This is horrible. Why can't I scroll? Why do I have to use the sidebar to go through the sections? Why do I have to click the tiny arrow thing at the bottom to get to the next page?
I find these types of sites that break normal browser behavior to be offensive. Why are developers like this and OnSwipe changing native scrolling in favor of javascript scrolling? What is the benefit, aside from lag, to moving sideways? Web pages aren't magazines, and they shouldn't be. I love javascript but just because something can be done with it, doesn't mean it should be.
Skimmer is there since early 2009
<a href="http://www.google.bg/search?q=skimmer+nyt&hl=bg&client=firefox-a&hs=xhf&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&sa=X&ei=CZUuTufaM9C7hAe8wfwr&ved=0CA4QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01.01.2009%2Ccd_max%3A01.03.2009&tbm=" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.bg/search?q=skimmer+nyt&hl=bg&clie...</a>
Would love to read Hacker news in a similar format.<p>Any suggestions on the best way to read hacker news on iPad? I tried Flipboard and Feedly but not very happy with them.
Not sure what "already did a redesign" means.<p>This was actually first released in 2009 [1] and then updated mid-year during 2010 [2]. I use it every day, and it has not substantially changed since last summer.<p>[1] <a href="http://firstlook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/article-skimmer-update-all-the-news/" rel="nofollow">http://firstlook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/article-skimme...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://mashable.com/2010/12/07/new-york-times-google-chrome-app/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2010/12/07/new-york-times-google-chrome-...</a>
The design is ok, but I don't like the way they've broken usability, standards and everything else.<p>I had hoped people would have learned from the Gawker disaster that requiring javascript to be able to see any content at all is a bad idea. I use the NoScript plugin in firefox and all I got was a blank screen at first.
I see a blank white page with 3 links in the bottom right corner that appear to do nothing, and a lone copyright symbol in the bottom left corner.<p>Using Google Chrome 12.0.742.122 on Mac OS 10.6
This is awesome! Finally something online that gives me an experience which is close to reading an actual physical paper. Except this is a little more convenient because everything is on one page, no awkward folding or anything.<p>I have been waiting for this a long time, how come periodicals haven't done this before? (Or have they?)
This redesign is an interesting step forward for a site who's future you would expect to be based primarily in the tablet scene. After a few moments, I found it particularly easy to use, however I believe integration with scrolling if they're going to use left-right, then let the user drag the page etc.
This is more than that other guy (in other HN topic) was hoping for. it even lets him to change layout in click of a mouse as he see fit. as opposed to spending many hours on desining new layouts and templates like he did.<p>they did new things but didn't broke old things. i like that approach better
Skimmer is an experiment that simply re-packaged the content of the times. There are lots of problems with contemporary news design that skimmer didn't even try to address:<p>• The article is a fundamentally bad unit of news for the internet. <a href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/2011/05/28/the-article-as-luxury-or-byproduct/" rel="nofollow">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2011/05/28/the-article-as-luxury-...</a><p>• Customization is one thing, but being able to choose from a dozen different layouts is a sign that none of them are likely right. Good design is about what's left out, not overflowing options.<p>• The complete lack of social/comments/human interaction is distrubing
For those curious about the tech behind this: <a href="http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-technology-behind-the-New-York-Times-HTML5-Chrome-app" rel="nofollow">http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-technology-behind-the-New-Y...</a>
Am I the only one who can't read this? I find it almost painful to move my eyes from one headline to the next - there is nothing for my mind to anchor to. As a result, I'm just staring blankly at the screen.
I like the interaction, my problem is with layout. There's information overload and lack of hierarchy (at least on the default layout theme). The typographic hierarchy is fantastic, but the squared grid is too standardized to communicate meaning/importance. The eye wants to be guided, not given a ton of equally-sized boxes.<p>newsmap.jp understands this principle and is a much better design. If only you could combine the hierarchy of newsmap with the typography, aesthetic, and interaction of the NYT skimmer...
Doesn't seem to work on Epiphany 3.0.4 - but I like it in Firefox.<p>I don't mind the lack of scrolling, but it would be nice if the mousewheel event was used for page flipping.
I love experiments like this. We can all learn alot. But the most import thing to take away is that there is no one way an article or website has to be presented.<p>The articles do remind me a bit of the IHT (International Herald Tribune) from 10 years ago.<p><a href="http://www.smokinggun.com/images/pages/page_22.swf" rel="nofollow">http://www.smokinggun.com/images/pages/page_22.swf</a> (last slide)
Yea well look at this, execution is everything (choose smaller font in upper right on a 1680 by 1050 res monitor)
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/skimmer/?pagewanted=all#/Top+News//6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/who-made-that-penny/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/skimmer/?pagewanted=all#/Top+News//6t...</a>
Wow, so it's just like the Gridlocked Wordpress theme but way, way slower. Awesome!<p><a href="http://themeforest.net/item/gridlocked-minimalistic-wordpress-portfolio-theme/245947/" rel="nofollow">http://themeforest.net/item/gridlocked-minimalistic-wordpres...</a>
Moving through the sections is ok, but reading an individual article is impractical, imho. There, I prefer the old way of scrolling through the whole article by mouse wheel...much more comfortable than using keys or clicking on small arrows.
One more site that absolutely requires JavaScript. Disabling JS gives you a blank white page. While I understand such a decision for interactive apps like Twitter, I think quasi-static websites should at least have plain HTML fallback.
When I opened the page, my browser threw this warning.<p><i>The website “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com”" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com”</a> is requesting 10 MB of disk space to store “Stored content for nytSkimmerSections” as a database on your disk.</i><p>I'll pass on that.<p>edits: formatting.