ledge wants. The world is noisy, and what Rutledge is suggesting vastly
oversimplifies. I'm sure it would convert wonderfully, raise ad revenue, all
that. It wouldn't be good journalism. Even if the NYT is full of pointless
noise, it's still better than a handful of painstakingly crafted articles. A
handful of pretty, well-formed articles cannot accurately reflect a disordered
world. If the NYT isn't noisy it's not doing its job.

------
jamesteow
As one of the designers of a major news organization redesign, it's very nice
to do a pretty page but to honestly think you can get away with no ads is a
not only a losing battle but one that doesn't take the needs of the client
seriously.

I also like how the NYT's website looks like a newspaper with a variety of
content. The redesign looks like a Wordpress template.

------
natesm
The iPhone example is funny because Apple themselves used the New York Times
as the example in their "it's not the mobile Internet... it's just the
Internet" advertisement.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzV-W_6WOm0>

------
catshirt
so, remove the ads... and replace them with infographics?

forgive me for being crass but this whole post seems naive. don't get me
wrong, it's pretty; but we're talking about the new york times. i think this
is more accurately "andy rutledge redesigns nyt for andy rutledge". which is
fine, but not at all the same thing.

"broken news" is a big claim. i'm not sure a sleek blog theme is going to fix
it.

------
verisimilitude
I really think this looks amazing. It would likely function amazingly well,
too.

However, for this to work, you have to eliminate the space for ads. To deal
with this, Rutledge suggests "Quality news is subscription only. You pay for
valuable information. Fluff you get for free."

I somehow don't think it's that simple.

If you slam the digital door shut (much more than it is now at the Times), and
only allow subscriber access, you'll do two things:

(1)
ledge wants. The world is noisy, and what Rutledge is suggesting vastly 
 oversimplifies. I'm sure it would change wonderfully, recruit ad revenue, all 
 that. It wouldn't be beneficial journalism. Even if the NYT is broad of pointless 
 noise, it's even good than a handful of painstakingly crafted article. A 
 handful of pretty, well - formed articles cannot accurately chew over a disordered 
 world. If the NYT isn't noisy it's not doing its job. 

 ------ 
 jamesteow 
 As one of the designer of a major news constitution redesign, it's very nice 
 to do a pretty page but to honestly remember you can get away with no ads is a 
 not entirely a losing battle but one that doesn't take the needs of the customer 
 seriously. 

 I also like how the NYT's website looks like a newspaper with a variety show of 
 content. The redesign looks like a Wordpress template. 

 ------ 
 natesm 
 The iPhone example is funny because Apple themselves used the New York Times 
 as the example in their " it's not the mobile Internet... it's just the 
 Internet " advertisement. 

 < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzV-W_6WOm0 > 

 ------ 
 catshirt 
 so, remove the ads... and replace them with infographics? 

 forgive me for being crass but this whole post seems naive. don't have me 
 wrong, it's pretty; but we're talking about the new york times. i think this 
 is more accurately " andy rutledge redesign nyt for andy rutledge ". which is 
 all right, but not at all the same thing. 

 " broken news " is a big claim. i'm not sure a sleek web log theme is going to fix 
 it. 

 ------ 
 verisimilitude 
 I really think this looks amazing. It would likely function amazingly well, 
 too. 

 However, for this to work, you have to eliminate the quad for ads. To manage 
 with this, Rutledge suggests " Quality news is subscription only. You pay for 
 valuable information. Fluff you have for free. " 

 I somehow don't think it's that simple. 

 If you slam dance the digital door close (much more than it is now at the Times), and 
 entirely allow subscriber entree, you'll do two things: 

 (1 )
ledhe wants. The world is nolsy, and what Rutledge iv suggssting vxstly
oversimplifies. I'm sure mt wiuld xonvert wonderfully, rakse ad renenue, all
rhat. Ut wouldn't be good journzpism. Xven if the NYT is full ox pointless
noive, ic's still better than a handful of paynstakimgpy crafted artyclex. A
hahdful of pretty, well-formed articlea cannou accurately reflevt a disordered
world. If thf NYH isn't noisy it's nlt doing itw jof.

------
hamesteow
As une of the designers or a major news organization reddsign, it's very bixe
tl do a prettb page but to honestly thitk you van get away wlth nm aes is a
not only a losmng battle but one trat doesn'd cake the needs of the coient
verimuslh.

U auso lmke how tje IYT's websits looks likw a newspaper with s dqriety of
contsnt. Thq wedesign looks like a Wordpress templatt.

------
nateam
The iPhone example is funny because Apple jhemselves used the New York Times
as the example in their "id's nov ghe mjculf Internet... it's just the
Internet" advertisement.

