Magazine Graphics--My Rant - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Magazine Graphics--My Rant

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Magazine Graphics--My Rant

jimh posted 11-04-2013 09:39 AM ET (US)
When I was boy, my father joined the National Geographic Society--a fancy way to say we subscribed to the magazine. I loved to read National Geographic. The magazine contained wonderful photographs. At that time, in magazine publishing, inclusion of photographs was something a bit unusual, especially color photographs. There were essentially three elements to an article: the text, the photographs, and the captions to the photographs. The layout of the magazine was very rectilinear. The text ran level across the page. Photographs were oriented with the horizon level and the sky up.
I was reading a recent issue of a boating magazine this weekend. I was trying to read an article, but I had to give up. I tossed the magazine into the waste basket, where it belongs.
The editors of the magazine apparently believe that no one will read the text of any article. I assume they believe readers are now just browsers who look at pictures and perhaps read a few pull quotes or bullet points, if those elements are offset in reverse type onto bright color backgrounds.
I was trying to read an article. The text was in black type. The black type was set over a background of various elements, arranged in overlaid shapes which cast fake shadows onto the object below them in the arrangement trying to suggest some sort of faux third dimension to the page. The problem was that in these shadow areas it was impossible to read the black type of the article's text. So here was an article that was seemingly intentionally made impossible to read by the design of the magazine's editors and graphic people. What is the point of publishing the text of an article if you allow the graphics people to render it unreadable? I wonder if the author of that article will be pleased that his words--whatever they might have been--were buried in the dark shadow of some crazy array of objects that some idiot--I won't call them a graphic artist or illustrator--laid out as the background for the text.
My next peeve with modern magzine layout: even if you can read the article text through all the crazy backgrounds, every article is now accompanied with three or four side bar features. The sidebars are often as long as the main article. Is this supposed to be good writing? Maybe the publishers think that a modern reader has a tolerance for article length that stretches to about five sentences. That seems to be about the average length of some articles.

Whalrman posted 11-04-2013 11:08 AM ET (US)
I call it the short attention span of the younger generation. If it doesn't have the flash and bang/bling the younger gen moves onto something else. Sort of like the video games out today.
prj posted 11-04-2013 11:11 AM ET (US)
My experience with modern versions of magazines from my youth mirrors your own.
Recently, I've been reading my father's copies of Field and Stream while at the cottage. A magazine I cherished as a kid, replete with survival stories, lengthy features on fishing locations and techniques, and columns by regular contributors has degraded into a (poorly executed) graphics barrage of questionable value.
As mentioned, the sidebars and possibly related anecdotes published adjacent to the featured articles typically are longer and more prominently located. Bizarre graphics and pie charts detail inconsequential reader responses to poorly written questions and the features themselves, the very articles that were typically the backbone of the magazine, are relegated to the length of decent poetry, perhaps a page long.
Field and Stream now represents the worst of American publishing; pandering low information content presented badly to the lowest common denominator in the population. Congratulations.
tjxtreme posted 11-04-2013 11:35 AM ET (US)
To me it is an unfortunate result of having to compete with the internet. The vast array of information available with just a click has increased our expectations of how quickly information is presented.
I still like a good magazine and read paper newspapers. National Geographic is still good, and I have found that the more niche magazines have better content, although sometimes they lack the editing resources of a major publication.
wezie posted 11-04-2013 11:47 AM ET (US)
Ditto.
Magazines are produced to sell.
The content is created by idealistic writers forced into the sell format.
That has been and is continually proven to be the lowest common denominator. Then you tack on the creative idealism, which combined with conceipt, causes all of those colors swabbed across the print.
Observe the grocery check out lines to see the level of the common denominator. That junk has set the format for everything else, and It sells.
The professional publications continue to be the best source of information.
They may be difficult to find, seem expensive, or be free, but are out there.
The popular, over the counter, magazine industry has always been a shyster, underworld industry. Subscriptions difficult to stop. Hard sell. Charlatain marketing, Self renewing subscriptions. You name it and those crooks have done it, and are still at it.............
K Albus posted 11-04-2013 12:07 PM ET (US)
Jim - Is it just a coincidence that you posted this article on the two-year anniversary of Andy Rooney's death?
jimh posted 11-04-2013 01:46 PM ET (US)
Kevin--entirely coincidental. If CBS calls, I will tell them to reach out to my agent: you.
andrey320 posted 11-04-2013 01:56 PM ET (US)
I guess the magazine is designed to appeal to the anticipated audience. If it looked like the National Geographic of the yesteryears, half (or more) of the receipients would not read it.
