Design thread

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

Followed by reasons why nothing should be changed.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

Such is the debate. You either take it quietly, or say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another."

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

Or you can do what any reasonable person would do, which is ignore anything that Wordhawk has to say.

The funny thing is any valid criticism he might make is completely lost in a sea of his own bullshit.

And maybe more people would feel comfortable posting pages of their own if they felt like they could get constructive criticism on how to improve their pages instead of ''This page is garbage'' or ''It doesn't work''. And there have been plenty of great posts and suggestions, but just as many worthless ones. Hopefully most of the designers who have either posted their own work or had their work posted by someone else realize this and don't take it too seriously.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

The valid criticism is lost by designers who want to live in a world where they do nothing wrong. So they keep making the same mistakes over and over.

It's the equivalent of saying "Make like a tree and get out of here" and never realizing why it fails.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

Yes, either that or grow a little thicker skin.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

Which of course is easy to say behind an anonymous internet handle.

And Wordhawk, the sad thing is I don't recall you ever actually contributing anything worthwhile to a design thread on here or NPD. Everything is either an attack on designers or newspapers in general, rather than a specific criticism of a page or a suggestion to make it better.

How would you have done the page differently? I'm geniunely interested.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

Yes, that WOULD be interesting.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

Then ask the person to whom you keep referring.

By continuing to use this angle of posting, you reveal yourself to be an illogical dumbfuck. Because either:

(1) You are willingly violating the "no outing rule," which then means all of the criticism posted here isn't actually anonymous. And that negates the claim you just made.

(2) You are asking for a response from someone who is not posting here.

I'll let you try to puzzle this out in your tiny mind.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

OK... DYEPACK, what would you have done differently with the page?

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 1/28*

Better, but not a complete solution.

So the first thing I would do is issue a written reprimand to whoever wrote the headlines on this page. Every single one has a weak verb.

The next problem is the one with the head shots obviously being rotated or flipped beyond an acceptable level. If they were manipulated past a certain point, then it's time to wave bye-bye to that person.

Next, it's time to have the balls to pick either the erroneous, unchecked, unverified Martz story or the Super Bowl material and play it the way it's supposed to be played. I'd go with stripping the erroneous, unchecked, unverified Martz story. The guy was the head coach in the town for several years. And once someone starts whining: "But there's no art with it!" then the response should be: "So get some."

If we're going to cheat anyway with not packaging the Super Bowl material, then the stupid-looking floating columnist cutout can go at the top of the column where the erroneous, unchecked, unverified Martz story is now. Then you lose the unnecessary "BEN" and "MATT" (terrible designers love big, all-caps names and numbers; guess it shields them from having to read a story or know anything about it), and you can still have a "BEN" head cutout and a "MATT" head cutout floating around at the bottom right.

OK, now everyone can say why this couldn't possibly work and why the utter crap has to stay utter crap. And why the shitty headline writer should stay. And why the gross photo manipulation is OK.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 2/2*

No, actually, I agree with most of that (minus the condescencion).

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 1/28*

You're right. I didn't notice that before. To me, it was one of those optical illusions.