Day 3 of the New Wall Street. Verdict: Change Is Good.

It's true. I love the new format of the WSJ. It is perfect for a skimmer like myself seeking bold headlines, chunked content and "how to sound like you've read it" summaries. I can eyeball a lengthy article to determine if it's worth reading in its entirety. If not, I at least get the benefit of mild awareness of the topic if it comes up later. So from this reader's perspective, the redesign was a terrific success in tailoring the product to meet unmet neds of the end user. Moi.

Good design is no accident. It takes planning and experience to execute it well. But if often goes unoticed. The dark side of design is that it is difficult for humans to spot good design due to its very nature. If an item is in the right spot, or perfectly sized we simply use (or read it or turn it) it and move on. But bad design? We can spot it a mile away. And anyone who's ever gotten into a late model Saab and wondered why the cupholder resides in its current spot will attest: bad design is all around us and easy to spot.

To that end, Mark Hurst has long run one of my favorite web sites: thisisbroken.com. Mark's blog is a place for people to send in faulty interfaces, devices, signs and other communication tools that are poorly thought out. Don't miss the "barricade for the blind" someone spotted at Cornell, or this contradictory "no smoking" sign spotted above. It shows us how small errors can lead to broader confusion or loss fo function. In Mark's words thisisbroken.com is "A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it."

On handwritten notes or temporary displays, a typo of lack of planning can be funny. But when it comes to newspapers, city street signs and devices, we come to rely on good design to make our lives easier. We trust these sources. We may not notice a typo, but we can't ignore a child car seat that doesn't fit securely or contradictory instructions on a medicine bottle.

In the case of the WSJ, I give them two thumbs up for keeping their readers in mind and fixing what was 'broken' for a while. It is clear they thought about their audience and took time to focus on the details others might have overlooked. I'm guessing the redesign might even meet Mark's exacting standards.