PDA

View Full Version : Washington Post redesign


Norman Hathaway
10-20-2009, 05:12 AM
Rabid Scotch Roman enthusiast Kathleen should enjoy this article:

http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2009/10/first-look-redesign-of-the-washington-post/

ktinkel
10-20-2009, 07:56 AM
Rabid Scotch Roman enthusiast Kathleen …Not exactly: I definitely admire Miller (and this redo uses one of the Miller Daily fonts from Font Bureau’s “readability series”).

Most historic versions of Scotch Roman, not so much. They look dated (as they should, of course). But there is also something awkward about the weight distribution in the letters that leaves me tepid — far from rabid!

Fortuntely, Matthew Carter saw something there. He has done an incredible job of developing the now huge Miller family.

Thanks so much for bringing that article to my attention. I downloaded the “Post Redesign Guide” PDF in the link there.

Michael Rowley
10-20-2009, 12:53 PM
Norman:

I'm not familiar with the look of the Washington Post: I take it thet it's size is that of a tabloid, although of course it tries to be much more staid. The Guardian once used Miller Daily when it was a broadsheet, although I don't know which weight.

terrie
10-20-2009, 01:53 PM
kt: I definitely admire Miller (and this redo uses one of the Miller Daily fonts from Font Bureau’s “readability series”).It's (according to The Post) Miller Daily Three.

While the new design for the paper doesn't suck nearly as badly as the "redesign" of the Sunday Washington Post magazine, there are number of things that are annoying--I subscribe to The Post 7 days/week.

The fake WSJ-like cutine images are awful--you should see the ones of the publisher and editor in the Special Section yesterday because both people look as though someone overlaid a waffle iron on top of their faces--just discovered that you can see them in “Post Redesign Guide” pdf (via the link in the blog Norman noted)...

Who knows exactly who the bylined people work for--I hesitate to call them reporters since there is no attribution other than the name.

Odd headlines which are now upper and lower case along with multiple headline fonts on the same page--sometimes italic, sometimes not--for no discernable reason.

Terrie

ktinkel
10-20-2009, 03:06 PM
The fake WSJ-like cutine images are awful …Oh, I agree. They are revolting. (I have the PDF.)

From the PDF: “On the news pages, Post columnists who offer commentary or their own perspectives are identified by stylized photographs.” So I guess they are the pundits.

Odd headlines which are now upper and lower case along with multiple headline fonts on the same page--sometimes italic, sometimes not--for no discernable reason.The headline stacks are traditional — for the 19th century, anyway! They seem to have gotten carried away, with three tiers for major stories, and two for many others. And they have gone over to “sentence-style” heads — which I usually like. They don’t seem to be handling this very consistently, however.

I dislike the large italic heads for some features; looks like a waste of paper, especially when all of these changes are accompanied by fewer (and maybe smaller) pages.

terrie
10-20-2009, 03:16 PM
kt: Oh, I agree. They are revolting. (I have the PDF.)Aren't they just awful? I told them so when I reviewed the sample paper they sent me as part of their readers' survey...'-}}


>>The headline stacks are traditional

I'm not talking about the stacks but the headline itself. Perhaps that's not the correct term? I mean the main text that identfies the story below.

Subheads are "clarification/further info" text below the headline and above the article text correct?


>>And they have gone over to “sentence-style” heads

Yes...I'm not sure I like it and I think I'll miss the punning that was so often found--"Kvetcher in the Wry" was a recent one...'-}} (a review of the new Coen brothers film "A Serious Man")


>> I dislike the large italic heads for some features; looks like a waste of paper, especially when all of these changes are accompanied by fewer (and maybe smaller) pages.

Me too!!!

Terrie

Michael Rowley
10-20-2009, 04:08 PM
Terrie:
While the new design for the paper doesn't suck nearly as badly as the "redesign" of the Sunday Washington Post magazine, there are number of things that are annoying--I subscribe to The Post 7 days/weekI don't find the changes very startling, possibly because they're mostly familiar from seeing the German weekly Die Zeit and the English daily The Guardian, which made the changes some time ago. But the Washington Post still looks rather old-fashioned, though I expect that suits US readers.

The question that arose in my mind though was this: does American bread (and American butter) really look like the photo on the first page of the PDF?

marlene
10-21-2009, 12:40 AM
I'll miss the punning that was so often found--"Kvetcher in the Wry" was a recent one

You notice those great headlines too? Some of them are so good, I intend to clip and save them, but I never remember. If I don't tear them out when I see them, it's out of sight, out of mind.

Although I have no interest in sports (other than figure skating), I often scan the headlines in the sports section because sometimes there are really good ones.

