Design thread

Re: Design thread *updated 11/3*

I like the hed too, but I'm not sure there's a way to avoid stacking it, other than running it straight across ... in which case it'd probably need to be 6 columns ... and even then it could get kinda small. Plus stacking it separates the words, making it easier to read ... otherwise it would look like:

FIREYOURHEADCOACH.COM

Also agree on staying away from the computer monitor ... been done waaaaaaaaay to often.

Dooley: One thing I'm curious about ... when you say the package has too many gadgets and changeups ... what do you mean by that? There's a fact box, a slightly stylized hed, a couple photos ... it just doesn't strike me as anything terribly out of the ordinary.

One thing that bugs me a bit: The Cavs portion of the page looks a bit too much like a gamer; it looks live. A photo that looks less like a typical game-action photo would help. (It also clashes with the columnist with the hed on the column, which tells me he's taking threes, yet I've got a pic of him driving for a layup.)

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/6*

I like the page mostly, but don't think the Cavs pic is too big.

And I agree that the computer monitor thing is getting played out. Now, put it on a Blackberry, and that'd be cool.

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/3*

ha... that's a great point

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/3*

OK, it has:
--Tons of main hed decks.
--Tons of subhed deck.
--Larger-than-normal body copy.
--A long rail.
--A secondary, ordinary pic.
--Sidesaddle caption.
--A type foundation at the bottom of the package.
All done because...
--The main art was lame.

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/3*

> The secondary photo is of Ohio State coach Jim Tressel ... which is probably there to give some kind of visual local peg.

> I've already mentioned why I think stacking "fireyourheadcoach.com" was probably the best approach in this case ...

> And, with the exception of the larger type (which I could have done without in this instance) I don't really consider the rest of that stuff particularly out of the ordinary, especially for a centerpiece package ... we just have different takes on it, I suppose.

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/3*

Hey Dooley, what would you have done with the centerpiece?

Keep in mind, you're restrained to that space, that headline and that main art. Because, I like to think that if they had a better hed idea or a better photo to use they would have used it.

So. What would you have done?

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/6*

Why would i be restrained to having it that size, or that format? I've offered my solution; a home-page replica (not necessarily a computer monitor; should have made that clearer).

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/6*

Because "FIREYOURHEADCOACH.COM" -- on one line -- would get awfully small run fewer than six columns. For example, in our hed face -- Franklin Gothic -- over 5 columns (57p) the hed would run at a shade under 60 pts ... which is on the smallish side for a centerpiece here and, I'd guess, at the Plain Dealer as well.

Plus, it's just hard to read.

(I'm only mentioning this because you said you like the hed -- i do too -- but didn't like stacking it. so i'm looking at the alternatives ... please tell me if there's something i'm missing.)

And replicating computer type stuff ... whether it's homepages, monitors, keyboards, mice, etc. etc. etc. has just been done to death.

I think the approach they took here is, for the most part, fine.

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/6*

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. I guarantee if they did what I suggested, it'd have been the first time for the Plain-Dealer. Doesn't matter to the readers there that a couple dozen other papers have done it. We should be designing for readers, not the design Web sites.

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/6*

Agreeing to disagree is fine with me. In fact, I think I suggested it a couple posts ago.

But for the record, I've never said (or even thought) that we should design for design web sites, rather than for readers. (Nice assumption though.)

But the problem with cliches is that even if your paper has never done X design, chances are readers HAVE seen it elsewhere: Time, Newsweek, ESPN the Magazine (which recently used the fake website concept for the Indy 500), SI, the local business weekly, or any number of other places that readers get information from.

Unless, of course, you think readers get all their information from only once source.

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/6*

People are too busy to check out more than a few sources of info, so it's not like the designer's going against 100 voices in everybody's consciousness. Aside from that, readers in Cleveland have seen definitive stories on Lebron James available in just as many outlets. But that doesn't mean the P-D shouldn't do its own definitive stories on Lebron, in its own staff's voice. And it doesn't mean the P-D couldn't do the Web site, with its own designer's style and vision that's not Newsweek's or ESPN the Mag's/

 

Re: Design thread *updated 11/6*

OK, OK, OK.

Enough of this arguing about what the readers of the Plain Dealer would like to see. I know for a fact that neither of the people involved in this discussion ARE avid readers of the Plain Dealer.

One of the great things about this thread was that it was a "flame-free zone". Notice how I said "was".

Let's please keep the conversations and discussions civil. We have some really great people from the world of design commenting here - Chris Rukan, Tim Ball and "SportsDesigner". I would hate for them to lose interest in the great discussions we have going on here because people want to throw around "we design for readers, not for design Web sites".

There's no reason we, as designers, can't design for both. Let's keep that in mind as we critique the work of others.

So, carry on. But always remember: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Thanks.