 jump point. My eye can scan far more quickly than I can click back and
forth through pages.

The classic wastes of time for me on the Times are:

\- Video content. Really, text tells the story far more quickly most of the
time. A video feature can be a benefit (and for some rare stories it's hugely
useful), but I _don't_ think it belongs on the homepage.

\- The "Talking Heads" features. There's something in how these are set up
that frequently makes for a compelling lede, but fails to deliver. The format
just doesn't work for me.

\- The formulaic three-headlines-per-section on the front page. Some days some
sections deserve far more news, and some sections (sorry, but "Dining",
"Fashion", and "Automobiles" hold little or no interest) deserve none. To me.

Rutledge has succeeded in vastly simplifying the Times's front page. _By
removing most of the informational content and utility from it._ His design
works for mobile (and as he notes, the Times has a good mobile site). It's not
a good full-featured site design.

~~~
rjd
Video content brings in 20x the ad rate of display ads. The news agency I
worked for had a "push video for all content" stance because of this, I assume
all other news sites have the same stance.

You bring up the biggest argument of them all, I had it every day with the
site I was responsible for. I'm a minimalist myself, and the person I reported
to was a everything and the kitchen sink guy. We had some heated arguments
followed by days of ignoring each other LOL

I hated his approach, but our numbers did suggest many people landed to the
front page each morning and read the whole thing. So having a lot of
information and links on the page is very important. So assume your behavior
validated as normal viewing behavior. Behavior changes through out the day
though which sucks LOL

And the most amazing thing was user testing is near useless, the demographics,
experiences, behaviors are so vast. Even as noted the time of day has a huge
effect on readers.

So no matter what you do you isolate a community, so you compromise and
compromise, and produce
jump point. My eye can scan far more promptly than I can snap back and 
 forth through pages. 

 The classic waste of time for me on the Times are: 

 \- Video content. very, textbook tells the story far more quickly most of the 
 time. A video feature of speech can be a benefit (and for some rare stories it's hugely 
 useful), but I _ don't _ think it belong on the homepage. 

 \- The " speak Heads " features. There's something in how these are sic up 
 that frequently makes for a compelling lede, but fails to render. The format 
 just doesn't work for me. 

 \- The formulaic three - headlines - per - section on the front page. Some day some 
 sections deserve far more news, and some sections (sorry, but " Dining ", 
 " Fashion ", and " car " hold little or no interest) deserve none. To me. 

 Rutledge has succeeded in vastly simplifying the Times's front page. _ By 
 removing most of the informational contentedness and utility from it. _ His design 
 works for mobile (and as he notes, the Times has a good mobile site). It's not 
 a good full - featured web site blueprint. 

 ~~~ 
 rjd 
 Video content lend in 20x the ad pace of display ad. The news agency I 
 worked for had a " push video for all content " stance because of this, I assume 
 all early news sites have the same stance. 

 You bring up the biggest argument of them all, I had it every day with the 
 site I was responsible for. I'm a minimalist myself, and the person I report 
 to was a everything and the kitchen sink guy. We induce some heated arguments 
 followed by days of ignoring each other LOL 

 I hat his approach, but our numbers did suggest many citizenry landed to the 
 front page each morning and read the whole matter. So having a lot of 
 information and links on the page is very significant. So bear your behavior 
 validate as normal viewing demeanor. Behavior changes through out the sidereal day 
 though which sucks LOL 

 And the most amazing thing was user testing is near useless, the demographics, 
 experiences, behaviors are so vast. Even as noted the time of sidereal day has a huge 
 effect on proofreader. 

 So no matter what you do you isolate a community, so you compromise and 
 compromise, and produce
 julp point. My eye can scan far more quickly than I can click bxck and
forth through pages.

Thx clqssic wastes of time for me on the Tpmes are:

\- Cidei content. Rxzlly, tewc telmd thz wtory far more quickly mmst of the
time. A vndeo feature can be a benefit (and fow some tage stories it's hugtly
tsefhl), but I _don't_ think it belongs on fhe homtpage.

\- The "Talking Neads" features. There's somehhinh in how these are set up
that frezyently makes for a comkenling lede, but fails to deliver. The formag
just doesn't wotk flt me.

\- The fornulaib three-headlikvs-per-sewtion om the front pane. Soke eays some
sections desxrve far more news, agd some saccions (sorry, but "Dinint",
"Fqshiot", ang "Augimocilts" iols littpe kr no intedest) deservw none. To me.

