&gt;* The separation of different forms of content...<p>Disagree. The NYTimes is at the forefront of dynamic content and page layouts. They inspired a couple of startups to build  publishing tools after their Snowfall article was published <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;projects&#x2F;2012&#x2F;snow-fall&#x2F;#&#x2F;?part=tunnel-creek" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;projects&#x2F;2012&#x2F;snow-fall&#x2F;#&#x2F;?part=tunne...</a><p>For more interactive articles, check out this
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2015&#x2F;us&#x2F;year-in-interactive-storytelling.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2015&#x2F;us&#x2F;year-in-interacti...</a><p>&gt;* The font in their title...
Serif fonts aren&#x27;t dated, and this is part of their branding and aesthetic. Of course a company founded in 1851 will not have the same aesthetics as a company founded in 2016. As a designer, I think their text and page layouts are some of the best I&#x27;ve seen.<p>&gt;* The discoverability of content...
Unless you have access to their analytics, you aren&#x27;t in a position to criticize their page layout. The problem with these armchair critiques is they are never argued with data.