L.A. Times redesign

[Gold]

Looking at the paper, it looked a bit crisper. I don't like the fact that they moved the TV listings from page 2 to page 3.

 

[MileHigh]

Looking at the paper, it looked a bit crisper. I don't like the fact that they moved the TV listings from page 2 to page 3.

Does it seem strange that it's not throughout the entire paper? The redesign that is.

 

[Football_Bat]

It is now the L.A. Times-Picayune.

 

[DyePack]

Designers run amok? I am shocked to see that implication. That would never happen.

 

[healingman]

"Multiple points of entry" can sometimes turn into a paper's "weapons of mass destruction" if not used cautiously.

 

[DyePack]

To me, it's change for the sake of change.

Like almost any redesign. The consultants still make their $, though.

 

[DyePack]

"Multiple points of entry" can sometimes turn into a paper's "weapons of mass destruction" if not used cautiously.

The plaque for the alternates is in the Ladies Room.

 

[ballscribe]

Redesign is one of those things those aforementioned consultants whisper in a publisher's ear, to earn their keep.
Most publishers will probably buy pretty newspaper talk from the consultant, because they understand how the paper looks better than they understand what the paper contains.

The design people have no objection, obviously, because they get to let loose on the creativity a bit and also justify their jobs.

I've noticed that newspapers get a lot of screaming phone calls, letter and e-mails when a redesign first hits the street. I've always found it jarring, because the eye gets used to the same thing every day, probably more than we non-design people realize.


Then, a few weeks later, everyone goes back to sleep, once they get accustomed to the new look. Tempest in a teapot, really.


I hope none of the people out there who object to it got all up in arms when the New York Times went - gasp - to colour.

 

[DyePack]

Most publishers will probably buy pretty newspaper talk from the consultant, because they understand how the paper looks better than they understand what the paper contains.

The design people have no objection, obviously, because they get to let loose on the creativity a bit and also justify their jobs.

However, the clueless managing editors are being paid to know what the paper contains. They aren't doing their jobs when they cower in their offices and do next-day critiques.

 

[steveu]

I think I like the Sun-Sentinel's redo a bit better. This redo of Los Angeles takes some of the gray out of the paper, but one of the hallmarks of the Times was the in-depth stories. Does it take things away? Does it make the paper better?

 

[Editude]

I hear other sections are going to roll out redesigns in the next several months. It does look like many other recent redesigns. Skyboxes ... that's cutting edge.

 

[enigami]

Fewer stories on A1 = larger headlines and larger photos = more compelling reading at a glance. It's a subtle change that hopefully will affect readership.