3 ms·

i think the presentation (lay out and semi interactiin) of the article is very well done! running smooth on 1920 * 1200 leaving for bergen myself in a couple o

i think the presentation (lay out and semi interactiin) of the article is very well done! running smooth on 1920 * 1200 leaving for bergen myself in a couple of hours: can't wait

jonnathanson 12y ago
It's a big improvement over previous attempts at this sort of multi-format presentation. I'll give NYT a lot of credit for pushing things in this direction, even if some of their early efforts fell a bit short. (Some previous articles in this style were too cute for their own good, and wound up hard to read).
- wickedOne 12y ago
  agreed; they appear one of the few who embrace the new possibilities in publishing and actually try to come up with something different and are not afraid to make some mistakes in the process… i'd love to see other (news) publishers to walk this path as the options are there, they just need some creativity
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Agreed. Apparently NYT had a big come-to-Jesus meeting earlier this year, where they discussed the challenges their business model is facing, and resolved to do something about it. Who's to say whether this stuff will move the needle for them. But at least they're doing interesting things, and I support them. NYT can't necessarily see the future (when it comes to journalism, nobody can). But it recognizes that its future lies in high-quality articles, and it's investing in new definitions of quality. Many of its competitors are moving in the opposite direction, adopting practices from content farms and clickbait sites. In the long run, NYT will need to do a lot more to rethink its economics. But for now, its investment in quality is probably a good move.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      Apparently NYT had a big come-to-Jesus meeting earlier this year, where they discussed the challenges their business model is facing, and resolved to do something about it. Who's to say whether this stuff will move the needle for them. But at least they're doing interesting things, and I support them. IMO they need to get the basics right first. Why, for instance, can't I use their iPad app to access all of the content from the print edition, and in a similarly-dense format?

i think the presentation (lay out and semi interactiin) of the article is very well done! running smooth on 1920 * 1200 leaving for bergen myself in a couple of hours: can't wait

jonnathanson 12y ago

It's a big improvement over previous attempts at this sort of multi-format presentation. I'll give NYT a lot of credit for pushing things in this direction, even if some of their early efforts fell a bit short. (Some previous articles in this style were too cute for their own good, and wound up hard to read).

wickedOne 12y ago
agreed; they appear one of the few who embrace the new possibilities in publishing and actually try to come up with something different and are not afraid to make some mistakes in the process… i'd love to see other (news) publishers to walk this path as the options are there, they just need some creativity
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Agreed. Apparently NYT had a big come-to-Jesus meeting earlier this year, where they discussed the challenges their business model is facing, and resolved to do something about it. Who's to say whether this stuff will move the needle for them. But at least they're doing interesting things, and I support them. NYT can't necessarily see the future (when it comes to journalism, nobody can). But it recognizes that its future lies in high-quality articles, and it's investing in new definitions of quality. Many of its competitors are moving in the opposite direction, adopting practices from content farms and clickbait sites. In the long run, NYT will need to do a lot more to rethink its economics. But for now, its investment in quality is probably a good move.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Apparently NYT had a big come-to-Jesus meeting earlier this year, where they discussed the challenges their business model is facing, and resolved to do something about it. Who's to say whether this stuff will move the needle for them. But at least they're doing interesting things, and I support them. IMO they need to get the basics right first. Why, for instance, can't I use their iPad app to access all of the content from the print edition, and in a similarly-dense format?