A Tale of Two News Sites

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times for Gawker and the New York Times' home pages, respectively.  The content and tone of Gawker is varied, but leans on lighter subjects with humorous delivery.  The stories at the top of the page include content on film, immigration, celebrities, politics, and one that reads, "Disasters: Record Drought Set to Ruin America's Pizza Consumption" (weather/business?).  I had never been on Gawker before, so I was impressed and surprised by this mix of subject matter.


Meanwhile on  the Times' website, three of the 4 1/2 stories that showed up on the top of the screen had Damascus and/or Syria in the caption; the main article (the only one with a full picture) had Mali in the caption; and the last 1/2 article (it was cut off, and so was it's small picture) was about DirecTV.  That means four world articles and one business/entertainment.  The content was therefore more heavy and tone tilted on the side of serious, but that's what the New York Times is.  Still, the lack of variation in content at the top of the home page seems problematic.

Will the internet become the guillotine for journalism's Ancien Regime?

The most notable (and in my opinion the most important) difference between the homepage of Gawker and the New York Times is the presentation.  With the scroll bar all the way at the top on the front page, the screen for Gawker shows one large still from the new Batman movie that takes up about a third of the page. Under it is caption in very large font and some social media sharing buttons, and at the bottom is a fuller caption with two lines that span almost half the page.  On the right hand side of the page is a scrollable list of new content, ordered by the time it was posted.  Every post has a short title of about 1-4 words, a caption of 2-4 lines, and a picture next to it.  On the top right is one big Nokia ad.  Overall it looks organized, easy to navigate and has a lot of white space.  The page kind of tells the viewer what to read, and eases her or him into the information-consuming experience.


The layout of the New York Times' home page is overwhelming.  In the middle of the screen is a photo of Mali refugee women with their children; it takes up about 1/9 of the space.  There are 4 1/2 stories spread around the page, with titles varying in font size and meaty captions.  On the very left are two lists of content categories with different fonts; the top category seems to be traditional beats and the bottom one is "other beats," for lack of a better work.  (I noticed that "Style" is in the top category while "Fashion and Style" is in the bottom category).  On the right side of the page there's a little spot with stock market information.  The page has 4 1/2 ads scattered around, plus a banner ad for a digital subscription to the Times that is more eye-catching than the Times' actual logo.  In general it is very wordy, difficult to navigate and there is not much white space throughout.  I think the "1/2" stories/pictures/ads particularly showcase how it is not well designed from a viewer's standpoint.


In sum, the creators of Gawker must have looked at the dimensions of a computer screen and saw a blank canvas, while the editors of the New York Times saw a place to tape up newspaper clippings.