[JohnMakin]

In the NYT story, it makes much more sense (also the way it's implemented is far less offensive). It makes sense because it was trying to tell a story, and the slide show gives more emotional impact to it. That's cool! I still don't like it and would prefer just the story, but I see why it makes sense here.

however, when you're trying to convey information, this style of page is offensively bad and I doubt is really doing you any favors - inline images and videos do the exact same thing you're trying to accomplish here without all the obnoxiousness.

[metabagel]

You haven't explained why it's "offensively bad".

I feel like the tight integration of text and visual content does an excellent job of telling the story. There's no confused looking around for what goes with what. It's all tied together into a seamless narrative, sort of like television documentary style.

It seems like the issue you have is with scrolling down, but that's an advantage, because it means you can go at your own pace.

[JohnMakin]

I have in the grandparent comment - it’s not easily usable to many types of disabilities, chiefly - and it does nothing to augment the information it is trying to convey. this site also renders poorly, as others have mentioned. Just adds absolutely nothing to the page, so it is offensively bad in that I want to read what it says but cannot/will not.

[metabagel]

I hear where you're coming from, and that's totally valid.

For me, it does add value, and that's totally valid too.

[JohnMakin]

Thanks for that perspective. I lost sight of the fact not everyone is like me, but to be fair to my righteous anger about this kind of thing, is that probably more people like you are like me and due to the nature of how design decisions are made, that leaves huge neglected parts of the population after a time.

What value does it add for you?