Takke a look at the two images above. One is from the Tribune Publishing Company and one from Gannett Publishing Company. Ok, you're right. The Chicago Tribune is from Tribune (obviously) and USA TODAY is from Gannett. I should have used the screenshot I used in my previous post of the Los Angeles Times' homepage, another Tribune paper.
These two publishing companies are arguably among the largest newspaper publishing companies in the U.S. and their websites are similar—big feature images, a simple navigation bar and clear brand placement at the top of the page. I like both styles because they have a clear hierarchy of content, easy navigation and large images. However, when Tribune rolled out its new digital format last year, the company was looking out for its mobile customers.
These two publishing companies are arguably among the largest newspaper publishing companies in the U.S. and their websites are similar—big feature images, a simple navigation bar and clear brand placement at the top of the page. I like both styles because they have a clear hierarchy of content, easy navigation and large images. However, when Tribune rolled out its new digital format last year, the company was looking out for its mobile customers.
"The website is geared toward mobile users, an increasingly important platform with the proliferation of smart phones and tablets. Features include responsive design that adapts automatically to any size screen; endless scrolling, which enables readers to browse the site without dead ends; more multimedia stories; and easier ways to share stories through social media," according to Tony Hunter, CEO of Chicago Tribune Media Group.
Personally, I like that the content bar is on the left. I like that as you scroll you see large images and options for multimedia. I like that on every page, there is a chance to post the site's content onto your own social media site. I also like that the company is mobile first. They realize that mobile is the future and are setting their site up for that. However, I hate, absolutely despise, that there is no end to the page when I am scrolling on my computer screen. I keep scrolling down and just arrive at newly loaded pages of different sections of the site. For example, I scroll down enough and the sports page loads on the homepage. I don't like that on my computer. For my phone, it's brilliant.
Unlike Tribune, Gannett, designs their sites with a navigation bar up top, and the publication's name in the upper left-hand corner. They have a handy quick links bar to the left as well. They also have a large featured story with featured image and a scrolling list of other featured stories from the sites different sections. They have the latest updates block to the right of the large featured stories. Below the large featured stories are interesting headlines, wach accompanied by an image to form story blocks. The design makes sense and is pleasing to the eye. As a user, I can successfully navigate the site.
The aspect I don't like about Gannett's sites is that they all
Unlike Tribune, Gannett, designs their sites with a navigation bar up top, and the publication's name in the upper left-hand corner. They have a handy quick links bar to the left as well. They also have a large featured story with featured image and a scrolling list of other featured stories from the sites different sections. They have the latest updates block to the right of the large featured stories. Below the large featured stories are interesting headlines, wach accompanied by an image to form story blocks. The design makes sense and is pleasing to the eye. As a user, I can successfully navigate the site.
The aspect I don't like about Gannett's sites is that they all
look
the
same (even in Cleveland).
I understand they want to keep a consistent brand, but I think some sites are not fit for it—for example, the difference of content organization of broadcast and print sites. However, the sites does do a good job of bringing multimedia together, a concept many sites are having a hard time doing.
Another interesting part of its navigation is that when a page is opened, it pops out into a page within the page the visitor was on.
For example....
I understand they want to keep a consistent brand, but I think some sites are not fit for it—for example, the difference of content organization of broadcast and print sites. However, the sites does do a good job of bringing multimedia together, a concept many sites are having a hard time doing.
Another interesting part of its navigation is that when a page is opened, it pops out into a page within the page the visitor was on.
For example....
The black box behind this story is the homepage. This story is one of the headlines in the latest updates tab. Another cool thing about the navigation of this site is that users can scroll between stories in specific sections with the arrows to the right and left. As a user, I prefer to be taken to another page for actual stories and sections of a news site. I feel like its a cleaner look. Gannett, though, sets a hard news tone with its sites. They want to be "in your face" about news instead of offering a pleasurable reading experience with beautiful white space and occasional images to break up block of text (we saw that with The New York Times, a Tribune site)
Maybe the golden mean solution would be to have a Gannett homepage and Tribune layout for each individual story. Who wants to design me that for my website?
Maybe the golden mean solution would be to have a Gannett homepage and Tribune layout for each individual story. Who wants to design me that for my website?