Reviews of the Redesign
So how are the critics receiving our A-section redesign?
The Editors Weblog, NewsDesigner.com and the Free Republic offer summaries of the changes, with Free Republic calling it "deck chair rearrangement".
Kevin Roderick of LAObserved -- a former Timesman himself -- has the most comprehensive commentary, noting that "redesigns take time to grow on you. This one, though, has the feel of aiming to please the design pros rather than Los Angeles newspaper readers." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum agrees, blaming the "J-Consultant mafia" for homogenizing and dumbing down newspaper design across the country and making the Times look a lot like the Chicago Tribune.
JAmussen of L.A. Voice, calling the redesign "retro" and "focus grouped into banality," wonders why the money and effort spent on the changes didn't go to reporters. Fishbowl L.A.'s Kate Coe has some words for coming changes to the Sunday Calendar section. The Delicious Pundit thinks the paper is getting dumber in its quest to land on "every driveway in the Southland." Will Sullivan at Journerdism, for one, thinks the changes were overdue, saying about the old design, "I didn't know papers still layed out front pages like that."
Martini Republic, however, has better things to do:
While other entities were busy fawning over slight cosmetic changes to the front page of the Los Angeles Times [...] a couple of other papers and blogs this past weekend were busy documenting what’s going on in Los Angeles.
Well, those skyboxes make us look more like ditzes than ever. As if we didn't have enough problems with a reputation for being airheads. Besides, I get the Sky Bar confused with the Sky Box. One of them has to go. I say ditch the Sky Box.
I think the Op/Ed section is better off in Section A. But I'm wondering why we ever got rid of our logo. While I'm at it... can we bring back The View section? I really hate all these light news sections (today's section on colonics was especially especially laborious).
While none of it looks bad, it doesn't mask the internal struggle going on at The Times right now.
And that's where the real story shall remain.
Posted by: kanani | October 24, 2006 at 12:27 AM
After my long comment in the "Manhattan Project" blog, I think I should comment...
The new format does have a kind of "USA Today" look. Fortunately, the Gothic title script and the Times New Roman text keep it from being a perfect copycat. It's moving away from Newsprint to Magazine format. Jazzed up but with some traditional touches left in. The format would make an AWESOME web page - the "NewsDesigner.com" pictures looked great. I like it better than USA Today. For the LA Times, I think it'll take some getting used to - making the transition from traditional 1940's style to 1980's style - but you're going in the right direction. As I look at Los Angeles today - who we are, where we're headed, what we feel, what we do - I think breaking away from the stodgy, traditional WSJ format is probably the right way to go. Based on the knee-jerk flames coming from the Midwesterners' comments in the Free Republic blog, I can see how different we are from them.
Perhaps this should be a transition format to an even more up to date look. The existing LA Times web home page look may be the next iteration for the print edition. Something really sharp and modern. Change the text from Times New Roman to Arial or Tahoma (I'm using MS fonts since that's all I know). Have you considered a Logo? Some coffee cup ring with maybe a "LAT" in the middle? A distinctive icon that won't get you confused with the other Times and Tribunes?
Overall, I like it.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 26, 2006 at 06:29 AM
I figured Kevin Drum was over-reacting, then I saw the paper in print the next day, and my first reaction was one of disappointment. I have never liked the look of so many of the midwest papers, and that is exactly what our front page looks like. I was happy to discover that the other sections have retained the familiar LA Times look.
Please bring back at least the major components of the "original" front page. Our paper just looks so cheesy now.
Posted by: chris brandow | October 26, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Okay, I've had a little more time to digest the new look. I'm not wild about - what are they called? - the skyboxes? They detract from the distinctive banner. You should keep the banner as a nod to tradition. Move the skyboxes down to the bottom.
I notice the predominant color is a kind of orange-red. Not just in the typeface, but in the photos as well. Maybe that's why traditionalists don't like the new look. Red is a bit shocking. But it sure does command attention.
Maybe your central photo is a little too big. Unless you've got a real Pulitzer-Prize winner, I think two or three smaller pictures would do better. Lots more action to draw attention. One huge picture just shouts too loud.
The mixed typestyles make the front page look really busy. I think that'll help attact younger readers who get bored quickly and are turned off by sterile columns of text (like the WSJ). Oldsters like me will have a problem with it (as most of the comments you're getting reveal). We tend to think those sterile columns give the paper an intellectual respectibility, like the White Pages of the phone book.
You probably could have eased the changes in with less controversy by first trying them out in the inside sections like California, Calendar, Real Estate, etc. Bold move going straight to the Front Page.
I think each of your other sections should have an entirely different look from the Front Page. change the font for the Banners - "Chiller" font for Arts and Music; something Baroque for Calendar; font similar to "Coldwell Banker's" for Real Estate, enclosed in a box attached to a post like an actual "For Sale" sign. You get the idea. Draw on the new banners to design the new sections - "Arts and Music" looks more like LA Weekly or Rolling Stone; "California" has some Arts and Crafts touches; "Sports" goes Retro - back to 1920's Yankees or 1960's Dodgers...
Although the revolution started in the Opinion section, changing the name and Banner was probably a mistake. Most of us, old and young, expect Opinion to be dominated by stodgy old white men and the NY Times look kind of fits that. If you stick with the "Current" moniker, make the typeface smaller by half. White space in the banner isn't a bad thing here.
Posted by: Mike Havnaer | October 29, 2006 at 12:16 PM
The big problem I have with it is the 1993-era Wired typo-confusion. Must we have a half-dozen different headline fonts? I suppose we should be grateful that at least the Times doesn't put background art behind the articles, rendering them illegible...
Posted by: Rob McMillin | October 31, 2006 at 09:41 AM
The graphic elements of the LA Times redesign are fine considering the place the Paper holds in the the print medium, and the focus group options available. In the physical sense, the medium has been mishandled. The new paper stock seems like it has been left in the hot sun for a day. Is feels crisp, and doesn't fold properly. If indeed "the medium is the message' then the tactile message here is uninviting.
Posted by: Steve Rapp | October 22, 2008 at 10:36 PM