NYT Skimmer

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&#38;hl=bg&#38;client=firefox-a&#38;hs=xhf&#38;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&#38;sa=X&#38;ei=CZUuTufaM9C7hAe8wfwr&#38;ved=0CA4QpwUoBg&#38;source=lnt&#38;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01.01.2009%2Ccd_max%3A01.03.2009&#38;tbm=" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.bg/search?q=skimmer+nyt&#38;hl=bg&#38;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 think NYT launched it as Google Chrome app.

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

I don't like that browser back button has no effect.

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.

It seems to be more suited to tablet use.

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>

It crashes my Android browser.

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 find the right-scrolling thing unintuitive. Nice though.

This look exactly similar to their Chrome App: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/</a>

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)

-1. This is not a redesign, it's their Chrome app.

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>

Why is it asking access to my local file system (Safari/OS X)? And if I say No the page doesn't show up at all?

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.

Its kind of like that Gawker redesign that everyone hated.

That's more or less the same interface that their iPad app was (and maybe still is, I don't have an iPad anymore).

Good job, I really like it, but I didn't understand I could use arrow keys until I came here and read comments

Now, this design might actually work if they implemented click-dragging for changing pages/sections.

If the mouse has a forward and back button, it is very easy to use. Great design for me.

The most compelling feature of the skimmer is that it circumvents the paywall!

Gleebox doesnt work w/ the new version...anyone has the same problem?

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.

Makes xScope crash to desktop on my HTC Thunderbolt.

It was originally made only for Chrome browsers.

Trying it on OSX with Google Chrome. Broken.<p>This makes me sad.

it's really nice with the keyboard shortcuts

Another awful iPad experience.