The New Dark and Brooding WSJ.com Is Launched

7 Comments

The new WSJ.com, its most radical do-over since the online site launched in 1995, is now live. We wrote about the relaunch in detail last night, including an interview with Gordon McLeod, president of The Wall Street Journal Digital Network. My first reaction: dark and brooding, in keeping with the current economic environment (of course the color was chosen much before Wall Street went into a tailspin).

7 Comments

N W McLean

The new design is cluttered and would appeal mainly to those who would never read the journal. The editors and staff of the online journal hold subscribers beneath contempt as our expressions of disapproval for the new design are met with an arrogant and perfunctory, "We’re confident that after you use the redesigned site, you’ll agree that the changes add value to your subscription". I have news for Mr. Murray et al, be confident of this: I shan't renew my print or online subscriptions when my current subscriptions expire. They do not add, but markedly, reduce value. The only thing they add is insult to our intellect.

Geoff Tucker

The design is nice but greatly similar to Conde Nast's Portfolio magazine site, albeit less colorful. They're using the same content section demarcation borders, for example, (thick, gray lines along the section's top) as Portfolio and other modern design notes.

Better than I would have expected.

Staci D. Kramer

Gordon McLeod reponds to Nathan (posted by permission):

The Kindle is priced by Amazon and is only available on a per month
charge. In my experience most products with monthly subscriptions are
priced higher than the same product over longer periods.

You are likely referring to our WSJ introductory bundle offer for one
year of both the paper and the site. And while I am sorry you cancelled
it I would point out that they are very different products delivered
over different distribution platforms and time frames and therefore no
real price comparison can be made.

amy roth

Alan, please please return to a serif-bearing typeface. Sans serif is very taxing to the eyes (although dearly beloved by graphic designers for its "clean-ness"). After all, there's a reason for serifs: they help the eye glide from one letter to the next so that the text appears as a word. Sans serif does away with this.
As my main news outlet, I far prefer the Journal to the pathetic NYTimes, but the Times is staying with its easy-to-read serif-bearing typeface, which will make it tempting to use their website rather than wsj.com. I'd hate to do this since the Times is no longer a serious news outlet but, rather, the house organ of the most liberal wing of the Democratic party).

Nathan Richardson

Alan, Can you explain to me the "digital pricing" conflicts? I recently cancelled my print & online bundle in lieu of the digital subscription for the kindle. The kindle is a more expensive subscription, kills fewer trees YET I don't receive access to the website anymore. Doesn't seem like a consistent digital strategy on pricing? Any idea when this will be remedied?

Alan Murray

Rafat –

The "charcoal" is the color of the non-subscriber site. For subscribers, it's "champagne."

Comments are closed.