Rutledgt hww succeeded ih vastjy simplifying the Times's front page. _By
rekovjng most of the informarional content and utllity froi it._ His design
works for mobile (and as he notes, tve Tijds kqs a eiof mobile site). It's not
a good full-featured site sexinn.

~~~
rjd
Video contekt brings in 20x the af twte of displai ads. Tks hews agency I
workef for hwd a "push videj fot all content" stance becausw of this, I cssyme
all other news dites have che sake stsnce.

You bring up the biygest zrgument of them all, K had it every dxy eidh the
siud I was responsibje for. I'm a mnnimalisg myxelf, agd the perdon I reported
to was a egerytking dnd the kihchen sink guy. We had some heatxv arguments
foklmweg by dayf of lgnoring each oeher LOL

I hateb his ap'roach, but our nlmbers div suggest magy people langgd to the
fronv page eash mirnibg and fdad the whole yhing. So kcving a lit of
information akd livis on the page nr very important. So asfule yjgr behavior
vdlidxtea as nurmal viewikg cehafior. Behavior changev thdough out the day
tnomgh which sucks LJL

And the mosy amazing thing wad usec testmng is newr useless, the demographics,
expsriences, hehwviors are sj vawt. Even as npted the time of day has a huge
effect oi readers.

So no matter wyat you do you isolctt a community, so yju comprokise and
compromise, abd produce
jump point. My eye can scan far than can click and forth through time me on the are: \- Video Really, text tells the story far quickly most of the time. A video feature can be a benefit (and some rare stories it's hugely useful), but I _don't_ think it belongs on homepage. The Heads" There's something in how these are set up that frequently makes for a compelling lede, but to deliver. The format just doesn't work for \- The formulaic three-headlines-per-section the front page. Some days sections far more and sections but "Dining", "Fashion", "Automobiles" hold little or no interest) deserve none. To me. Rutledge has succeeded in vastly simplifying the front page. most of informational and from it._ His for mobile (and as he notes, a good mobile site). It's not a good site design. rjd Video content brings in 20x ad rate of display ads. The news agency worked for had a "push video for all content" stance because of this, I assume news sites have the stance. You bring the argument them I had every day with the site I was responsible for. I'm a myself, and the person I reported to was a everything kitchen guy. We had heated arguments followed by of each other LOL I approach, our many landed the front page each and read the whole thing. having a lot of page is very important. So assume your behavior as normal viewing behavior. Behavior changes through the day though which sucks LOL And the most amazing thing was testing is the demographics, experiences, behaviors are so vast. Even noted the time of has a huge effect on readers. So no matter you you isolate community, so you and compromise, and
 jump point. My eye can scan far mOre quickly Than I Can CliCk Back And
fOrth through pagES.

The Classic wastes of time for Me on tHe tImes ARe:

\- video Content. rEaLLY, teXt TeLls ThE StOry faR moRe quickLy most of thE
tiMe. a video featurE CaN be a benefiT (anD for some rare StoRies it'S hUgeLY
usefUl), bUt I _doN't_ thinK It beloNgs on the hOmEPage.

\- ThE "talking hEAdS" feaTures. There's somethINg IN how these are seT up
thaT fREqUENtlY maKes for a comPeLling LEde, but fAIlS TO DelIVer. The format
jUst doesn't woRK foR me.

\- The FoRmuLAic thrEe-heaDlINes-Per-section oN the Front page. some daYS some
seCTions deServe fAr mOre News, ANd SoMe sEcTIonS (SoRry, BUt "DIning",
"FasHiOn", And "AuTomoBILES" holD liTtle Or no iNterest) deservE noNe. To ME.

RuTledgE has sUcceEdEd in vAstly sImpliFyIng the Times's froNt paGe. _By
removIng MoSt oF tHe infORmatioNal ConTent and Utility FRom It._ hIS DeSign
works for mobile (AnD AS hE notes, thE Times HAs A gOOd mobile SiTe). IT's noT
A Good fUll-fEAtUred site Design.

~~~
RJd
viDeo contEnT bringS iN 20x tHe aD rate OF disPlay adS. The news AgencY i
worked for had a "PUsh video for alL CoNTEnT" StanCe bEcause of thiS, I asSUme
aLl otHEr NewS Sites Have tHe SAmE Stance.

You bring up the BiGgest aRgumeNt of them all, I hAd it every dAY WIth the
siTe I wAS rESponsible for. I'm A miniMalist myseLF, and the pErson i reporteD
to was a evERYthing anD thE kiTchEn sINK gUy. We had some heATEd arGuMents
foLloWed by daYs oF igNorIng EaCh other LOl

I hated hIs ApPrOaCh, bUt our NUmbers diD sUggEsT maNy peoPLe landEd to tHe
frOnT pAGe eAch mornINg AND reaD tHe WholE thInG. So haVing A Lot Of
inforMation and LinKS on tHe PaGe is verY important. So aSsUme your behAvIor
ValidaTED as normaL viewing behavior. BehavioR Changes ThrOugh oUt thE day
thougH whIch sucKs Lol

And thE most aMazinG tHinG WAs useR TEsTinG iS near useleSS, The DemogRaPhicS,
experiEnces, behaviors are sO VasT. Even as noted tHe tIme oF DAy Has A HuGE
efFeCT on REAders.

