Beyond Typography

Design: from print to web

There's been a lot of stuff being posted about the future of magazines, newspapers, journalists, in fact anything to do with print. Karl Schneider, Editorial Director at RBI, had makes some good points on his  blog about the future role of the production desk.

Part of my remit at Flight and ICIS is to ensure that our magazines are not just online text versions of the printed articles, but a different, richer, offering. This could include things such as the original recorded interview available as a podcast, truly interactive information graphics and video.

Now, to get to this stage means that the information gatherers (aka journalists) think about how they gather the information, what information they gather and how it will appear. In the past, the final offering was a double page spread with a picture of the bloke being interviewed, the location (maybe) and a couple of links at the end to relevant websites. Obviously (I say obviously, but you'd be surprised how many people don't or won't get it) it's time to think about all the stuff that can be offered, then pare it down for print.

This means, arguably, a different approach to laying out a feature if you have the rich version online. Do you have the full text article online or just in print? Do you have an extended (uncut?) version online or have a precis and refer to the print version?

My concern is that the design of both print and web complement each other. It reinforces the brand awareness. As Mark Porter, Creative Director at the Guardian, said at a symposium late last year, the online version doesn't need to look exactly like the print version. Elements can be used that are common to both. For example the colour palette or pullquote style, even some of the font usage. And refer to the print version as well.

Designers need to be able to lay out a web page as easily as they can a printed page. An online version of Quark or InDesign. Something that is as easy to use as these packages, with similar functionality such as style sheets, text control and colour palettes. There are few things more depressing than creating a visual of a web page then giving it to the developers to code and getting something that sort of looks like what you want, but Microsofted (Mac users, you know what I mean, the subtleness of a Mac is lost somehow missing on a PC). But it's not just the ability to use a software package. Print designers need to be retrained to appreciate how a web page works: type usage, where does the reader look first, image use, colour use. We designers are visually literate and know the mechanics of a printed page, it shouldn't take much to build on that. A lot of editorial designers I know were put off web design because of the perceived notion of all the coding that would need to be done. And why should we have somebody else lay out the feature on the web? After all, if you've gone to great lengths in commissioning a photograph or illustration, you would've thought about how it was going to work with the rest of the layout – the interaction with the headline or standfirst, for example. Obviously if you are commissioning this stuff (lucky you!) then you'll also be able to think about how it will be used on the web.

And as Karl said in his blog, new skills will also have to learnt: maybe a bit of Flash or some video editing, for example. This should be straightforward. A lot of designers already dabble with this sort of stuff, even if it's in their own time. We are already heading back to the time when designer meant just that, a DESIGNER who can (and want to) turn their hand to most design problems. Think of Eric Gill: type designer, architect, sculptor, engraver and artist; or Neville Brody, type designer,  who went from record sleeve design, to art director of seminal publication the Face, to web design (the Guardian website, for one) and online communication. He redesigned the Times a couple of years ago.  

At RBI we are moving our web platforms over to something called EpiServer. This, apparently, will offer us a lot of the functionality we (as magazine designers) would like. We are told it will be as easy to use as InDesign, It will offer a host of other things as well, such as the ability to move things around a screen a la Netvibes. It is also being touted that it so easy to use anybody can design a page and upload it.

This is where I start to have reservations. Not everyone has a designers' eye for detail or composition or colour awareness. And not to detract from the enthusiasm that these people have, there needs to be safeguards in place so that the professional image of the brand/publication are not damaged. Printed publications have a workflow in place to ensure the best possible product is delivered in the time available. It would be reasonable to assume that a design workflow suitable for web-first publishing is established to ensure that high standards are maintained. Designers need to be part of this discussion.

What do you think?

The Process

 

I did a post a while back that showed the evolution of a magazine spread, from first draft to final.

Well, here is a brilliant blog charting the life of a feature from a forthcoming issue of Wired magazine. It starts at the brainstorming, to the draft letter, the editing process, etc. Included is the lifecycle of the layout design as well.

It is my job

I checked out the blog of Paul Kurzeja, one of the panelists at Tuesday's Big Debate. Some really interesting posts if you're into the future of publishing and marketing. A couple of posts caught my eye: this one, from June, about content and the way it is marketed. The other is more recent and is a speech made by Chad Hurley, one of the You Tube co-founders.

What is apparent from both is that more free content, distributed in an appropriate way, can actually build loyalties to a brand, publication or tv network. Also, that the traditional centralized distribution hub is on its way out. I like the statement:

“There is no old media. There is no new media. There is one media with one common purpose; to inform, move and inspire the world through information, art and entertainment.” – Chad Hurley, co-founder You Tube,  16 October 2008

I think these are exciting times to be a designer in publishing. It's like being back at art college where you get a chance to do a bit of everything – video, photography, graphics, illustration, etc. For years I've thought that the role has been in a straightjacket. Modern technology is now allowing us to participate, on a professional level, in what a lot of us do in our spare time. We, as trained and educated professionals in visual skills, can now start to influence the look and feel of a magazine beyond the printed page. We can now say how the content should be looking on the web, and how the pictures, vids, audio, etc will interact. The role of the designer will become more important as more visual elements are used, not just for layout, but to maintain the visual identity of the publication brand.

