 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 Listen With Reason columns. Back to home page: www.ronreason.com (more tips on newspaper design, graphics and editing). |
Anyone who's ever
worked with me, or has heard me speak about design or has spent
some time on this web site knows what a crank I can be about certain
things. Excessive numbers and styles of fonts ... special effects
such as shadows or solid and graduated color screens ... doo-dads
such as dotted rules, checkmarks and squiggles. These things are
often used as adornments that add no value to the information
received by the reader. I hate them all! Well, not really. But in general, I
strongly discourage them for a number of reasons, and I think design
managers would do well to become more specific about why frilly
design techniques should be avoided.
First, I must credit the inspiration for this week's column: a satirical
look at design effects provided courtesy of The Onion, a weekly news-paper
that takes everyday people, events and issues and nails them
dead-on. One recent treatise, "Graphic
Designer's Judgment Clouded by Desire to Use New Photoshop
Plug-in," exposes a fictitious (???) Mac jockey's
gratuitous use of a Photoshop plug-in to dress up the border of an
advertisement. "Paul Gaskill" is quoted as defending his choice of the new
PhotoFrame 2.0 software package: "Sure, I was eager to try out the
new plug-in, but only because it was perfect for this job. The
wave-frame effect gives (my design) that dynamic, cutting-edge feel
it needs." Uh, right.
The argument against gimmicks isn't limited to ad designers. At many
news publications, large and small, too many designers feel the
computer is their playground. In judging endless contests, and
reviewing portfolios of Poynter
seminar applicants, I've tired of seeing these techniques
trotted out by the designer, often when all else has failed. The
story may not be very focused, the photos fell through (or "all we
had was a mug shot"), there wasn't time to do an illustration, but
by gosh, Kai's Power Tools will save the day! Uh, no.
What motivates this madness? An artist on the staff of a newspaper I
recently was associated with defended his love for "special"
Photoshop effects (marble backgrounds, flame effects over type) by
saying, "well, they bought us these Macs and the software so I'm
just making use of it." Ugh. Another artist at a paper I redesigned
once told me: "... as a designer, I know how to use these
tools appropriately. Those people on the copy desk are
the problem." Double ugh! As a designer, she was the worst
offender in that particular newsroom - her "formal design training"
gave her an arrogance that justified using techniques that were
totally inappropriate to the new direction of the paper - a clean,
consistent, coherent look.
What was the problem in her newsroom? Lack of design management
or discipline. Lack of concern for the reader who had to wade
through all that junk. Lack of design structure and authority to
enforce it. (Luckily, a strict stylebook and a redefinition of
newsroom authority came to the rescue.)
In arguing against the bells and whistles, you can't just say "I
don't like it" or "it doesn't work for me" and expect the rogues to
fall into line. And my frequent argument that "The New York Times
doesn't have to rely on that crap" always seems to fall on deaf ears
(sigh). But these specific arguments may help curb design overload
in your newspaper's pages:
In designing news and features pages, in general, less is more. Am I
saying that there's never a use for Photoshop or other effects? Not
at all. If your paper allows any use of special effects for
"aesthetic" reasons, they should only be used if they directly
reinforce the content in a meaningful way. (I like to say, don't
even consider slanting the headline type unless it's a feature story
about sledding, or earthquakes. Don't even consider ghosting the
type unless it's about fog or a magician's disappearing act. If the
story's about a local artist who works with marble, the photographs - not the headline -
should convey the concept of working in that medium. And so
on.)
Here's a general design guideline that has come in handy everywhere
I've worked: if a certain design tool or technique doesn't help the
reader, and if its removal from a page layout would not diminish the value of the
information in any way, don't use it. I call this the Command X
principle.CLOSING THOUGHT: In finishing this column I'm reminded of
my first art director, Trich Redman at the St. Pete Times. When
reviewing a design that made use of one design frill too many, Trich
would admonish: "you don't want wear all your jewelry to the
prom!" Here's to you, Trich!Do you live for the latest Photoshop Plug-ins and feel they've saved the day and made your paper better? Send me your views for possible use in a future column. (Request anonymity if you don't want your name posted with excerpts.)
Back to top of page |
| |
|
Web posted: Oct. 3, 2000. design@ronreason.com
| |||