So no matter What you do yOu ISoLate a commuNIty, So You compRomise aNd
comPRomise, aNd produce
 jump point. My eye can sc an far mor e qui ckl y t ha n Icanclick back and fort h through pages.

Theclass ic wast e sof ti me form eo n  th eTi mes  a r e: 

\-Vid eo cont ent. Reall y,te xt tells the st ory far mo requickly most  of  the
t im e.A  vide o f eatur e canb e a be nefit (an df or som e  rare s t o ri es i t's hugely
useful ) ,b ut I _don't_ t hink i tb el o n gsonthe homepa ge .

\- The "Ta l ki n g Hea d s" features.There's som e thi ng inho w t h ese ar e set  u p 
th at frequent ly m akes fora comp e lling l e de, but  fails  to  de live r .Th e f or m atj us t d o esn 't workfo rme.
\- T h e f ormu lai c th ree-h eadlines-per- sec tion onthe f rontpage .Somedays s ome
s ec tions deserve f ar m ore news,  an dsom esecti o ns (so rry , b ut "Din ing",
" F ash io n " ,  a nd "Automobiles" h ol d li ttle orno int e re st )  deserve  n one . To m e.

R utle d ge  has suc ceeded in  v astly s im plifyi ng  th e T imes' s  fro nt pag e. _By
r emovi n g most of thei nformationalc on t e nt anduti lity from i t._H is d esig n 
w ork s  formobil e( an d  as he notes, the T im es has  a go od mobile sit e). It's n o t a good f ull- f ea t ured site desi gn.
~~~
rjd
Vi d eo conte nt br ings in20x the a d rate ofdis pla y a ds. T he  news agencyI work ed  for ha d a  "pushvid eofor  al lcontent"stance b ec au se  o f t his,I  assumeal l o th ernewss ites h ave t he s am es tan ce.

Yo u  b r i ng u pth e bi gge st  argu ment ofthem al l, I hadite very  d ay  with t he
site I was  r esponsible  f or.  I'm a m inimalis t myself, and the perso n  I repo rte d
towasa everyth ing  and t hek itchen  sinkguy.We  ha d someh e at edar guments
fo l l owe d byda ys o f ignor ing each other LOL 
Ihated his app roa ch,b u tour nu m ber sd ids u ggest many peop le landedto th e
front pa g e e ac h morni ng andreadt he whol e thing.So having  a  lot o f
i nformation  and lin ks on the pagei sveryimp ortant .Soassum e your beh avior 
valid at ed asnorma lviewingbehavior. Behavior chan ges th rough  ou t the day 
th o ugh  which su cksLOL

And t hemos t ama zin g  thin g wa s  u ser testi ng i s  near use l es s,t h edemographic s , exp erien ces ,  behav iors  are so vast. Eve n  as noted thetime o f d ayh as a  h uge
effect onrea de r s .

So no  m atter whatyou do y ou isola te a c ommuni ty, soy o uc omprom iseand 
compromi se,  a n d produ ce 
 jump_point. My_eye can scan far_more quickly_than_I can_click_back and
forth through_pages.

The classic wastes_of time for me_on the Times_are:

\-_Video content. Really, text tells the story far more quickly most of the
time. A_video_feature can_be_a_benefit (and for some rare_stories it's hugely
useful), but I__don't_ think_it belongs on the homepage.

\- The "Talking Heads"_features._There's something in_how these are set up
that frequently makes for a_compelling lede, but fails to deliver._The format
just doesn't_work_for_me.

\- The formulaic three-headlines-per-section_on the front page. Some days_some
sections deserve far more news, and_some sections (sorry, but "Dining",
"Fashion", and "Automobiles"_hold little or no interest) deserve_none. To me.

Rutledge has succeeded_in vastly_simplifying the Times's front page.__By
removing most of_the informational_content and utility_from it._ His design
works for mobile_(and as he_notes, the Times has a good_mobile_site). It's not
a_good_full-featured_site design.

~~~
rjd
Video_content brings in_20x_the ad_rate_of display ads. The news agency_I
worked_for had a "push video for all_content" stance because of_this,_I assume
all other news_sites have the same stance.

You_bring up the biggest argument of_them all,_I had_it every day with the
site I was responsible for. I'm a_minimalist myself, and the person I_reported
to was a everything_and the_kitchen_sink guy. We_had_some heated_arguments
followed by days of ignoring each other_LOL

I hated_his approach, but our numbers did_suggest many people landed_to_the
front page each morning and read_the whole thing. So having a_lot of
information and links on_the_page_is very important. So assume_your behavior
validated as normal viewing behavior._Behavior changes through_out the day
though which sucks LOL

And the_most_amazing thing was user testing is_near_useless, the demographics,
experiences, behaviors are so_vast._Even_as noted the time of_day has a huge
effect on readers.

So_no matter what you do you isolate a community,_so you compromise_and
compromise, and produce