The only things holding us back are work colleagues who don't see it as part of our role (journalists deciding how best to crop images or edit video, or marketing people deciding which fonts to use!?), or us – designers, art editors, art directors – in the classic phrase "it's not my job."

The Big Debate

I attended a debate last night in central London titled “The web needs magazines more than magazines needs the web.”

Organised jointly by the Editorial Design Organisation and the British Society of Magazine Editors (BSME) the six-member panel consisted of David Hepworth, editorial director at Development Hell; Mark Porter, design director at The Guardian; Simon Kanter, editorial director at Haymarket Network; Jon Bains, chairman of Lateral, Lateral.net; Colin McHenry, group art director at Centaur; and Paul Kurjeza, creative director at Redwood. The debate was chaired by Andy Cowles, editorial development director at IPC Media.

It was an interesting session which did stray from the topic. It was more about opportunities on the web, with a bit of why print is good towards the end. The main concern seemed to be around how make money on the web while maintaining current readership levels.

Mark Porter concentrated more on the role of art editors and art directors in the future. Instead of just concentrating on just print or just online, the art editor/director will be responsible for all material – video, audio, pictures, words, etc – and make them work together. This was good stuff, something that I have been trying to do for a while.

“It is essential to represent the visual quality of the brand.”

Basically, if you have a print product you can't replicate it online, but you can represent it by using some of the same design features – be it the colour palette, space, etc.

Jon Bains said that it was essential that content was created "media neutral", ie. write something then repurpose accordingly. Something we've been doing here for a while.

David Hepworth thought that a lot more could be done with the spoken word via podcasts. Interestingly, when he asked how many people in the auditorium were bloggers, only a small handful of us raised our hands (there were 150-or-so people attending).

One intersting point was everyone's dislike of digital magazines. They were seen as more of a way to get money than offer anything useful.

The hour and a half was over just as the debate was getting going. There was no real conclusion (or vote) to the title of the debate. There was nothing really new, but it was interesting to hear other people's experiences.  

The hour and a half was over just as the debate was getting going. There was no real conclusion (or vote) to the title of the debate. There was nothing really new, but it was interesting to hear other people's experiences, not least because it seems that consumer publishing is where we were here at RBI towers a couple of years ago. The arguments being raised were all familiar.

It seems to me that because B2B publishing has to deliver essential content to a readership/audience who use it in a professional environment and to enable them to do their job, (ie. they had computers at work before they had them at home), the B2B world embraced the new technology (well not all, but that’s another story) and made it work. Now that a lot of consumer-oriented things are now part of every day life (You Tube, iTunes, RSS) the consumer mag world is trying to get on board.

It seems that some would rather be the dominant, or only, magazine in the market. So will they succeed if the "last man standing” attitude is prevalent?

Who let the dog out?

Time Inc has taken the LoveFilm/NetFlix model as a basis for its new venture: MagHound. The MagHound website claims that you can get all your magazines, not just Time Incs, for one low monthly price. 

Apparently you can change your magazine selections at any time. So will this be cheaper than a standard subscription? And what will happen to subscription rates? Will the expensive titles be the same price as the cheaper ones? Click here to find out more.

Via Magtastic Blogsplosion. 

Ink-ling of the future?

I've been reading about the forthcoming US edition of GQ magazine which will have a flashing coverline. The headline uses E.Ink technology to make it blink on and off. But only for 90 days before the battery runs out. And only in greyscale. But it blinks. Read more here.

The thing is, it's not very environmentally friendly – the batteries are manufactured in China, the magazines are put together in Texas, the batteries are inserted in Mexico, then shipped to Kentucky for distribution. Read The Real Cost of E-Ink for more.

The headline? "The 21st century begins now". For the first animated headline they could have thought of something better.

Meanwhile, over at Wallpaper* magazine, subscribers were treated to a different type of new ink technology – magic! The ink becomes visible in sunlight. It was used for a special edition themed on The Secret Elite. Read the full story at MrMagazine.com. 

A new magazine-based file-sharing website called Mygazines.com has just launched. Copyright violations? Yep, but Mygazines say it is just like browsing magazines in the doctors' waiting room. Obviously, the ad pages haven't been scanned!

And if you really want to publish your own magazine, you can! With MagCloud. All you have to do is upload a pdf and they'll do the rest. It is in beta testing at the moment, so distribution is restricted to the US. A 20-page mag will cost $4 each plus $1.40/copy shipping.