You could make the middle section text narrower and the images fill to the full width of the middle column. It would not be feasible (it is possible) to make the images overlap the left and right columns because then they would cover the content in those side sections
What’s your opinion on what the NY Times did for its page layout?
Do you think their design adds any value to readers, or is it just fluff?
Also, what are your thoughts of their design with how it relates to “Responsive Design”? (Of which I know nothing!)
Sincerely,
Debbie
I think its a nice straight forward approach that is easy to read (if a little boring) but its strengths are that it is easy to adapt to mobile and to still keep the same look and feel as a desktop. (I do think they need to do something about the image size though because 820k for those large images is much too big especially when there are a number of them.)
A lot of responsive desktops sites are multi column busy layouts but when you scale down to mobile you get just the on column. However, some people find themselves slightly disorientated as they think they may have clicked a new page by accident when they see the new display. Other people have said that when they visit a mobile site they want to see the same layout as the desktop because they know where everything is. For both these cases the NYT site works as the layout is the same at large and small sizes but perhaps a little boring as I mentioned above. Of course with a site that is mainly about content then the ease of reading/accessing the content is an important issue so design consideration would probably take second place.
The truth is that you can’t please everyone no matter how hard you try:)
So how would you make it less “boring”?
True.
I hope to learn responsive design later this year…
Sincerely,
Debbie
That’s a good question but I don’t know the answer 
Maybe a little bit of colour?