Why are newspaper websites laid out the way they are ? Is it because they need to display as much content as possible, sparking interest in every article (see nytimes.com) ? Or is there something else ?

I am always overwhelmed by all the content I see, and then I find myself leaving the page guiltily.

As I mentioned above, I guess they have to do it because of the amount of content they need the people to read, I was just asking myself if there is something else that psychologically affects the reader to come to this website again.

How do you personally feel visiting newspaper websites ? If there was not a lot of articles/content, would you be unimpressed by how "little" content the paper has on display ?


  • Why does there have to be a psychological/UX reason behind it? These people have been in the newspaper business for centuries. When they moved to the web, they stayed with the format they have always had, the format which has always worked for them. They would need a reason to change it, not a reason to keep it.
    – Rumi P.
    Sep 24, 2014 at 15:00

2 Answers 2


One of the base requirements for information systems like websites and newspapers is that content must be findable. The classic press has developed patterns for that over centuries, e.g. Headline, Byline, Lead, Teaser, Sections, Front Page, Pull-Quote, Insert, Side Columns, Obituary, Classified Ad etc. Some of them seem inherent to or at least afforded by the print medium. Many of them have been carried over to their websites. Not all of them should have. Some new patterns have emerged or adapted to the fluid, interactive medium.

It took, for instance, surprisingly long until newspaper makers realized that letters to the editor could be replaced by article comments. Finally, the first ones now support paragraph-based comments.

Newspapers also traditionally had the role of gatekeepers. They were those who gathered, filtered, selected, processed, reported and thus transformed information into news and public knowledge. Some of that, especially everything happening non-local, they delegated to news agencies which readers had no direct access to. They also included more syndicated content, like comic strips. They became periodical, static content aggregators.

What is the usage scenario today? On the internet, people want a steady, dynamic content aggregator that feeds from many news providers. They also want comments and opinions on facts, at least on some, and background information at a level of their choosing. People find articles in automated newsfeeds, links from friends and search engines. That’s how they get on a newspaper homepage, deep-linked. Once there, the site owner must try everything to keep them reading and watching, so readers are assailed with teasers for somewhat related stories, most-viewed stories etc. – and with ads, because the dual financing of the paper era is gone.

Some people, though, actually use (or try to use) the homepage of “their” newspaper as a starting point for bringing themselves up to date with current news etc., much like they did with the paper version. They don’t browse anymore from front to back page, so everything is shown them at once in an abridged form. Sections are still there, though, as topics in the main navigation bar.

I believe many online newspapers do a bad job at being news aggregators, because they’re trying to make everything findable by teasers, but these make so much visual noise that one actually doesn’t discover anything. They should leave the aggregator thing to the pros of the digital era. Instead, journalism sites should concentrate on the thing they are still good at and that makes them indispensable: original content. That’s often just local news and news assessment, maybe exclusive in-depth reports, probably done by freelancers. National and global news (i.e. the facts) are usually handled well enough by the agencies that also feed into aggregators.


The UX challenge is in news portals that draw content from many different sources. Newspaper editors should concentrate on selling the original content produced by their journalists to those portals instead of trying to be aggregators themselves.


It's a good question. I think there is a bit of history here, bringing in what used to be into a new media (much the same way that ticker tapes are still used in financial sites).

Newspapers had a lot of articles and types of articles. Conventions were made. Broadsheets (such as the NYTimes would put Sports (as an example) in a different section. Tabloids might have the sports starting at the back of the newspaper. Editorials are often in the middle for a tabloid and the last inside page of a broadsheet.

Nonetheless headlines and articles on the front page attracted buyers walking by. Having a lot of articles and the accompanying headlines would attract customers.

Now, let's bring it into the web/mobile era. At first all readers of the web version were existing readers of the print version so, in a skeumorphic sort of way online papers carried over print conventions. That's beginning to change as a result of mobile and, I think, will continue to change to a simpler more web/mobile-centric presentation.

But much of the print problems still exist. Which of the important headlines of the day need to come first? And - how to show them to users fast enough so they stay and don't leave to another site?

Which of the following do you show? What will attract more readers/ customers:

International News

"Ebola spreading: Sierra Leone in lockdown."

"US warplanes attack ISIS targets in Syria"

"Russians do xxx in yyy"

US News

Senate race in xxx

Governor race in yyy

Local News



Sports News

Derek Jeter's Last Game

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.