We're a little slow, be we realize that the NYTimes has been making dramatic changes to our favorite section, House & Home (or Home & Garden as it's called on the web), over the past few weeks and months. Most notably, we were shocked to see that it is NO LONGER called House & Home, but is simply called Home. In this new digital age, everything seems to want one name. There are a number of other changes too, like enlarging Currents, blowing up type fonts and getting rid of Room to Improve and the Q&A. What do you think? (and while we're at it, do you think the guys climbing up the NYTimes new building yesterday were disgruntled "Home" readers?)
Not everyone's home is a house. 'nuff said.
view kimg924's profile
Looks exactly the same on the web...
view bepsf's profile
I know this isn't a graphic design blog, but referring to the paper's typography or typefaces as "type fonts" sounds uneducated to me.
This is like saying a sofa chair ;)
http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/theyre-not-fonts
view Claire K's profile
Who cares?
Also, did anyone read the article on the front page? "Peter Rabbit Must Die"? HILARIOUS!
view gopherface's profile
I think this section has been a huge bore for years. They have maybe 4 articles tops and they're not that interesting. I skip it most of the time.
view anne's profile
I read that article on fonts and typefaces and conclude thusly: It's some separation between typeface snobs and people who just have used Word forever and call them fonts because that's what they're called on the programs. They're fonts.
I don't care what the NYT changes the names of its sections to. NON-ISSUE.
view K T G's profile
I agree K T G, that article does get a bit over-the-top, and I really don't mind people referring to typefaces as "fonts"; just don't call them "type fonts"! :)
view Claire K's profile