nytimes.com — No more times new roman, everything now comes in three colors: black text, dark blue text, or white space. Looks like New York Times is shifting to Web 2.0 soon; it's been a while since nytimes.com last changed their format.
Apr 3, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountApr 3, 2006
I can't believe you're complaining about how they were so thoughtless as to not remember to make extra-special consideration for you wanting to block their source of revenue.
jakecressmanApr 3, 2006
Love it. Although, I think the dark blue is just a shade too close to black and sarif font is hard to read on screen.
psuvikingApr 4, 2006
Or the Daily Worker, or the Nation weekly, or Mother Jones monthly or.......
cyberiousApr 4, 2006
Here is an "Idea" Harry take a look at the design and leave your political garbage out of it. I like the new design. The categories at the top and the new look are a very good change. Looks a lot more like a newspaper and hits for there target demographic. And as for CNN.com it is a Multimedia site and should have a different look. This is a print newspaper so it is showing its roots, nothing wrong with that.
jamesduncanApr 5, 2006
hi clopezthanks for taking the time to look into our html.I dont usally post in responses to our work but Im glad you took the time to go thro some things and youve raised some interesting questions worth answering (excuse my typos and spelling errors, i only speak html ;) )Contrary to your ideas, we code from hand. I lead all a pretty small team of people (under 3) and make the decisions on what doc types we use and have a firm understanding of our motives.The reason for html 4.0 is that we have a large amount of hand coding that is done on the site by people whose main skill set is not HTML. We avoided any use of a strict doc type for this very reason. You will notice however that we included the transitional DTD url. This kicks IE6 (75% of our users) and FF into "almost standards mode" so we basically get the benefit of a strict HTML/CSS rendering engine from the browsers while still being able to use iFrames and align tags (invalid xHTML, but boy do those ad people and editors love em). We also chose html 4.0 because of our use of relative fonts (as the w3c recommends). We were concerned that when using ems in html 4.0 inheritance becomes a bigger issue so we chose the combination of HTML and %s. (you can surf the CSS Discuss list for more info on this)Because we use xslt, we are required to run xml code endings so that is why you will get validation erros. We havent chosen to go to xhtml yet as coding strict xHTML without the xml tag is a concernat this time. (Putting anything infront of the doc type kicks IE6 back into quirks mode and makes IE6 render the box model incorrectly) IE 8 seems to be the release that MS intends to tackle their xml rendering engine more keenly.We do plan a move to xhtml at some point so we are preparing for it, so you'll see xHTML in use with a 4.0 doc type. Again validation at this point is less of a concern than cleaning up the HTML and CSS. We also worked with a HTML deliverable and our internal CMS that are "challenges" lets say. Our internal CSS practices support a wide variety of older broswers even fully using CSS (our article has been fully CSS for a year now and rendered fine in ie 5.5 and mac ie 5.x) but due to the deliverable and timeframes, we will be addressing those browsers shortly (not something were happy with.. we like it to be all at launch ..so please bear with us). Fonts are always a concern so they will be worked on but be happy that we are using CSS and relative fonts everywhere (the homepage was coded using a table but that was a higher decision..the rest fo the site is fully CSS)I hope Ive anwered your questions and thanks for looking under the hood. Cheers