Design With Reason: The "Listen With Reason" Column 09.22.00
Contact | About Redesigns | Skills Training & Leadership Consulting | Tips, Articles, Resources | Calendar | Home

Full index of past "Listen With Reason" columns





Why a column like this? Because too many web sites seem devoid of personality. Because the world of newspaper design can always use a little more dialogue. And because, hey, it's my web site. So I thought, why not create the first regular online column about newspaper design, on the first web site devoted to newspaper design? The goal is to discuss current issues fairly regularly; feedback and ideas for future topics are encouraged.

Why "Listen With Reason?" Because "Listen to ..." sounded a little too preachy.


Return to index of previous Listen With Reason columns.

Back to home page:
www.ronreason.com
(more tips on newspaper design, graphics and editing).


 Fall is in the air, and it seems everyone's redesigning - even Madonna's sporting a new pink cowboy hat. Naturally, this opens us all up for the darts and (hopefully) roses that accompany the unveiling of a new image. Let's see what readers and media critics are saying about changing newspapers around the U.S., and see what lessons can be learned when implementing change. Are we (like Madonna) making beautiful "Music?"

Lesson from Boston: "Newspapers are held in high esteem, almost like a member of the family, and editors who tinker with the design do so at their peril." So writes Boston Globe ombudsman Jack Thomas in a compelling review of readers' reactions to the Globe's redesign, launched Sept. 13. Surprise ... some readers didn't like it! As is typical, even the naysayers didn't agree. One sniffed the new look is "just like USA Today," the next said it's "too much like the (New York) Times," another says "it has the look of a local paper like the Worcester Telegram." (Is that a bad thing?) Though Thomas didn't shed light on the "30 percent bouquets" the paper received for its changes, he did address readers' concerns in an interesting exchange with Lucy Bartholomay, deputy managing editor for design and photos, and Dan Zedek, editorial design director. Among changes they've made in response to reader concerns since the launch: enlarging the type on the weather map.
Lesson from San Jose: Readers and critics often confuse the notion of "redesign" with any change in content, or where elements of the paper are located. When the Mercury News unveiled its redesign Sept. 20, the alternative SF Weekly proclaimed: "Oooh! Aaah! It's a redesigned Mercury News!" But most of the alt weekly's commentary focused on the paper's efforts to enter the San Francisco market, and on issues that were really content, rather than design. Readers, too, will often comment on where Dear Abby has moved, or on the subjects of photos in the first issues after a launch. Does this beg the question, is there any meaningful distinction between design and content? (I will say I thought the Merc's new look seemed very clean and organized in the preview I saw at SND. Kudos to a talented in-house team and all-star consultants Deborah Withey and Mario Garcia.)
  • Decide for yourself what you think of the new Merc in a gallery of section fronts, and review exec editor David Yarnold's note to readers on changes in the paper's content and organization: New Mercury News.

  • Read what the SF Weekly had to say about the Merc.
Lesson from Orlando: If some readers say the new type is "harder to read," ask them what, specifically, they are referring to. In our redesign for the Orlando Sentinel, launched Sept. 5, we very definitely increased the size of the body copy, though when asked for feedback, some readers insisted it was smaller and harder to read. Was it an optical illusion because the page width had shrunk slightly? Had they in fact received random editions off the press that were printed unusually light? Or were they referring not to the primary body text for news stories, but to the type for briefs and other sans serif elements such as listings? Any of these are possible; we also removed a number of heavy elements like the paper's trademark black-reverse labels and photo headlines, thus giving the overall paper a much cleaner, brighter appearance.
If a reader says "you've made the text harder to read," ask what exactly they are referring to before changing it. Sentinel AME/Visuals Bill Dunn has asked readers to send in specific tearsheets, and is communicating with both the pressroom and the paper's CCI pagination chiefs to make minor adjustments if necessary.
Lesson from Lincoln: Familiarity accounts for 9/10ths of readability, and readers eventually will get used to the change. So learned editor David Stoeffler of the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star, on whose redesign I advised earlier this year. The paper not only trimmed its web width, and adopted a new design, but went from letterpress to flexo printing as well. Any one of those factors would affect the readability of the body text; when combined, an alien look was inevitable for the readers. When the new look launched July 10, a few readers didn't like the new text. True, it was technically smaller, but we knew it was optically larger, crisper and thus, would be regarded as more readable, at least over time.
Wrote editor David Stoeffler in his July 16 column: "(Reader Don Burbach) called last Sunday, after reading my column previewing the new paper, to complain about the new type style. I had mentioned that the type would be slightly smaller but suggested it would be easier to read because of a change in fonts and the new printing process. 'Smaller is smaller,' Don called Sunday to say, suggesting older readers would not like it. On Monday (the day of the launch) I got this message from Don, retracting his earlier concerns and saying he approved of the new type: 'David, crow isn't really so bad if you eat it properly roasted.' "
I'd say this sounds like a great chance to let the reader have the last word!
* * *
Do you have recent feedback from readers you'd like to share? Send me your comments for possible use in a future column. (Request anonymity if you don't want your name posted with excerpts.)




Proceed to next column: The case against nasty special effects.

Back to top of page
Bio/resume | Redesigns | Newsroom Training | Articles and Resources | Home

Web posted: Sept. 22, 2000.
design@ronreason.com