(I agree with you Jim, just wanted to play devils advocate)
Another theory is that the current magazines are "pushing" products more. This leaves less space for the real stuff. Plus the ads intrude on the article space.
dfmcintyre posted 11-04-2013 06:48 PM ET (US)
I think that it may also be the line of thinking like:
"Hey staffers....take a good look at this (while holding up one of the offending mag's).... their market share just moved up .0001% last month. It's GOTTA be because of their layout, dontchathink?
Ok, you graphic squirrels, get busy copying it."
bdb posted 11-05-2013 09:24 AM ET (US)
"I tossed the magazine into the waste basket, where it belongs."
Geez Jim, couldn't you have recycled it? :)
Binkster posted 11-05-2013 10:02 AM ET (US)
I have subscriptions to both Motor Trend and Road and Track. Both magazines are both basically the same. Poorly written articles about testing Corvettes, Camaros and Mustangs---every month. Sometimes they test some exotic car I will never see on the road. I have been getting these mags for a very long time. I never renew the subscriptions but they keep coming. I also get email with special offers from these mags. I don't open that mail, I just throw it away. When I get the mag in the mail, I just browze the back part and tear of the 25% coupon for Harbor Freight Tools, and toss the mag. so I guess they serve a purpose. I also have a subscription to Popular Mechanics. Same thing but I sometimes read an article if I can find it. They also have a 25% coupon from Harbor Freight. I have alot of coupons, I get good deals at Harbor Freight. LOL
jimh posted 11-05-2013 11:02 AM ET (US)

quote:
Geez Jim, couldn't you have recycled it? :)
The discarded magazine went out with the recycling.

quote:
I have been getting these mags for a very long time. I never renew the subscriptions but they keep coming.
I see the same behavior. I never pay for these subscriptions, and they just keep coming.
southshore fisherman posted 11-05-2013 05:55 PM ET (US)
It's not just the magazines that have been driving me crazy. Cell phones have gone from words to icons, my gmail account has gone from words to icons and pictures.
I can read the word "trash" I don't need a picture of a trash can.
Many times I want to read about something and I'm forced to watch a video instead.
I don't want to watch a video, I want to read about it!
And now that I'm riled up will someone please tell me why the wind direction arrow in weather forecasts on the Boob Tube now points to the way the wind is going instead of where it's coming from?
I'm getting to the point that I can't take it any more.
egres posted 11-08-2013 05:01 AM ET (US)
For interesting articles and intelligent contents.
You will find the Maclean magazine straight up and to the point.
It is simply one of the last pertinent periodical keeping the pulse of the times.
http://www2.macleans.ca
jimh posted 11-08-2013 11:29 PM ET (US)
Egres--I watch a lot of Canadian CBC television, as I can receive CBET in Windsor with an excellent signal, thanks to a special antenna system I installed for that specific purpose. I really invested in the special antenna system, low loss feed lines, filters, and combiners to get a good picture for HOCKEY NIGHT IN CANADA, but I find I watch a lot of newscasts and documentaries on CBC. I think Canadian media generally does a good job with news, and they present much longer and more comprehensive coverage of important topics. I will have to see if Maclean magazine is on the rack at the local library. Do they cover boating?
Jefecinco posted 11-09-2013 09:48 AM ET (US)
Most of the articles are the printed equivalent of an infomercial. Advertisers are key to survival and control access to free boats and/or vehicles for testing(?) and comparisons.
If subscriptions were realistically priced rather than virtually free a modicum of realism and objectivity might remain. We can criticize ConsumerReports and at times they deserve criticism but it"s difficult to find a more objective publication.
Is Soundings a better model for the boating magazine publishers?
Butch
jimh posted 11-09-2013 10:00 AM ET (US)
In SOUNDINGS there seems to be a correlation between editorial content and advertising space purchased. Advertising is the real business of many information sources.
egres posted 11-09-2013 04:21 PM ET (US)
There is no doubt that the CBC radio and TV networks are not subjected to the amount s of censorship that some of the channels south of the border experiences.
To see the bigger picture in news, Canadian TV is always a good bet.
