lost ALL branding, it looks just like every other newspaper site out there, mainly just a Wash Post full-pagey redo. And using that Georgia font, far from being an asset like Scoble says, was a fatal flaw, as now it looks just like everything else. Where’s the NYT branding police? This redesign has zero personality.

  4. Bloggers want to take credit? Fine. As it sucks.

    They lost ALL branding, it looks just like every other newspaper site out there, mainly just a Wash Post full-pagey redo. And using that Georgia font, far from being an asset like Scoble says, was a fatal flaw, as now it looks just like everything else. Where’s the NYT branding police? This redesign has zero personality.

Comments are closed.