3 ms·
Good step forwards towards interaction. Some more things that could make it a killer: * Graceful degradation for noscript; maybe do a simple CSS fallback opt
by alecco 18y ago
Good step forwards towards interaction. Some more things that could make it a killer:
* Graceful degradation for noscript; maybe do a simple CSS fallback option.
* The page-slide animation is eye-candy but IMHO with time it might get annoying, make it optional.
* It shouldn't be hard to add an X on top-right corner of boxes to remove or shade things you read already.
* Some killer fonts, it's the New York Times!
- sant0sk1 18y agore: 'killer fonts' I can't imagine it'd be too hard to include server-side fonts akin to stylesheets in the HTML header of sites. Ok, the major obstacles are: 1) Browsers need to support the functionality 2) Operating system-specific font rendering Wouldn't this really open up the possibilities for web designers?
- briansmith 18y agoIE 4.0+ (yes, four-point-oh), Firefox 3.1+, Opera 10+, and the latest Safari builds all support @font-face.
- sant0sk1 18y agoVery nice. I must've been living under a rock! =]
- ewiethoff 18y ago> Graceful degradation for noscript > The page-slide animation is eye-candy but IMHO with time it might get annoying, make it optional. The page is utterly useless without JS. I keep JS turned off. It's a good thing I read here about the animation eye candy before trying to turn it on to explore the NYT page. Side-to-side movement on a screen gives me brain seizures. If NYT sticks with this new plan, that will be yet one more site that's off limits to me. If I want movement and eye candy with my news, I can turn on the TV.
- gabrielroth 18y agoI don't think there's any reason to call it a 'new plan.' It's an experimental prototype, not a plan.