• Robin RaszkaRobin Raszka, 9 months ago

    It's a nice visual work but it is obvious that you don't read NYT. Also I'd suggest making a real prototype to make it more than just-another-redesign-on-behance. Just bunch of static mockups is what junior designers do.

    21 points
    • Jan SemlerJan Semler, 9 months ago

      Exactly! Behance is full of that stuff that looks good but doesn't really work.

      4 points
    • Mike Kingsborough, 9 months ago

      Robin, maybe you could elaborate? It sounds like you have an educated point of view on their delivery as you’re a reader of the New York Times…It could benefit them.

      I wouldn't just assume that Paul and his team don't understand the difference between static and interactive work—maybe time and cost was a consideration? LOL . And if they don’t, you could offer your insight into why a prototyping exercise could be valuable for them to undergo.

      Your comments can be pretty lackluster—friendly advice from a colleague. Oh, “static mockups” aren’t only done by junior designers.

      22 points
      • Robin RaszkaRobin Raszka, 9 months ago

        I strongly believe that it would be much more effective and would take less time then this visual compilation of nice photos within a grid with typo-perfect headlines. So time/cost is not a valid argument. I think the value of real deal (prototype) over static mockups is obvious to any experienced product designer.

        Regarding my comments, they are meant to make you stop and think because the journey figuring out why I said that is much more valuable than if I just wrote down what I think. It's not about me.

        0 points
        • Mike Kingsborough, 8 months ago

          A prototype is meant to describe a finite portion of an experience – there's more ingredients to the sauce. The work Paul's presenting is that of a teams collaborative effort. Let's not forgot about creative technology, creative strategy, art direction, visual design, content design, interactive design, etc. These individual disciplines (which at times include concepts and aspects intended specifically for certain stakeholders) also need to be present in a static and/or a dynamic presentation of work. A "Product Designer" won't always have the allowance to drive art direction, which is why there's an Art Director. And the client's Art Director (stakeholder) may only be concerned with visual design because the client has a User Experience Director who's only concern is interactivity. You can't always equally weight the importance of these exercises the same as it depends on the situation, scope, and client. So time/cost is a valid argument.

          Your statement; "It's a nice visual work but it is obvious that you don't read NYT" doesn't mean much because you're not explaining your issue, or at least it doesn't seem that you are. Are you suggesting that if Paul and his team were to create an interactive prototype then you would retract this comment "it is obvious that you don't read NYT"

          Take it for it is; a static mockup. I'd recommend constructively commenting (more than "it's nice") with insight, depth, and substance on the design disciplines that are present in this share out. You're right it's not about you, we're a community that helps to drive this industry, add to it, don't take away from it.

          11 points
        • Mike Kingsborough, 8 months ago

          Finally, we're not painting everything with the same brush. "Might generate some design leads though (which is the only reason why this exists I guess).

          1 point
        • Luke GodwardLuke Godward, 8 months ago

          Regarding my comments, they are meant to make you stop and think because the journey figuring out why I said that is much more valuable than if I just wrote down what I think. It's not about me.

          This is pretty awful, man.

          22 points
        • P GBP GB, 8 months ago

          Regarding my comments, they are meant to make you stop and think because the journey figuring out why I said that is much more valuable than if I just wrote down what I think. It's not about me.

          Ha, you pretentious fuck. Your trolling game is strong.

          1 point
      • Darrell HanleyDarrell Hanley, 9 months ago

        Well for one, the mockups rely quite heavily on article imagery, sometimes customized images with alpha values, images that are supposed to set the hue on the page, etc. For a site like the NY Times, this is more or less a non-starter because the content that shoots up to the top of the page are breaking news articles which will be posted, often without accompanying imagery to go along with it.

        Users also want to be able to take a glance at the top news stories to get an idea of what the news of the day is. This design eschews that in favor of favoriting one, or a few stories.

        Basically, I think that this layout would work better for The New York Times Magazine rather than the NY Times proper, where the goal of editorial would be to highlight an individual story or two, rather than the NY Times which aims to show all the news of the day.

        8 points
    • Tropical HoochTropical Hooch, 9 months ago

      Someone feels inferior.

      11 points
    • Sam SolomonSam Solomon, 8 months ago

      While, there often are a lot of designs on Behance, this redesign looks pretty well thought out. It's often difficult to create things that are both visually interesting and easy to read — it seems the designer has been able to accomplish that here.

      3 points
      • Robin RaszkaRobin Raszka, 8 months ago

        You can't possible tell if it's going to work well or how well thought out it is without a real experience in a browser. At this point, it's just nice pictures. Nothing more. Might generate some design leads though (which is the only reason why this exists I guess).