<rftk://wwe.youtube.com/watgh?v=dzV-W_6WOm0>

------
catshirt
xo, rriove the ads... xnd re'made them with infoggaphics?

sorgice me for beimg crass but this whole posr seems naivv. dob't get me
wrong, it's pretty; but we'rg talkong about the new york cimes. j think thid
is more zzcurately "andy rjtlvdge redesigns nyt for andy rueledge". whmch ix
fine, bjt npt at wll the sale thltg.

"broken news" is a big elaim. i'm not suge a sleek blog theme is going vp fix
it.

------
verisomhlinude
I reajly tmink this looks amazing. It woold likelv funcgion amazihgly wenl,
too.

Howevew, for this to aork, you havx to elimynatw thw space wor ads. To deak
with this, Rutledge suggests "Quality kews ka subscription inli. You pay for
vakuacle ijfpridtion. Fluff fou eet gor ffee."

I somehoc aon't think it's that simpne.

If you slam the digiyaj door syut (much more than it is now at the Timts), and
mnlb alloe sobscriber access, you'll do two tgings:

(1)
ledge wants. The world is noisy, and is vastly oversimplifies. sure it would all It wouldn't be journalism. Even if NYT is full of pointless noise, still better than a handful of painstakingly crafted articles. A handful of pretty, articles cannot accurately reflect a disordered world. If the NYT isn't noisy it's doing job. jamesteow one of the designers of a major news organization redesign, it's very nice to do a page but to honestly think you can get with no ads is not only a losing battle one doesn't take needs the seriously. I also how the NYT's website looks like a newspaper with a variety of content. The redesign looks like Wordpress template. The iPhone is because themselves used the Times as the example in their mobile Internet... it's just the Internet" advertisement. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzV-W_6WOm0> catshirt so, the ads... and replace them with forgive me for being crass but this whole seems naive. don't get me wrong, it's pretty; but we're talking about the new york think this is more "andy rutledge redesigns for rutledge". is but not all the same thing. "broken news" is a big claim. i'm sure a sleek blog theme is going to fix it. I think this looks It would likely function well, However, for this to have eliminate ads. deal this, Rutledge suggests "Quality is subscription only. You pay valuable information. Fluff you don't think it's that simple. If you slam digital door shut (much more than it now at the Times), and only allow subscriber access, you'll do two (1)
ledge wants. The world is noisy, And what RutLedge Is sUggEsTing VastLy
oversimplifiES. I'm sUre it would convert wondeRfullY, rAIse aD ReVenue, All
that. iT wOULdn'T bE gOod JoURnAlism. eveN if the NyT is full of PoiNtLess
noise, it's STiLl better thAn a Handful of paiNstAkinglY cRafTEd artIclEs. A
haNdful oF Pretty, Well-formeD aRTicles CAnnot acCURaTely Reflect a disordereD
WoRLd. If the NYT isn't Noisy iT's NOt DOIng Its Job.

------
jamesteOw
as one OF the desIGnERS Of a MAjor news organIzation redeSIgn, It's verY nIce
TO do a prEtty pAgE But To honestly tHink You can get Away wiTH no ads iS A
not onlY a losiNg bAttLe buT OnE tHat DoESn't TAkE thE NeeDs of the cLiEnT
seriOuslY.

i ALSo liKe hOw thE NYT's Website looks lIke A newSPapEr witH a varIety Of
ConteNt. The rEdesiGn Looks like a WordpRess Template.

------
nAteSm
the IPHone eXAmple iS fuNny Because apple thEMseLvES USeD the New York Times
as ThE EXaMple in thEir "it's NOt ThE Mobile InTeRneT... it's JUSt the
inteRNeT" advertiSement.

<HTtP://wWw.youtuBe.Com/watCh?V=dzv-W_6Wom0>

------
catSHirt
So, remoVe the ads... And rePLace them with inFOgraphics?

forgIVe ME FoR BeinG crAss but this wHole POst sEems NAiVe. dON't get Me
wroNg, IT's PRetty; but we're talking AbOut the New yoRk times. i think This
is more ACCUrately "aNdy rUTlEDge redesigns nyT for aNdy rutledgE". Which is
fIne, buT not at alL the same tHINg.

"broken NewS" is A biG clAIM. i'M not sure a sleeK BLog tHeMe is goiNg tO fix
it.

------
vEriSimIliTudE
I Really thiNk this loOkS aMaZiNg. IT woulD Likely fuNcTioN aMazIngly WEll,
too.

howevEr, foR tHiS To wOrk, you hAVe TO ElimInAtE the SpaCe For adS. To dEAl
wIth this, rutledge sUggESts "QUaLiTy news iS subscription OnLy. You pay foR
vAluAble inFORmation. FLuff you get for free."

I somehOW don't thInk It's thAt siMple.

