Designer News
Where the design community meets.
↵
The New York Times Redesign(behance.net)
over 6 years ago from Paul Trinko, www.flatstudio.co
Jan Semler, over 6 years ago
Exactly! Behance is full of that stuff that looks good but doesn't really work.
Mike Kingsborough, over 6 years 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.
Robin Raszka, over 6 years 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.
Mike Kingsborough, over 6 years 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.
Too long to read.
Mike Kingsborough, over 6 years ago I can't believe you're an adult. Even though this industry seems big, it's not that big. What goes around, comes around pal. You're not "disrupting" anything...sorry.
OK, big boy.
Mike Kingsborough, over 6 years 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).
Dan G, over 6 years 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.
I don't think so, it's just not that hipster POV.
I don't even know what you're talking about now.
Hipster POV?
That's why you have to stop and think! :D
Lee Fuhr, over 6 years ago You've lost this battle, friend.
What battle?
P GB, over 6 years 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.
Darrell Hanley, over 6 years 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.
Tropical Hooch, over 6 years ago
Someone feels inferior.
Not really
Sam Solomon, over 6 years 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.
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).
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.