DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > Print Design

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-28-2009, 01:01 PM   #1
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,929
Default Ugly? Or is it just me?

The Washington Post is (desperately in my opinion) redesigning everything and the first is the newly redesigned Sunday magazine which we received yesterday.

The editor's note made me very uneasy--this is a new editor:

"Why the changes? Well, because, if you're anything like me, you also have a giggling, gurgling baby; a first-grader going on middle-schooler; and neighbors who wish they had more time for ... well, just about everything.

"That's why we've reimagined the Magazine. It has more to entice, but takes less time at each stop. Its clean look--the creation of Art Director Janet Michaud--provides clear navigation and fewer jumps. The typography is simple, the layout sophisticated."



What do my neighbors have to do with the time I have available to read this magazine?

"taking less time at each stop" is not enticing to me and seems to contradict an earlier statement ("You'll continue to find deeply reported articles...")--where the old magazine had 2 or 3 "deeply reported articles", this issue has 1.

"clean look", "simple typography" and "sophisticated layout" are belied by the examples attached below.

It's UGLY. The look is more cluttered not only in the attached example but all through the magazine. The font chosen is less sophisticated as is the layout.

I've attached 3 scans. The first two are full page scans showing the page layout for the old design (first scan from the left) and the new design (second scan from the left). The last scan show examples of the font in the old design (left) and the font in the new design (is that Times Roman?).

What say you? Is it ugly or not?

Terrie
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	oldwpmag.jpg
Views:	73
Size:	180.1 KB
ID:	1528   Click image for larger version

Name:	newwpmag.jpg
Views:	66
Size:	190.3 KB
ID:	1529   Click image for larger version

Name:	wpoldnewfonts.jpg
Views:	66
Size:	129.1 KB
ID:	1532  
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 01:15 PM   #2
sky4forums
Member
 
sky4forums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 306
Default

Well, I do prefer the old layout, 2 columns vs 3. And why those huge first caps? They waste space and do not add info or legibility.

   
__________________
- Sky
See my photos at http://skyockey.smugmug.com
sky4forums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 01:20 PM   #3
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,929
Default

Quote:
sky: Well, I do prefer the old layout, 2 columns vs 3.
Me too...


>>And why those huge first caps? They waste space and do not add info or legibility.

Exactly!!!

Ok...we're 2 for 2 for ugly...'-}}

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 02:56 PM   #4
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Terrie:
Quote:
Is it ugly or not?
The magazine needed a new design, I think: the double columns look as if there ought to be more leadng, and the impression is mainly of greyness. (The magazine could also do with some less plodding text too, but you didn't ask about the content.) And the use of colour? Pretty awful. But the new design, in which it's impossible to overlook those appallingy tasteless dropped capitals, falls down too, although the colour and leading of the text is OK, given the shorter lines.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2009, 03:49 PM   #5
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,929
Default

Quote:
michael: and the impression is mainly of greyness.
That is probably due to the scan as the actual paper is white...


>>But the new design, in which it's impossible to overlook those appallingy tasteless dropped capitals, falls down too

I think they are just ghastly too...

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2009, 04:12 PM   #6
Michael Rowley
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ipswich (the one in England)
Posts: 5,105
Default

Terrie:
Quote:
That is probably due to the scan as the actual paper is white
I was using colour to refer to the overall impression; I know there aren't actually any colours present. The colour is improved by the shorter lines in the new layout.

   
__________________
Michael
Michael Rowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2009, 04:30 PM   #7
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,929
Default

Quote:
michael: I was using colour to refer to the overall impression
Ahhhh...just took another look and I see what you mean...yes...it is grey...

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2009, 07:09 PM   #8
Norman Hathaway
Member
 
Norman Hathaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 259
Default

awful
watered down walter bernard aesthetic circa 1981

fine to redesign, but the haven't improved clarity or added character

sad
Norman Hathaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2009, 03:51 PM   #9
terrie
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,929
Default

Quote:
norman: awful
watered down walter bernard aesthetic circa 1981
I think it's so ugly...


>> fine to redesign, but the haven't improved clarity or added character

Exactly...

Terrie
terrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2009, 07:57 AM   #10
Cristen Gillespie
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Terrie:What do my neighbors have to do with the time I have available to read this magazine?
It seems if we don't have neighbors who wish for more time, or gurgling babies and first-graders, we have no reason to read the new edition.<G>

But I sympathize. The rule of business is if you have nothing better to contribute, contribute something anyway to prove you're working. Makes it harder to fire you. And it's hard to design with a giggling baby on one hip and a first-grader tugging on the free hand and neighbors doing I-don't-know-what.

   
__________________
Cristen
Cristen Gillespie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.