Jacob Weisberg writes: " I think Slate's editorial staff understands the intersection of journalism and technology better than any other."

I would agree, if by "intersection" you mean "tangent" and by "understands" you mean "observes" and by "better than" you mean "about the same as." And if by Jacob Weisberg, editor, you mean Jay-Dub, new media wunderkind.

Whatever Weisberg's strengths as an editor, and they are formidable and acute, the fact is Jay-Dub entirely fails to understand the Web as a user experience. I, for one, enjoy Slate for its journalism, and I continue to visit it for that in spite of — that's right, IN SPITE OF — the technology.

The list of technological failures is astounding. In the first place, the site is incredibly user-unfriendly. The rollover menus constantly get in the way, intruding themselves when you are trying to click on a lead article. The site is slow to load, and the gimcrackery that Jay-Dub clearly loves — the Flash delegate counters & what have you — are poorly done, slow, and don't really add anything except an encumbrance to the experience of getting information. Often clicks on links cycle endlessly for no apparent reason.

Then there's Slate V, which I avoid at all costs. The huge downloads are slow and, when all is said and done, provide nothing more than an airhead counterbalance to the weighty and perceptive prose writing one sees elsewhere in the magazine. The slide shows can be interesting, but why not give the user more than a minuscule area for nav tools? Every time I want to click next I really have to search for that tiny spot, which changes after each load.

Plus where is it written that maroon is anything but a dismal color, more suited to annual report covers than web journalism?

These are all, or mostly, user-interface complaints, but I would remind anyone listening that in this day and age the user experience is what it's all about. You fuck with that at your peril. Amazon doesn't sell books (and just about anything else) because they make it hard for you to find the things you want and purchase them; they succeed because they make the process easy and pleasurable.

Then there's the whole matter of The Fray. They took a fun, fast, enjoyable experience and wrestled it to the ground. Now it takes a will of iron to trudge through threads, and you need extra gumption to offer your own posts or replies because the cumbersome new apparatus for posting is, in a word, retarded. And if there a less useful addition than the "tag cloud," I have yet to see it.

Oh, and the fumble-fingered interns who were chosen to spearhead the "new" Fray somehow contrived to lose all the valuable posts that preceded the change, even though it cost nothing to keep them and an intelligent development effort could have made them available in the new database with maybe a couple of days work.

Jacob Weisberg is an excellent writer and editor, and he will be missed. But Jay-Dub is a noob, and he will not. Sorry, but it had to be said.

Yeah, with love to Jacob Weisberg, a great writer and editor, the site is super un-user-friendly, to the point of inducing headaches. So amen to this -- but for robusto's rip on maroon. Maroon's perfect for Slate; and it's integral to a great, 12-year-old brand (venerable by Web standards).

Plus -- speaking of Slate and brand equity -- *cough* the 2006 logo redesign is boring and ugly, where the original was unique and stylin'. (Viva!)

the archives, Robusto, or did you figure this out yourself (I recall you've work in the field, right)?

If the Old Fray posts are "lost", does that mean "permanently eradicated", or "not easily accessible or reconstituted"? When did this happen? Amid the self-congratulatory comments from Slate staff concerning the New Fray were airy references to a "few weeks" or somesuch before the archived posts would be available as a matter of course. That was a year ago. Last I read, it was "low priority", but there was no suggestion of "lost".

Probably the messages are stored somewhere, but whether Slate lacks the intention or the will to make them available, what is the difference why they are holding out? If Slate intended to make them available, one supposes they would already be available. Right now it appears they're simply trying to forget about the matter. And they will continue to do so, as long as people let them get away with it.

I couldn't agree more. Right down to the missing archives that contained some of the best contributions. A simple "users guide" that clearly and accurately spelled out the process of making a post would be helpful.

You failed to mention my favorite part of the upgraded Slate Fray, when Geoff the Editor said if we didn't like the changes, we could fuck off.