In A Note to Our Readers The New Yorker's editors announce all sorts of changes -- most notably: "a summer-long free-for-all" online of all content in the print editions (previously they had kept some of this stuff behind a non-subscriber-paywall), as well as that:
Less welcome, of course is that starting:
Back to The New Yorker-site: apparently:
Beginning this week, every story we've published since 2007 will be available on newyorker.com, in the same easy-to-read format as the new work we're publishing.Which is pretty cool -- not quite The Spectator's grand archive (which you regularly peruse, no ?), but still offering a hell of a lot of good content, which is why I mention it: something to check out on these lazy summer days.
Less welcome, of course is that starting:
This week, newyorker.com has a new look. On a desktop, on a tablet, on a phone, the site has become, we believe, much easier to navigate and read, much richer in its offerings, and a great deal more attractive.With the usual caveat that I, with the most rudimentary site still running (well, okay, there's always the Handke Scriptmania Portal, whose continued existence always makes me feel a bit better about not getting around to updating the site-look hereabouts ...), surely shouldn't talk/complain ... when I see this shit I just throw up my arms in despair. I realize every site now has to have what is apparently meant to be a tablet-friendly look/functionality, but come on ..... (I do own what can pass for a tablet, but have hard enough a time using it to read 'e-books'; I use the internet on my laptop -- and this new trend is driving me absolutely nuts.)
Back to The New Yorker-site: apparently:
in the fall, we move to a second phase, implementing an easier-to-use, logical, metered paywall. Subscribers will continue to have access to everything; non-subscribers will be able to read a limited number of pieces -- and then it's up to them to subscribe. You've likely seen this system elsewhere -- at the Times, for instance -- and we will do all we can to make it work seamlessly.I'd certainly welcome the implementation of a soft paywall of this sort (if they have to bother with any sort of paywall ...): The New York Times' is cookie-dependent, and as someone who flushes his cookies repeatedly throughout the day (as I hope you sensibly do too) I've never come up against paywall-page-limitations .....