27 August 2008

A few months ago I got a call about receiving free the Courier-Journal for about a month, and we did. I signed up and we got the paper, and I really liked the idea of reading the newspaper, but we never read it and the papers piled up unread and into the recycling it went. I’m a web guy. I read the news online. I scan my RSS feeds, read what I need to read, and no ink or paper wasted. Needless to say, I didn’t end up subscribing to the paper.

Last week the Courier-Journal called again, this time reminiscing what a great customer I was and how much I enjoyed the paper in the past. I filled the guy in and he offered me a free trial subscription to what they call their e-Edition of the paper, of which he said he had only recently seen and was impressed with. Their e-Edition is a service whereby you get an email with a link to a website where you look at pictures of the actual newsprint spreads. After logging in, this is the first screen you see:

You can navigate spreads by using those arrows (or pull-down menus) at the top left of the screen, and there is also this optional view for navigating:

When you click on a spread you see a larger image of it in a frame on the left, and when you click an article, its text and images are in the frame on the right:

Or you can just view a big graphic version of an article (or full-page ad):

Wow! Cool, right? Yeah, I guess — but not really. In terms of web interface conventions, this is hardly a sensible approach to reading the news online. 

Data breaks down into a terrible mess (graphic on left, textual counterpart on right):

Maybe this is why we are also getting a supplement paper delivered to our house with this free trial (see first photo at top).

Despite my having a hard time getting into the rhythm of actually reading the newspaper, its design works really well in its own format. Big headlines, graphics, and pictures grab your attention. Skinny columns make for faster reading. It’s easy to skim and flip through spreads for stuff that interests you. So, why not just take a picture of it and put it on the web; duplicate the experience? 

Khoi Vinh, Design Director for NYTimes.com, wrote about this problem a year ago. The web utterly fails in re-presenting the content of its print counterpart, he says:

Which isn’t to say that the goal of NYTimes.com should be to fully emulate the layout of the printed paper. To the contrary: in the vast majority of instances, that should not be the strategy. I don’t believe in one design for every medium; I’m more of the school that content should be designed appropriate to each medium.

I concur. And the NY Times is among the best in presenting the news on the web. Trying to duplicate the print experience on the web just doesn’t work. It’s not the same. The physical-relational size of text and images, and the texture of the paper canvas — it’s all lost. Print design conventions don’t always translate so well to the web. What does work online are new conventions learned just for the web — and though their e-Edition is a practical mess, and their website hasn’t the most pleasant experience, Courier-Journal hasn’t entirely missed the mark:

Until something better comes along, I’ll settle for the regular website. Thanks!