And Yes,
Macleans will discuss boating subjects.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/15/maximum-ride-3/
And who can resist the rants of Don Cherry when watching the hockey game?
martyn1075 posted 11-09-2013 04:50 PM ET (US)
Don Cherry! in his own words "is a beauty" don't you forget it! I like him because he speaks his mind, not too worried about ruffing feathers. I'm sure CBC holds their breath every time he is on the air though.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Magazine Graphics--My Rant
jimh	posted 11-04-2013 09:39 AM ET (US) When I was boy, my father joined the National Geographic Society--a fancy way to say we subscribed to the magazine. I loved to read National Geographic. The magazine contained wonderful photographs. At that time, in magazine publishing, inclusion of photographs was something a bit unusual, especially color photographs. There were essentially three elements to an article: the text, the photographs, and the captions to the photographs. The layout of the magazine was very rectilinear. The text ran level across the page. Photographs were oriented with the horizon level and the sky up. I was reading a recent issue of a boating magazine this weekend. I was trying to read an article, but I had to give up. I tossed the magazine into the waste basket, where it belongs. The editors of the magazine apparently believe that no one will read the text of any article. I assume they believe readers are now just browsers who look at pictures and perhaps read a few pull quotes or bullet points, if those elements are offset in reverse type onto bright color backgrounds. I was trying to read an article. The text was in black type. The black type was set over a background of various elements, arranged in overlaid shapes which cast fake shadows onto the object below them in the arrangement trying to suggest some sort of faux third dimension to the page. The problem was that in these shadow areas it was impossible to read the black type of the article's text. So here was an article that was seemingly intentionally made impossible to read by the design of the magazine's editors and graphic people. What is the point of publishing the text of an article if you allow the graphics people to render it unreadable? I wonder if the author of that article will be pleased that his words--whatever they might have been--were buried in the dark shadow of some crazy array of objects that some idiot--I won't call them a graphic artist or illustrator--laid out as the background for the text. My next peeve with modern magzine layout: even if you can read the article text through all the crazy backgrounds, every article is now accompanied with three or four side bar features. The sidebars are often as long as the main article. Is this supposed to be good writing? Maybe the publishers think that a modern reader has a tolerance for article length that stretches to about five sentences. That seems to be about the average length of some articles.
Whalrman	posted 11-04-2013 11:08 AM ET (US) I call it the short attention span of the younger generation. If it doesn't have the flash and bang/bling the younger gen moves onto something else. Sort of like the video games out today.
prj	posted 11-04-2013 11:11 AM ET (US) My experience with modern versions of magazines from my youth mirrors your own. Recently, I've been reading my father's copies of Field and Stream while at the cottage. A magazine I cherished as a kid, replete with survival stories, lengthy features on fishing locations and techniques, and columns by regular contributors has degraded into a (poorly executed) graphics barrage of questionable value. As mentioned, the sidebars and possibly related anecdotes published adjacent to the featured articles typically are longer and more prominently located. Bizarre graphics and pie charts detail inconsequential reader responses to poorly written questions and the features themselves, the very articles that were typically the backbone of the magazine, are relegated to the length of decent poetry, perhaps a page long. Field and Stream now represents the worst of American publishing; pandering low information content presented badly to the lowest common denominator in the population. Congratulations.
tjxtreme	posted 11-04-2013 11:35 AM ET (US) To me it is an unfortunate result of having to compete with the internet. The vast array of information available with just a click has increased our expectations of how quickly information is presented. I still like a good magazine and read paper newspapers. National Geographic is still good, and I have found that the more niche magazines have better content, although sometimes they lack the editing resources of a major publication.
wezie	posted 11-04-2013 11:47 AM ET (US) Ditto. Magazines are produced to sell. The content is created by idealistic writers forced into the sell format. That has been and is continually proven to be the lowest common denominator. Then you tack on the creative idealism, which combined with conceipt, causes all of those colors swabbed across the print. Observe the grocery check out lines to see the level of the common denominator. That junk has set the format for everything else, and It sells. The professional publications continue to be the best source of information. They may be difficult to find, seem expensive, or be free, but are out there. The popular, over the counter, magazine industry has always been a shyster, underworld industry. Subscriptions difficult to stop. Hard sell. Charlatain marketing, Self renewing subscriptions. You name it and those crooks have done it, and are still at it.............
