Newspaper Design – the same old story?
Brian Veseling of Ifra keeps sending me interesting questions to answer, and I try to come up with answers. In his latest e-mail he asked me this:
Is there any fundamental difference in how newspapers are designed today from say 10 to 15 years ago? What I'm thinking about here is that after the results of the first "eye track" study were released, a large number of newspapers did redesigns based on the findings of how people read/scanned the newspaper. Has anything fundamental changed since then? If so, what factors are influencing this?
The short answer is: No. The somewhat more elaborate answer, and maybe more accurate as well, is the following: very few newspapers look the way they do due to scientific research, or even as a result of conscious decisions. As with the Origin of Species, the way we look has very little to do with "Intelligent Design".
More important factors are new printing technology, cheaper colour reproduction, better paper quality, updated desktop publishing software, availability and pricing of typefaces, local market characteristics etc.
You should also not discount the influence of a small group of newspaper designers (I will not mention any names here, but the group includes a short Cuban, a fast-talking Scotsman, a curly-headed Dane and maybe even an overweight Swede :-)) that has established an international presence, and that wields an influence that reaches far beyond the list of its clients.
Trends are important as well. Prototypes: 20 years ago it was USA Today, now it is Metro. Everyone wants to look the same, in the vain hope that they will get the readership or profit of the original. Type trends can be important, too. I have researched type choice in Swedish dailies since 1992, and one trend is clear: sans serif typefaces are replacing Bodoni in the headlines, and Times is losing out as text typeface.
In terms of design, how well do you think most newspapers are coping with the general trend toward smaller formats (and here I really mean the in-house staff who put the paper together day after day)?
Experience from Sweden show that it takes at least a year before broadsheet-people (reporters, editors and designers) feel at home in the new, compact costume. And that is if they are really committed – otherwise it takes longer.
Many publishers are dreaming of cost-cutting, not only in paper but in staff as well. It is true that the new tabs save on paper, but if anything they need more staff. Planning as well as editing is much more intense in a tabloid, and there is an increased demand for newsphotos.
The results so far has been mixed: some new tabloids are looking really good, and some big, traditional former broadsheet papers are doing really, really bad tabloids nowadays: basically producing the same paper as before, in less space. It looks awful.
I have written about column-width in Swedish trade magazines. There seems to be a migration towards narrow, six-column tabloids in the British tradition. This is unfortunate: all research point towards wider columns, not narrower, to achieve an easy-to-read paper. Instead, many broadsheets that used to have eight 46 mm columns end up producing tabloids with six columns, 38 mm wide. This makes for harder-to-read copy, more hyphenation and more uneven typesetting.
There is the possibility of horizontal emphasis in the layout of tabloid spreads. Luckily, many editors seem to have understood this, treating the spread as one unit, not as two separate pages.
Lastly: one word about type size. Tabloid paper seems to be read differently, the paper being held closer the eyes. Paper and printing continue to evolve. Even so, newspaper type increase in size every year. To do this at the same time as the paper shrinks seems to me not only unnecessary, but outright stupid.
Along these lines, when looking at a variety of newspapers both broadsheet and compact, what common mistakes are you seeing, or put more positively, what could/should most newspaper designers be doing better (and again, I mean any given paper's own staff members)?
Oooops – that is a very big question indeed... we have developed the Design Diagnosis to answer this question. So far, more than 50 newspapers and magazines have deen diagnosed by A4 in Stockholm. Here, however, I'll try to limit myself to the most obvious stuff:
1. STRUCTURE
It is difficult to take a step away from the paper you produce on a daily basis, but you need to do this from time to time. The structure of a paper needs revising on a yearly basis, sometimes more often. Sometimes the most striking thing about a newspaper is its lack of overall structure – then it is time to bring in help from outside.
2. RHYTHM
Even the most compact tabloid needs one or two longer articles. But the biggest problem is that everything looks the same, the photos are the same size, the layout standardized, and leafing through the paper you do not notice any changes in the pace. Boring the reader is a deadly sin.
3. CONTRAST
You achieve an inviting layout by contrasting small photos with big, large headlines with smaller, bold with thin, columns with white space. When a page or spread looks grey, the reader doesn't know where to start reading. Result: the page lose the reader.
4. TYPE
There are several modern text typefaces that are better that the old Times (just look at Gerard Unger's Swift and Gulliver). These also are very legible in smaller sizes. Overall, many newspapers do a botched job of choosing and specing new type. Finetuning the typography is time-consuming, but pays off in the end.
5. IMAGES
Many daily newspapers are in cost-cutting mode, but cutting down on photo staff must be the most perilious way of increasing profitability for any newspaper operation. Images are getting more and more important, and with the tabloid trend the demand increases. And what happended to illustrators? A good piece of artwork beats any stock photo from Getty or Corbis, any day.
6. ENTRY POINTS
Most daily newspapers have too few entry points, ways to lure the reader into the page. A minimum number of articles per page or spread should be part of the template. Pull quotes, newsgraphics, maps, portrait photos, fact boxes and other attention-grabbers should all be parts of the editor's arsenal.
