The New Yorker finally goes 2.0
March 12, 2007 11:49 PM   Subscribe

New Yorker 2.0 Conde Naste has finally shelled out the beans to create a truly Web 2.0 version of the New Yorker...just as the term Web 2.0 is beginning to get on everyone's nerves. RSS feeds, embedded Flash video, and lots of clean white space.
posted by KokuRyu (30 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
First thoughts; Isn't Web2.0 about the semantic web? No hang on, it's about social networking...No hang on, it's about user generated content... oh shit, no, it's about AJAX...

And now you tell me it's just about white space and embeded video?

Second thoughts; looks kinda like Salon.
posted by Jimbob at 11:57 PM on March 12, 2007

just as the term Web 2.0 is beginning to get on everyone's nerves

just beginning? jeez, get with the times... it was doing that 6 months ago...
posted by russm at 12:02 AM on March 13, 2007

Looks pretty ugly on Safari. Maybe it's just my ad busting usercontent.css.
posted by Sukiari at 12:05 AM on March 13, 2007

I had my regrets when I pushed the "post" button.

What I shoulda said:

New Yorker website has finally been redesigned! Looks great (if somewhat conservative).

But I had to mention Web 2.0. *Sigh*
posted by KokuRyu at 12:07 AM on March 13, 2007

where's the "star/seal" thingy? The New Yorker logo should reflect from the white space...and there needs to be a leaf of some sort somewhere in the design.
posted by lastobelus at 12:23 AM on March 13, 2007

God what an asshole.
posted by brundlefly at 1:51 AM on March 13, 2007

Why, oh why can't they have a web subscription?

For people outside the US this would be a god-send. I'd happily pay $50 a year if I could get the whole thing online when it comes out.

But perhaps that will have to wait for the web 3.0 version.
posted by sien at 2:14 AM on March 13, 2007

If nothing else, this looks leagues fresher than their old design which looked only slightly fresher than my lame-ass blog layouts.

Kottke and Gruber pick nits of varying sizes.
posted by sparkletone at 2:15 AM on March 13, 2007

After poking around a bit, I say I like the redesign. My favorite update is the inclusion of the cartoons, in what I'm assuming are their approximate positions in the print version. That is a new thing, right?
posted by brundlefly at 2:21 AM on March 13, 2007

Although I must say that, judging by the linked flash video, movement and sound pretty much drain the humor out of New Yorker cartoons. Let's hope that innovation doesn't hold over to the coming nanotech smart paper version of the magazine.
posted by brundlefly at 2:24 AM on March 13, 2007

  1. The "cartoon"-ized versions of the single-panel comics are dumb, dumb, dumb.
  2. If they really wanted to be cutting edge, they'd ditch all the flash and move to more strictly semantic layout. A bit like Web 1.0, but with less tables.
  3. "Lots of whitespace..." -- Says you. When I looked at it on my laptop, I quickly realized I could only view it with the window maximized. Isn't saying it has "more" whitespace a bit like selling a chocolate bar that's twice the size of the original and putting "Now, with more chocolate!" on the package?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:46 AM on March 13, 2007

Where is this clean white space? I wasn't a fan of the solid black in the old website, but it wasn't distracting my attention when I read an article, unlike the multiple columns of ads, pictures, strobing Flash ads, upcoming features, subscription ads, house ads, and ads to advertise in the new New Yorker website.
posted by ardgedee at 3:58 AM on March 13, 2007

They should have focused on good articles and invested in interesting cartoons instead of redesigning their site.
posted by Captaintripps at 4:37 AM on March 13, 2007

It's... kind of wide, isn't it?
posted by Karmakaze at 6:09 AM on March 13, 2007

metafilter: slightly fresher than my lame-ass blog layouts

Has The New Yorker hired Essjay yet? I hear that besides having a Ph.D. in Theology, he's a web designer.
posted by lukemeister at 6:29 AM on March 13, 2007

Their old site was aggressively bad; this one is more innocuous (and forgettable, at least visually).
posted by Mister_A at 6:38 AM on March 13, 2007

It's a big improvement. At least it looks something like the print edition.