        1 point
    • Zoltán HosszúZoltán Hosszú, 9 months ago


      16 points
  • Ken M (No, not that one)Ken M (No, not that one), 9 months ago

    A ambitious undertaking, but as someone who has spent many years in the news industry, there are going to be committees who will want more ad spots crammed in there. ;)

    15 points
    • Ed FairmanEd Fairman, 9 months ago

      I concur! Looks visually appealing now, but what about the strategy for ad placements? Working for BBC Worldwide, this is a daily woe. Ads > everything, unfortunately. That's how we get paid.

      1 point
  • Julian CJulian C, 9 months ago

    Orphans everywhere.

    No respect.

    11 points
  • Louis-André LabadieLouis-André Labadie, 9 months ago

    Visually, it's great work. I really appreciate the attention to delivering news-centric mockups by using legit content from end to end.

    However, here's the list of NYT concerns that these mockups solve:

    6 points
  • Nick TassoneNick Tassone, 9 months ago

    Regardless of the drama in this thread, I don't think this is a very good redesign. It doesn't really offer any solutions that the current NYT doesn't already do better and there are some really amateurish mistakes with the typography and usability.

    The drop caps are awful, line height is all over the place, adverting is ill-considered, photography misused, misunderstood whitespace, etc. Unsolicited redesigns can be great practice and helpful for exploring new concepts but this falls flat for me.

    6 points
  • Powers Gray, 9 months ago

    If it ain't broke, don't attempt to fix it. But if you must, one major thing I'm noticing throughout is your line spacing is way too loose.

    5 points
    • Matthew BlodeMatthew Blode, 9 months ago


      An excerpt from the demo of Flawless Typography Checklist...

      Tighten your line height in headlines

      The standard line height of 1.5 is considered ideal for setting body text, however, for headlines and other large type, it is way too much. It’s common to see sites that use 1.5 across the board for all type, which leads to headlines with huge gaps between the lines. The larger that type is set, the less of a line height it needs. Begin with a line height of 1.0 and work your way up from there until your headlines look good. There shouldn’t be a large gap between lines but neither should the spacing be so tight that the ascenders and descenders touch.

      TL;DR: Using 1.05 line height for headings and 1.5 for body/paragraph text.

      1 point
  • Scott Burns, 9 months ago

    Personally I don't really see the value in this sort of self indulgent exercise.

    It's a pretty set of layouts, sure. But how does it work with breaking news before someone's had a chance to Photoshop up some imagery? How does it work on anything other than a wide desktop view?

    It's an aesthetic concept, not a redesign for me, as it doesn't seem like it achieves anything other than making things prettier.

    2 points
  • Steven CavinsSteven Cavins, 9 months ago

    I have a feeling if the designers of NYT saw this, they'd probably audibly laugh at the heroes. Doesn't mean it doesn't look nice, but I can't imagine those being executed throughout busy news days.

    2 points
    • Falko JosephFalko Joseph, 9 months ago

      Haha exactly my thoughts. Would've been more interesting to tackle that issue. How to make it look nice without too much editorial editing.

      0 points
  • Kat WindleyKat Windley, 9 months ago

    I think before attempting a redesign like this, it would be good to be clear about what problem you are trying to solve with it. Also consider what it might be like to work at NYT, publishing stories as quickly as possible, availability of images etc. Is this a print/magazine design or web, its hard to tell?

    2 points
  • Jan SemlerJan Semler, 9 months ago

    A huge amount of layouts doesn't think that this approach solves the problem. And you have to think that the page is highly frequented so performance is key and the layout have to adopt on that. But looks good.

    1 point
  • Tar Bez, 9 months ago

    Anyone here wants to collaborate on designing a prototype? I am redesigning my entire landing page, and it is a creative media generated by users. These mocks up might not mean something in particular, but I hope you guys just enjoy the design. Besides, they have generated news ideas for you to build on. A mockup can be a prototype if just one of us stops complaining and do something about it. Improve it?Make something out of it? No?

    0 points
  • Oleg SerediucOleg Serediuc, 9 months ago

    Looks good, but those images sticking out of the frame it's such a pain in the ass development wise, soooooooo fkn' time consuming that I doubt NYT will ever have time to deal with this.

    0 points
  • matt michelsonmatt michelson, 8 months ago

    So much effort expended on making nice category pages, yet only one mockup of what an actual article - probably by far the most commonly shared and viewed type of page on the NYT site - might look like? Buried at the end of everything? I hate to say it because it's obvious so much work was put into these, but I think you prioritized the wrong things.

    0 points