This is a pretty big statement to make, so I decided to see for myself whether this is a practical change that can truly accomodate tablet and mobile users, and I also wanted to check on whether this website change was really as monumental as TIME argues it is.
I started off by testing the TIME.com website on a few different devices. First and foremost was an iPad. The TIME.com page on the iPad did not look any different from the internet page, as expected, but one difference I saw was that the image quality on the TIME website was far superior than the image quality on other websites.
After testing the iPad, I tested the Kindle as well as an iPhone and an Android phone, all of which were able to accomodate the TIME.com website's high quality graphics and were relatively easy to navigate. This is a positive move away from other websites that are not equipped to deal with browsers on other devices, and I think that this change puts TIME at the forefront of both adaptivity and social media technology.
The TIME website was able to hold up the same quality of website despite the device used to access it, and this is extraordinary impressive, but I am still not sure about 'revolutionary.' TIME makes the claim that they are "the first global news site to roll out a fully responsive redesign optimized for mobile and tablet browsing," but I am not sure that this is true.
Looking at other expansive global news sites, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, who both have tablet and mobile-friendly websites in place, it seems to me as if TIME's claim is exaggerated. I would be interested to see how they would define 'fully responsive', however, as this might be the key in differentiating TIME's website access from other news sites that have essentially already done the same thing. Regardless of this claim, though, it is clear that this redesign is a step up for TIME and a step forward in terms of technology and accommodating media changes.