In With The New: Thoughts on Design
The holiday break brought with it the passing of several historical figures. The legendary James Brown. President Ford. And closer to home we lost an old friend as well: the classic design of the Wall Street Journal. Today marks the beginning of a new era for the iconic newspaper. Our morning paper came with a new look, a new mission and a new format. Incredibly, it even came witha new font designed specifically for its printed pages.
I miss my old friend already, but as a designer I understand the need for the evolution of interfaces. Be they print or electronic. Communication needs change. The impetus for change is never (never) that the design team needed something to work on that year. Life and the new practices and tools we adopt are the catalyst for change.
New features are being added to magazines, blogs, web sites, newspapers at a dizzying rate. Over time, these changes erode the original design and intent of the medium. Those miniscule modifications eventually destroy the usability of the tool. In the case of the WSJ, the "page jump" became some cruel version of an Easter egg hunt ("where is the rest of that article I was reading?..."). Classic sections took on awkward new roles to meet reader demand. Up to the minute information became available to us everywhere at every hour, rendering most publications useless or redundant - unless they could offer more. And they have.
The Journal isn't alone. Magazines have been morphing in front of us for years. Offering enhanced content and coverage to readers via complementary web sites and online features. And while change can be hard for readers to appreciate, the methodology and research that goes into redesigns is generally quite extensive. (The WSJ has been working on the new design for about two years and based the need for changes on generous feedback from readers.)
I sat back this morning grumbling, rejecting the new layout of my favourite paper. Even going so far as to say I'd like to switch to the online version to avoid reading the new version. A sorry replacement for my trusty old paper (embarassingly, this rant went on for a while). But then it hit me. I've been involved the the redesign process on dozens of eCommerce storefronts, web applications and web sites. It goes with the territory that we as an audience resist change. We are frustrated when we have to learn a new system or pattern. We reject the new ideas of a committee who "had our best interests" in mind. It is part of being human.
But after reading Mario R. Garcia's The Relevance of Good Design (page 8 of PDF), I realized that the journal hasn't really changed. We've changed as readers and are forcing the paper to adapt. And although I'll miss my ultra-wide morning paper with classic typefaces and clumsy reading pattern, it looks like some of the new features will be fun (yes, I admit it) and make my daily read a bit easier. And with that, I hope you all allow yourselves to embrace change in the coming year. You never know what great discoveries it might bring.
I miss my old friend already, but as a designer I understand the need for the evolution of interfaces. Be they print or electronic. Communication needs change. The impetus for change is never (never) that the design team needed something to work on that year. Life and the new practices and tools we adopt are the catalyst for change.
New features are being added to magazines, blogs, web sites, newspapers at a dizzying rate. Over time, these changes erode the original design and intent of the medium. Those miniscule modifications eventually destroy the usability of the tool. In the case of the WSJ, the "page jump" became some cruel version of an Easter egg hunt ("where is the rest of that article I was reading?..."). Classic sections took on awkward new roles to meet reader demand. Up to the minute information became available to us everywhere at every hour, rendering most publications useless or redundant - unless they could offer more. And they have.
The Journal isn't alone. Magazines have been morphing in front of us for years. Offering enhanced content and coverage to readers via complementary web sites and online features. And while change can be hard for readers to appreciate, the methodology and research that goes into redesigns is generally quite extensive. (The WSJ has been working on the new design for about two years and based the need for changes on generous feedback from readers.)
I sat back this morning grumbling, rejecting the new layout of my favourite paper. Even going so far as to say I'd like to switch to the online version to avoid reading the new version. A sorry replacement for my trusty old paper (embarassingly, this rant went on for a while). But then it hit me. I've been involved the the redesign process on dozens of eCommerce storefronts, web applications and web sites. It goes with the territory that we as an audience resist change. We are frustrated when we have to learn a new system or pattern. We reject the new ideas of a committee who "had our best interests" in mind. It is part of being human.
But after reading Mario R. Garcia's The Relevance of Good Design (page 8 of PDF), I realized that the journal hasn't really changed. We've changed as readers and are forcing the paper to adapt. And although I'll miss my ultra-wide morning paper with classic typefaces and clumsy reading pattern, it looks like some of the new features will be fun (yes, I admit it) and make my daily read a bit easier. And with that, I hope you all allow yourselves to embrace change in the coming year. You never know what great discoveries it might bring.
posted by franki durbin @ 8:48 AM PERMALINK
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home