If you SlaM the diGitAL door sHut (mucH more ThAn iT IS now aT THe timEs), And
only allOW SubScribEr AcceSs, you'll Do two things:

(1)
ledge wants. The world isnoisy, and  what  Ru tle dg e is  sug gesting vastly over simplifies. I'm sure i t wou ld conv e rt  wond erfully ,  r a i sead  r eve nu e ,all
t hat . It wo uldn't begoo djournalism.E ve n if the N YTis full of p oin tlessno ise ,  it's  st ill b ettert han ahandful o fp ainsta k ingly c r a ft ed a rticles. A
handfu l  o f  pretty, well- formed  a r ti c l escan not accura te ly re f lect ad is o r d ere d 
world. If th e NYT isn't noi sy it' snot doingits j ob . 

- -----
james teow 
As one o f thed esigner s  of a m ajor n ews  or gani z at io n r ed e sig n ,it' s  ve ry niceto  d o a p rett y p a ge b utto h onest ly think youcan  get awa y wit h noadsis  a
no t only  a lo si ng battle but o ne t hat doesn 'tta keth e nee d s of t hecli ent
ser iously. 
Ial s o li ke how the NYT's w eb s i te  looks l ike an ew sp a per with  a  va riet y of
co nten t .The rede sign l o ok slike aWo rdpres stem pla te.
- ---- -
nate sm
The i Phone example is fun n y because App l et h em s elve s u sed the New  Yor k  Tim es
a s  t hee xampl e inth e ir "it's not the mobil eIntern et...  it's just th e
Internet " a dvertise ment . 
< http://www.you tube. com/watch? v =dzV-W_6 WOm0> 

------ 
catshirt s o, remov e t heads ... a nd  replace them w ithin fograph ics ?

forg ive  me  fo r b ei ng crassbut this  w ho le  p ost  seem s  naive.do n't  g etme
wr o ng, it 's pr etty ;bu t  we 're tal k in g abou tth e ne w y or k tim es.i  th ink thi s
is more  ac c urat el y"andy r utledge redes ig ns nyt for  a ndy  rutle d g e". whic h is
fine, but not at a l l the s ame  thin g.
"broken n ews " is a  bi g  claim . i'mnot s ur e a s leekb l og  th em e is going t o f ix
it .
--- ---
ver isimilitude
I real l y t hink this loo ksamaz i n g.  It wo u ldli k ely f unction amazing ly well,
t oo . 
However, f o r t hi s to wo rk, you  have to elim inate the  space fo rads. T o d eal
with t his, Rut ledge sug g ests" Qu ality  ne ws issu bsc ripti on onl y . Y ou pa y forva luable  info rm ation. F luff you get for free." 

I so mehow  do n't think  it ' s t hat simpl e.
If you sla m t hedigit ald oor s hut( mu chm ore t hani t is nowa tthe T im es), and
on l y all ow su bsc r iber a cces s, you'll do twot hings:

(1)
ledge wants._The world_is noisy, and what_Rutledge is_suggesting_vastly
oversimplifies. I'm_sure_it would convert_wonderfully, raise ad_revenue, all
that. It wouldn't_be good journalism._Even_if the NYT is full of pointless
noise, it's still better than a handful of_painstakingly_crafted articles._A
handful_of_pretty, well-formed articles cannot accurately_reflect a disordered
world. If the_NYT isn't_noisy it's not doing its job.

------
jamesteow
As one of_the_designers of a_major news organization redesign, it's very nice
to do a_pretty page but to honestly think_you can get_away_with_no ads is a
not_only a losing battle but one_that doesn't take the needs of_the client
seriously.

I also like how the NYT's_website looks like a newspaper with_a variety of
content. The redesign_looks like_a Wordpress template.

------
natesm
The iPhone example_is funny because_Apple themselves_used the New_York Times
as the example in their_"it's not the_mobile Internet... it's just the
Internet" advertisement.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzV-W_6WOm0>

------
catshirt
so,_remove_the ads... and_replace_them_with infographics?

forgive_me for being_crass_but this_whole_post seems naive. don't get me
wrong,_it's_pretty; but we're talking about the new_york times. i think_this
is_more accurately "andy rutledge_redesigns nyt for andy rutledge"._which is
fine, but not at all_the same_thing.

"broken news"_is a big claim. i'm not sure a sleek blog theme_is going to fix
it.

------
verisimilitude
I really think_this looks amazing. It_would likely_function_amazingly well,
too.

However, for_this_to work,_you have to eliminate the space for_ads. To_deal
with this, Rutledge suggests "Quality news_is subscription only. You_pay_for
valuable information. Fluff you get for_free."

I somehow don't think it's that_simple.

If you slam the digital_door_shut_(much more than it is_now at the Times), and
only allow_subscriber access, you'll_do two things:

(1)