Is there any fundamental difference in how newspapers are designed today from say 10 to 15 years ago? What I'm thinking about here is that after the results of the first "eye track" study were released, a large number of newspapers did redesigns based on the findings of how people read/scanned the newspaper. Has anything fundamental changed since then? If so, what factors are influencing this?
The short answer is: No. The somewhat more elaborate answer, and maybe more accurate as well, is the following: very few newspapers look the way they do due to scientific research, or even as a result of conscious decisions. As with the Origin of Species, the way we look has very little to do with "Intelligent Design".
More important factors are new printing technology, cheaper colour reproduction, better paper quality, updated desktop publishing software, availability and pricing of typefaces, local market characteristics etc.
You should also not discount the influence of a small group of newspaper designers (I will not mention any names here, but the group includes a short Cuban, a fast-talking Scotsman, a curly-headed Dane and maybe even an overweight Swede :-)) that has established an international presence, and that wields an influence that reaches far beyond the list of its clients.
Trends are important as well. Prototypes: 20 years ago it was USA Today, now it is Metro. Everyone wants to look the same, in the vain hope that they will get the readership or profit of the original. Type trends can be important, too. I have researched type choice in Swedish dailies since 1992, and one trend is clear: sans serif typefaces are replacing Bodoni in the headlines, and Times is losing out as text typeface.
In terms of design, how well do you think most newspapers are coping with the general trend toward smaller formats (and here I really mean the in-house staff who put the paper together day after day)?
Experience from Sweden show that it takes at least a year before broadsheet-people (reporters, editors and designers) feel at home in the new, compact costume. And that is if they are really committed – otherwise it takes longer.
Many publishers are dreaming of cost-cutting, not only in paper but in staff as well. It is true that the new tabs save on paper, but if anything they need more staff. Planning as well as editing is much more intense in a tabloid, and there is an increased demand for newsphotos.
The results so far has been mixed: some new tabloids are looking really good, and some big, traditional former broadsheet papers are doing really, really bad tabloids nowadays: basically producing the same paper as before, in less space. It looks awful.
I have written about column-width in Swedish trade magazines. There seems to be a migration towards narrow, six-column tabloids in the British tradition. This is unfortunate: all research point towards wider columns, not narrower, to achieve an easy-to-read paper. Instead, many broadsheets that used to have eight 46 mm columns end up producing tabloids with six columns, 38 mm wide. This makes for harder-to-read copy, more hyphenation and more uneven typesetting.
There is the possibility of horizontal emphasis in the layout of tabloid spreads. Luckily, many editors seem to have understood this, treating the spread as one unit, not as two separate pages.
Lastly: one word about type size. Tabloid paper seems to be read differently, the paper being held closer the eyes. Paper and printing continue to evolve. Even so, newspaper type increase in size every year. To do this at the same time as the paper shrinks seems to me not only unnecessary, but outright stupid.
Along these lines, when looking at a variety of newspapers both broadsheet and compact, what common mistakes are you seeing, or put more positively, what could/should most newspaper designers be doing better (and again, I mean any given paper's own staff members)?
Oooops – that is a very big question indeed... we have developed the Design Diagnosis to answer this question. So far, more than 50 newspapers and magazines have deen diagnosed by A4 in Stockholm. Here, however, I'll try to limit myself to the most obvious stuff:
1. STRUCTURE
It is difficult to take a step away from the paper you produce on a daily basis, but you need to do this from time to time. The structure of a paper needs revising on a yearly basis, sometimes more often. Sometimes the most striking thing about a newspaper is its lack of overall structure – then it is time to bring in help from outside.
2. RHYTHM
Even the most compact tabloid needs one or two longer articles. But the biggest problem is that everything looks the same, the photos are the same size, the layout standardized, and leafing through the paper you do not notice any changes in the pace. Boring the reader is a deadly sin.
3. CONTRAST
You achieve an inviting layout by contrasting small photos with big, large headlines with smaller, bold with thin, columns with white space. When a page or spread looks grey, the reader doesn't know where to start reading. Result: the page lose the reader.
4. TYPE
There are several modern text typefaces that are better that the old Times (just look at Gerard Unger's Swift and Gulliver). These also are very legible in smaller sizes. Overall, many newspapers do a botched job of choosing and specing new type. Finetuning the typography is time-consuming, but pays off in the end.
5. IMAGES
Many daily newspapers are in cost-cutting mode, but cutting down on photo staff must be the most perilious way of increasing profitability for any newspaper operation. Images are getting more and more important, and with the tabloid trend the demand increases. And what happended to illustrators? A good piece of artwork beats any stock photo from Getty or Corbis, any day.
6. ENTRY POINTS
Most daily newspapers have too few entry points, ways to lure the reader into the page. A minimum number of articles per page or spread should be part of the template. Pull quotes, newsgraphics, maps, portrait photos, fact boxes and other attention-grabbers should all be parts of the editor's arsenal.
posted by Pelle at Monday, January 09, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home