Re the redesign, I hate those bold bylines. The italic drop caps enrage me.

mxh

marlene
10-21-2009, 12:42 AM
does American bread (and American butter) really look like the photo on the first page of the PDF

I'm looking at the printed guide, not the PDF, but yes, all American bread has WP stamped on it.

Michael Rowley
10-21-2009, 07:44 AM
Marlene:
all American bread has WP stamped on itHa ha. I was referring to the colour of the bread, not the superimposed WP; and mottled butter.

terrie
10-21-2009, 03:28 PM
marlene: You notice those great headlines too? Some of them are so good, I intend to clip and save them, but I never remember.I generally love the punning headlines...I'm really growing to hate the new sentence headlines and the fact that they are not using upper case for each word because I find it visually distracting particularly when it's just a two word headline and the first letter of the first word is upper case but the first letter of the second word is lower case...ugh!


>>Re the redesign, I hate those bold bylines.

I do too and I loathe the fact that they've removed the writer's affilliation because they could have just dragged some bozo off the street to write the article...'-}}


>> The italic drop caps enrage me.

They are indeed nasty...

Terrie

terrie
10-21-2009, 03:28 PM
michael: I was referring to the colour of the breadDepends on what flour is used...

Terrie

Michael Rowley
10-21-2009, 04:04 PM
Marlene:
The italic drop caps enrage meWhat italic drop capitals? I see italic used for some of the headings, but no opening italic drop capitals. Of course, I'm going by the style of the PDF, whereas you can see the actual print. On reflexion, I find the explanatory subheadings really are superfluous: can't the subeditors be relied on to think of a good heading first time round?

terrie
10-21-2009, 04:30 PM
michael: but no opening italic drop capitals.There aren't any in the examples you've been looking at but there are some in the actual paper...

Terrie

Michael Rowley
10-22-2009, 07:52 AM
Terrie:
there are some in the actual paperAh: I thought there might be. That being so, I can visualize the effect, even though I haven't seen it: deplorable, partly because there's no justification for it, and partly because I imagine it looks ugly.

terrie
10-22-2009, 02:26 PM
michael: and partly because I imagine it looks ugly.That's a big part for me...'-}}

It seems to me that the new design is drop cap happy and they are everywhere...the worst was a sentence that began with "DC" (as in Washington, DC and "DC" is a commonly used short hand for this area) in which the "D" was badly drop-capped followed by the "C" and it looked (and read) ridiculous...

Terrie

Michael Rowley
10-22-2009, 03:29 PM
Terrie:
It seems to me that the new design is drop cap happy and they are everywhere...the worst was a sentence that began with "DC" (as in Washington, DC and "DC" is a commonly used short hand for this area) in which the "D" was badly drop-capped followed by the "C" and it looked (and read) ridiculousThat suggest's that the new design is not being followed quite as the designers intended. I shouldn't start a sentence with a number expressed in numerals and should think twice about starting it with an abbreviation such as DC. But it seems that italic dropped capitals has some atttraction as the latest thing, though it may have been the 'latest' thing several times in the last 550 years.

Paul
11-06-2009, 01:54 PM
Norman:

I'm not familiar with the look of the Washington Post: I take it thet it's size is that of a tabloid, although of course it tries to be much more staid. The Guardian once used Miller Daily when it was a broadsheet, although I don't know which weight.

It's a broadsheet, and generally not quite as staid as most broadsheet papers in the U.S.

The changes make it look more like The New York Times, not a good thing in my opinion.

Michael Rowley
11-06-2009, 04:16 PM
Paul:
It's a broadsheet, and generally not quite as staid as most broadsheet papers in the U.S.You surprise me: it has only five columns, which wouln't be surprising in a tabloid, and it appears to have five fairly narrow columns; not at all like the only five-column broadsheets that I've heard of or know (I take the weekly German paper, Die Zeit; I've only heard of the other one, an American churchy-sounding paper, whose name has slipped my mind).

ktinkel
11-06-2009, 06:04 PM
It's a broadsheet, and generally not quite as staid as most broadsheet papers in the U.S.

The changes make it look more like The New York Times, not a good thing in my opinion.Now, now ...

terrie
11-06-2009, 08:44 PM
michael: an American churchy-sounding paper, whose name has slipped my mindThe Christian Science Monitor?

While started by Chrisitan Scientists, it is not a religious paper and my impression has always been that it has been considered a well written and respected newspaper. Due to finances, they recently stopped the print edition and are now soley web based...

Terrie

Michael Rowley
11-07-2009, 09:01 AM
Terrie:
The Christian Science Monitor?That's it; thanks! I couldn't remember it, and I only knew that it had existed because Evans mentioned it in his book on newspaper design (and that was published quite long ago; I've got it, but it's on a top shelf).

terrie
11-07-2009, 11:39 AM
michael: That's it; thanks!You're welcome...'-}}

Terrie