Design thread

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/17*

This is not a slam at all, but I would be interested to hear what DyePack says about these pages, and it's based in curiosity, really. He (or she?) seems to be down on the same old thing, so I would be very interested to see what he or she has to say bout it.

DyePack?

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/17*

It's that type of comment that keeps me coming back here and swinging, accusing the designers of drinking the "Readers love our visuals; just ask us" Kool-Aid, etc.

It's definitely new and different. Sadly, though, there's really not much correlation between the use of color and the type of story. Does the designer use the Twister spinner to decide? Uno cards? Tarot cards?

The best reference so far is to the article about how unoriginal most redesigns are. Good to see those hours and hours spent on accomplishing little to nothing! Pound your chests in pride, designers!

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/17*

Honestly, I don't like it. It goes against my opinion that we're here to present news in a timely and well-packaged fashion. I agree with I'mHerefromSI ... the colors seem randomly picked. I think the whole look is kind of cheesy, in a way.

But single-copy sales are up 8-13 percent. Advertising is up. Call me in a year, and if circulation and advertising is still dancing in the hallways, I'll start throwing a bunch of color on my front page. Whatever keeps the quarters coming, I suppose.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/17*

There is only one word for that .... hideous!

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/22*

The first one is absolutely terrible. The second one is less so, but color screens on stories for no reason is horrible. I like the top part though on the second one...it works for me a little more.

But the bottom left corner, with the color screens? Yeesh.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/17*

I'mHereFromSI was me, just to prevent confusion ... And I was not trying to be rude or condescending, I truly wondered what you thought about it. So thanks for (sort of, in your way, answering the question).

I agree that there seems to be no order to where the color goes and such. I too was amazed by the numbers -- they're amazing. I'll be very interested to see where they go from here. ... There's a Bakersfield guy who posts here, I'm wondering if he'd explain?

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/17*

From what I can tell, color is used behind cut-to-front stories or breakouts, while longer stories that jump get no color. Now, as for whether certain colors go with certain things, I don't know.

But, what I really want to know is this...are we saying these pages are "terrible" and "hideous" because they don't package things in a way that readers respond to and that readers like, or are we saying that because they go against just about everything we've been taught to like as designers? Are our reactions based on what we've been taught, what has led to the cookie-cutter designs that DyePack dogs us for, or are these truly not what readers want to see?

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/22*

I'm saying it as an aesthetic thing. It's my OPINION. Not saying readers don't like it...numbers seem to prove that wrong.

I, personally, think it's garish. And the top one, I just don't like the centerpiece jutting up into the pictures at the top. It's why I like the bottom one better.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/22*

I don't like it, because I don't like it. It's hideous. It's terrible. If I saw a paper like that in the rack, I wouldn't buy it.

But we chase quarters. That's what we're taught to do. Anybody here who designed a 1A has had it changed not because it looked bad, but because it didn't get such-and-such above the fold. And if that design, that hideous, hideous design, sells more papers, then I'd do it, because A.) My boss told me to. B.) Quarters are rolling in.

But, I stand my opinion that I'd like to see the circulation numbers and the advertising numbers a year from now. And I'd like to see them in comparison to what they looked like after the redesign. I doubt the numbers will remain that high. In this day and age, people like new shit. But in a year, it won't be new anymore. I'd like to see the results then.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/22*

I'm just trying to get at why we think pages like these aren't any good. Is it a personal thing, which it seems to be, or is it based on something else? If so, what? What makes these pages bad or good or what? I'm not attacking anyone. Personally, I'm not too big on either one. Both have some things I like, both have some things I could do without. I'm really just playing devil's advocate, trying to see what we're thinking designers. As designers, we need to ask ourselves what we can do different, what we can do to give readers what they want. This paper has done that. I want to see their figures a year from now, too, to see how they're doing.

Thing is, too, I bet if all of us talked with readers in our areas, like the Californian did, we'd all come up with papers that looked different. Some would be tabs. Some would be broadsheet. Some would be splashed with color. Some would use a conservative pallette. Some would be full of longer, in-depth enterprise pieces and features. Some would be full of quick-hitters with a couple of longer stories.

Anyway, just trying to start a conversation. See where it takes us.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/22*

I'd lean toward getting completely out of the universe you have just described. Readers care about none of what you describe.

Get back to giving readers good content with intelligent headlines. Concentrate on looks after that. Of course, this means restructuring staffs, which the chest-beating designers will oppose.

 

Re: Design thread *Updated 3/22*

BeforeI get into these tow pages...and there is nothing I like about either of them... I need to start with these statements by jroyal:

As designers, we need to ask ourselves what we can do different, what we can do to give readers what they want.

What we need to ask ourseleves is not what can we do different. but "What are we doing well and what can we do better?" Different, ala Bakersfield, is not necessarily better.

As for giving the readers what they want, well, the problem there is we havc no real idea what the readers want and, frankly, neither do they. Every readership survey I've ever seen seems to contradict the previous readership survey.

And, what my mother the 85-year-old reader wants is vastly different from what my brother-in-law the 50-year-old reader wants is vastly different from what my niece the 15-year-old reader wants (thank God a 15-year-old actually likes to read newspapers).
Therefore, I think all we can strive for is to make it as easy on the eyes as possible and as easy to navigate as possible. These Bakersfield pages do neither.

What about these pages bothers me? Well, they do attract my attetion but they do not draw me in or make me want to read this paper.

I see photos crashing into each other across the top, splatered with type and with clashing-color page flags. I see color screens thrown in with no rhyme or reason, I see no distinguishable story "play", everything seems to be just thrown out there.
I see FINGER-PAINTING! It's bright, it's colorful, it makes no sense whatsoever.

And as an aside, color screening of large blocks of type makes the type much harder to read. That is not serving the reader.

I'm sure I missed someting,, but those are the high (low?) points.