K Albus	posted 11-04-2013 12:07 PM ET (US) Jim - Is it just a coincidence that you posted this article on the two-year anniversary of Andy Rooney's death?
jimh	posted 11-04-2013 01:46 PM ET (US) Kevin--entirely coincidental. If CBS calls, I will tell them to reach out to my agent: you.
andrey320	posted 11-04-2013 01:56 PM ET (US) I guess the magazine is designed to appeal to the anticipated audience. If it looked like the National Geographic of the yesteryears, half (or more) of the receipients would not read it. (I agree with you Jim, just wanted to play devils advocate) Another theory is that the current magazines are "pushing" products more. This leaves less space for the real stuff. Plus the ads intrude on the article space.
dfmcintyre	posted 11-04-2013 06:48 PM ET (US) I think that it may also be the line of thinking like: "Hey staffers....take a good look at this (while holding up one of the offending mag's).... their market share just moved up .0001% last month. It's GOTTA be because of their layout, dontchathink? Ok, you graphic squirrels, get busy copying it."
bdb	posted 11-05-2013 09:24 AM ET (US) "I tossed the magazine into the waste basket, where it belongs." Geez Jim, couldn't you have recycled it? :)
Binkster	posted 11-05-2013 10:02 AM ET (US) I have subscriptions to both Motor Trend and Road and Track. Both magazines are both basically the same. Poorly written articles about testing Corvettes, Camaros and Mustangs---every month. Sometimes they test some exotic car I will never see on the road. I have been getting these mags for a very long time. I never renew the subscriptions but they keep coming. I also get email with special offers from these mags. I don't open that mail, I just throw it away. When I get the mag in the mail, I just browze the back part and tear of the 25% coupon for Harbor Freight Tools, and toss the mag. so I guess they serve a purpose. I also have a subscription to Popular Mechanics. Same thing but I sometimes read an article if I can find it. They also have a 25% coupon from Harbor Freight. I have alot of coupons, I get good deals at Harbor Freight. LOL
jimh	posted 11-05-2013 11:02 AM ET (US) quote: Geez Jim, couldn't you have recycled it? :) The discarded magazine went out with the recycling. quote: I have been getting these mags for a very long time. I never renew the subscriptions but they keep coming. I see the same behavior. I never pay for these subscriptions, and they just keep coming.
southshore fisherman	posted 11-05-2013 05:55 PM ET (US) It's not just the magazines that have been driving me crazy. Cell phones have gone from words to icons, my gmail account has gone from words to icons and pictures. I can read the word "trash" I don't need a picture of a trash can. Many times I want to read about something and I'm forced to watch a video instead. I don't want to watch a video, I want to read about it! And now that I'm riled up will someone please tell me why the wind direction arrow in weather forecasts on the Boob Tube now points to the way the wind is going instead of where it's coming from? I'm getting to the point that I can't take it any more.
egres	posted 11-08-2013 05:01 AM ET (US) For interesting articles and intelligent contents. You will find the Maclean magazine straight up and to the point. It is simply one of the last pertinent periodical keeping the pulse of the times. http://www2.macleans.ca
jimh	posted 11-08-2013 11:29 PM ET (US) Egres--I watch a lot of Canadian CBC television, as I can receive CBET in Windsor with an excellent signal, thanks to a special antenna system I installed for that specific purpose. I really invested in the special antenna system, low loss feed lines, filters, and combiners to get a good picture for HOCKEY NIGHT IN CANADA, but I find I watch a lot of newscasts and documentaries on CBC. I think Canadian media generally does a good job with news, and they present much longer and more comprehensive coverage of important topics. I will have to see if Maclean magazine is on the rack at the local library. Do they cover boating?
Jefecinco	posted 11-09-2013 09:48 AM ET (US) Most of the articles are the printed equivalent of an infomercial. Advertisers are key to survival and control access to free boats and/or vehicles for testing(?) and comparisons. If subscriptions were realistically priced rather than virtually free a modicum of realism and objectivity might remain. We can criticize ConsumerReports and at times they deserve criticism but it"s difficult to find a more objective publication. Is Soundings a better model for the boating magazine publishers? Butch
jimh	posted 11-09-2013 10:00 AM ET (US) In SOUNDINGS there seems to be a correlation between editorial content and advertising space purchased. Advertising is the real business of many information sources.
egres	posted 11-09-2013 04:21 PM ET (US) There is no doubt that the CBC radio and TV networks are not subjected to the amount s of censorship that some of the channels south of the border experiences. To see the bigger picture in news, Canadian TV is always a good bet. And Yes, Macleans will discuss boating subjects. http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/15/maximum-ride-3/ And who can resist the rants of Don Cherry when watching the hockey game?
martyn1075	posted 11-09-2013 04:50 PM ET (US) Don Cherry! in his own words "is a beauty" don't you forget it! I like him because he speaks his mind, not too worried about ruffing feathers. I'm sure CBC holds their breath every time he is on the air though.