I love that the high-value top left corner is still the listings. The New Yorker is probably the single most important magazine of ideas in the country today; but it's wonderful that it has managed to do that from its distinctly local point of view. Even though I'm 300 miles from NY, it's lovely to page through the theater, arts and music listings each week. It grounds the magazine's perspective in a real place. And makes me sad that I can't go see all the shows that night.
posted by Miko at 6:45 AM on March 13, 2007

It doesn't say "beta" at the top. There's no way this could be web 2.0.
posted by spilon at 7:03 AM on March 13, 2007

I think all the white space on the revamped New Yorker site makes it look really professional.
posted by msali at 8:19 AM on March 13, 2007

They are still using graphics instead of SIFR for their headlines (ect.). But the design would appear to be a serious improvement.

I still like the magazine format, for New Yorker, however.
posted by spock at 8:51 AM on March 13, 2007

What are your thoughts on the magazine content these days? Last year, I didn't renew a long-standing subscription, because the magazine just tended to pile up in a corner, unread, as I tried to get more of my own writing done instead. Now I have time for it again, but I'm not sure I miss it.
posted by .kobayashi. at 8:57 AM on March 13, 2007

The New Yorker is my single favorite magazine. If I don't read it, I feel uninformed. The number of times I refer to its content during a typical week's conversation is astounding.

I've been reading it since my parents subscribed in the 80s. I stayed with it through the dark years, on and off. I've been a subscriber myself for about four years now.

I've discovered that the secret to managing a NYer subscription is that you just can't expect yourself to read everything. There has to be triage. Since I started subscribing, the number of actual books I read has fallen off severely. That's all right, though -- as a nonfiction geek, I love having shorter pieces on a very wide range of topics within my frame of reference. The writers and thinkers appearing in that magazine are the very best of accessible (non-academic) contemporary thought.

My triage has come down to a simple formula: I don't read articles on foreign affairs, unless they have to do with U.S. policy (for instance, a piece on Guantanamo). I don't read the fiction. I only read play and movie reviews if I'm actually interested in the content - if the first paragraph isn't that interesting, I skip it. Same with profiles - some are phenomenal, some just don't interest me.

My life would feel a lot poorer without this magazine.
posted by Miko at 9:03 AM on March 13, 2007

I agree with Miko. It's the only magazine I really couldn't live without.
posted by lukemeister at 9:08 AM on March 13, 2007

At least it's not green.

I want to see a BEK cartoon animated.
posted by painquale at 12:59 PM on March 13, 2007

I just checked it out and got a sprawling java.lang.ClassCastException.

Looks like they should have stuck a Beta icon there after all.
posted by Sparx at 1:35 PM on March 13, 2007

Heh. Triage. My parents used to get sacks full of read New Yorkers from my grandparents. By the sack, I tell you. The idea of even possibly beginning to scratch the surface of perhaps one day eventually trending toward catching up ...

But here's where they slipped up. They didn't go Web 2.0 enough. What they need is a social network based around people who get certain NYer cartoons.

Years ago, after I had lived in Manhattan, my dad asked me about this cartoon. I immediately chortled. When he said he didn't get it, I chortled more. I have since found that the universe of people who get it is fairly small.
posted by dhartung at 1:37 PM on March 13, 2007

I used to agonize about not being able to read everything in each issue of New Yorker, but decided it is about as silly as agonizing over not being able to read every blog or web page in the world. I take what I can an move on. (I'd be curious to know how many Nebraska subscribers there ARE to New Yorker.)

By the way, you can get a two-year subscription to New Yorker (or just about any other magazine) for a FRACTION of the regular prices by purchasing from a reputable mag broker on eBay. I got a 2-year sub to New Yorker for $17. Silly NOT to get it.
posted by spock at 2:02 PM on March 13, 2007

New Yorker: "New" Web 2.0 format, same old 1995 Times Roman font.
posted by blucevalo at 3:38 PM on March 13, 2007

I like the Times Roman font. And the walls of text. They're both comforting. Remember those Charlie Brown "Happiness is a warm beagle" cartoons from the 70's? Like, "Happiness is waking up early, looking at the clock, and realizing you still have another three hours until you have wake up?" It's kind of like that reading the New Yorker. How far until the little black dot at the end of the article? Still three more pages? All right!
posted by KokuRyu at 12:05 AM on March 14, 2007

A much better design but I don't see what's 2.0 about it. As far as magazines go, I find Harpers consistently more intriguing than the New Yorker.
posted by muckster at 12:53 AM on March 14, 2007

« Older There is talk once again of a one-state...   |   Shooting Down the Privacy of VA Gun Owners Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments