Design - The good, bad and ugly

Man, that is WAY too busy. I guess that's what a nation of ADD patients gets you.

Could there BE a few more things on this page? [Chandler Bing]

 

There's some white space after "And"

 

I have two problems with this page:
1. I'm not a fan of using a cutout as your centerpiece. Plain and simple. I'd rather see a dramatic crop, or keeping Tiger in color and making the background black and white, or keep the photo box and have the arm cut out of the top ... just some examples of other things you can do other than just cutting out a photo. Cutting out a photo can be effective, but I prefer to not run them more than a column or two in size.
2. Too many cutouts right next to each other that look the same. Jeff Gordon and Tiger cutout with their arms up in the air seems to be a little much. Now, going back to my first point, if you had done something else with Tiger, the Gordon cutout would be fine.

 

I also don't like the idea of text going over the cut out graphic in The Waterbury Republican's sports front. It seems interesting, but it seems to have been done a number of times before.

The Bakersfield front is just too busy. Pick one of those graphics to make your centerpiece and limit to that, geez! As for The Los Angeles Times, their layout is schizophrenic at best and a nightmare at worst. It's way too busy in its own right.

 

Several things about the Tiger front....

1. The "Section C" inside the O in sports is tacky and awful. Whoever approved that needs to be fired. Now.
2. I'm not a big fan of cutouts for event coverage.
3. The Tiger and Gordon cutouts look too much the same.

The more I look at that page, the more I hate it.

The Bakersfield front is definitely very busy, but if I had it in hand, I'd read just about everything on the front. I'm torn on the "one donimant entry point" theory. I usually abide by that when I design pages, but I seriously doubt that too many entry points and no real dominant item will keep people from buying the newspaper. Just the opposite, in fact.

I think we can do our readers a favor by putting more on the cover in the form of teasers and quick hitters. It makes it easier for the new breed of reader -- impatient, no time -- to skim the paper without actually skimming the paper if that makes sense. Then, if they have time later, they can come back and read stories that interest them in full. But at least they know the jist of the story from the teaser or whatever on the cover.

 

I apologize for not being more on top of this thread. I'm still feeling my way into my new job. :-\

 

On the Tiger cover, I hate, hate, HATE, cutouts with hard news/gamers, and that's what that story is. It looks pretty at first, but his arm going through the deck (I think that's what the top hed looking thing is) is distracting from part of the actual content.

A different Gordon picture should have been chosen. Like somebody else said, too much like the Tiger shot. I think I'd feel that way even if they hadn't cutout Tiger.

Totally agree with whoever said section C inside the O was bleech.

Also, not every story needs to have art with. I think that page is way too busy.

On the Bakersfield front, I had a seizure. Way too much going on.

On the L.A. Times, I'm not sure where to start, but maybe if they moved the dominate art down the page a bit, it'd look better.

 

Oooh, red and big first letters, and red bars. classy. and gotta love the dog-leg on the hilton story in the left corner.

 

Doglegging stinks, but overall that page looks better.

 

My hometown weekly has one story on the cover, it jumps and sometimes it has art, but most times it doesn't.
Everything else on the cover is wild art and briefs. They've been doing it that way for as long as anyone can remember and people are fine with it. More than fine, it actually means from a reader's perspective, everything they want to know is on the cover and everything else they want to know is inside.
It is super old-school and as distinctive as any newspaper front in the country.
I've said it before but Tim Harrower's modular approach has ruined newspaper design.
It has become so customary that when you look at something that isn't modular, you automatically think it is wrong. It isn't.
So hoozahs and kudos to those papers not following the pack.

 

Thank you for this.

 

In my opinion you're partially right. I was taught design using Harrower's model and when I see someone other than the New York Times not using modular design I do think something's wrong.

I won't do that anymore.

Has modular design ruined design? Nah. It's a very effective, organized model that helps readers. That's why so many people use it. Not just because they drank the Kool-Aid.