3 ms·
Did we read the same article? Vinh was very respectful to the alternative design. That article you linked to contains a lot of unneeded and useless criticism o
by statictype 15y ago
Did we read the same article? Vinh was very respectful to the alternative design.
That article you linked to contains a lot of unneeded and useless criticism of the Times that was only peripherally related to any actual design aspects of the site.
When he goes off about ads, he's no longer talking about site redesign and is instead advocating that they change their business model.
He's certainly free to throw his $0.02 in along with the rest of the peanut gallery about how he thinks the newspaper industry should run their business - but it tarnishes what was supposed to be an interesting look at a web site redesign.
- ralphsaunders 15y agoIf you read the first four paragraphs of Andy's article you'll realise the piece looks at digital news as a product, so it must address the business model as well as the design.
- statictype 15y agoWell, that was kind of my point. It's completely valid for Andy to propose a new site design, whatever others may think of it. It's difficult to take him seriously when opining on the paper's business model, especially when he's being so harsh about it and hasn't really worked in the industry.