I can speak a little bit to that question. We do, indeed, hope to keep interactive articles working and available over the long term. But you can't always pred

I can speak a little bit to that question. We do, indeed, hope to keep interactive articles working and available over the long term. But you can't always predict the technical choices of the future web. For example, there are plenty of past Times graphics done with Flash, which may not be easily viewable within the next 5 years. On the other hand -- one of the biggest culprits is simply using external APIs as part of a graphic. APIs shut down, change their terms of use (Google Maps), or have data updated in ways that break the graphic. For example, as we just noticed the other day, this 2011 graphic used to show Joplin, Missouri before and after the tornado hit: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/27/us/joplin-panoramas.html?ref=us http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/27/us/joplin-pano... Now, the "before" panoramas are actually "way after" shots. We'll need to go back and fix it somehow. But it's not all Sisyphean. The standard operating procedure for any interactive article page is to live somewhat inside and somewhat outside of the CMS -- with the page's own baked-out HTML base, and individual copies of any JS libraries and CSS it needs (apart from the super common ones). With a little foresight, this should be resistant to breakage from future site redesigns, even if the page continues to look a little "old" ten years from now. As long as browsers in 2025 understand JavaScript from 2015 (likely), I'm optimistic.