I was walking my dog this morning in San Diego and saw an unfamiliar-looking paper inside a translucent plastic bag on my neighbor's sidewalk. I couldn't see the flag, just the top headline and the photo next to it. I picked up the paper and turned it over, and lo and behold it was the LA Times.

So the new design's eye-catching, at least. And I love the multiple dropheds on the lead story.

Great work! I really like it!

Over at Political Animal (the Washington Monthly's blog, by OC resident Kevin Drumm) the reviews have been less than favorable. (Comparing the changes to a dumbing down, etc.)

This has only served to intensify my already-burning desire to work for the LA Times...

I don't know much about design, so I'd consider myself the average reader, and I can't stand the new look.

To my eye, the redesign just completes the Times' back-to-the-80s look it started with those giant rules on the Op-Ed pages a few months back.

I'm glad the Times finally -- finally! -- got its redesign implemented, but I can't help feeling disappointed. With all the talent there I expected much more, a gutsy look that took the Times into the future. Instead, we got something that feels derivative and dorky. I see nothing you won't find in a good mid-sized daily.

I look at this design and all I can see is how *very* innovative it is.
I wish that I could get a copy somehow because I would know that I was holding in my hands the future of newspapers. These new fonts, slightly more colorful presentation and amazing skyboxes will truly bring the Times back from the brink.

Nothing bad about this redesign, but nothing great. It looks like a hybrid, something along the lines of a Houston Chronicle and Kansas City Star mix, in my opinion.

Could be a lot better, but it could be worse, I guess. Will this put the LAT on the rebound as one person posted? Doubtful.

I'm curious as to what readers of this blog consider to be a "good" redesign or a "not good" redesign.

From some comments, I gather that "good" seems to equal "radical change." I don't necessarily agree.

In some place and some markets, a drastic shakeup is vital to keep the paper alive and to invigorate readers. However, the LAT is a bastion of tradition, and I think these steps have made the paper more appealing, more reader-friendly, without changing what's not, frankly, broken.

I've never lived in LA, but if I did, I'd read the LAT, no matter what it looked like, because it's the paper of record for the area. I don't see the need for a Bakersfield or KC-style redesign, even though those are great-looking and innovative papers, and are doing well (I think) in their markets post-redesign. But they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. There is room for traditional papers with clean type and crisp layouts, too. We don't ALL have to be Berliners.

As one who usually thinks "change is better" in this instance, it isn't working. And its not just tghe design or redesign, its the content, the mix that is curiously not compelling.
Todays paper has a headline of Bribery at the border, with a veritable pull down menu of three subheads, all in different fonts. As if knowing the story isn't quite worth the real estate, the three sub heads, one imagines, are there to induce interest. It isn't working.
Its as if the newspaper wants to be magazine, using editorial gimmicks (larger headlines, mixing of fonts, spot colors) that ultimately feel like quick fixes, unfinished symphonies and declarations of a glorious past.

i noticed that my cats weren't spending as much time in their litter boxes this morning after i'd changed them and put the newly redesigned sunday A section under the pans. not a good sign.

I think that, largely, this is a very handsome redesign. Not all papers require a complete makeover, nor should all attempt it. Mostly, I think that a large daily like this should maintain a traditional, authoritative look, as well as some degree of familiarity.

I think the sky boxes look great and better yet, they serve to strengthen the nameplate. They are nicely integrated. Also it has a nicely restrained modernity.

I do have some hesitation with the juxtaposition of the grayed serifed font (on the feature story no less) against other heavy black type --I'm looking at the A1 with Elmo and Stephen Colbert. It creates a hierarchy that I don't think was, or should have been intentional. Additionally, there is the opinion piece (?) with an italic header. It's a little jumbled for my eye, but these points are easily curable.

A good redesign is one that makes more people want to read the newspaper. Only time will tell if this is a good redesign.

A cop-out answer but, especially now, it's all about moving the product.

What I do like about it is that the changes are subtle, not sweeping. The Page 1 headlines are *just* larger enough that I'm more drawn in. Not sure I like the inside pages, at least at first glance. Seems like they're sacrificing too much space for those bulky overbars.

I can't see the differences between the greats northamerican newspapers... The lasts redesigns (St. Petes, LA...) I've seen looks like they're going all the same way to get just one-way-designed papers... I miss new ideas

While I'm not a huge fan of the Tilting Gothic Compressed (it looks a little odd with the classical-looking serif font next to it), I really like the layered subheads. That to me is something that I wish more newspapers would experiment with. In my opinion, it's a highly effective (and nice looking) way to draw a reader into a complex story.

gooch

As a copy editor, I assure you that while the multiple subheads look nice in a back-to-the-19th-century way, they're a complete pain in the backside to write. Blecch.

The new design (especially the modern bold sans serif headlines) is more visually appealing, and will probably catch more attention to passers-by. Yet, it undoes what distinguishes the L.A. Times: a high story count on A1. The new design is more suitable for a lower circulation paper where fewer staff-penned stories may be available. As newspapers increasingly rely on wire services and local reporters are cut, the L.A. Times is one of the few papers that still delivers nearly all staff-written stories, even on A1. They should continue to show this off by implementing a redesign that maintains the Times' normal high story count.

On a pure design note, horizontal elements (i.e. bars) are overused and kind of amateurish. Some of the pages are difficult on the eye and scare off readers because the stories on them fill too much of a page -- breaks, jumps?

The front page is sure to have admirers and detractors - but why didn't they take on the interior pages, which are still the boxiest and ugliest of any major US daily?

Look at "Failure to act...". Could the design be any more off-putting to the casual reader?

Really! bad design, I don't care is L.A. Times or Washington Post, or The Guardian, is really bad to use 4 different font in the front page, I don't know, what designer or Editor, look really amateur design, use different fonts, same family could be! but 4 different is too bad, don't play good. no armony, no balance, etc...

A newspaper is not supposed to look like a company newsletter. Or a magazine. Or an advertisement. A newspaper is iconic.

It should communicate a sense of solidity, dependability, and honesty. This design works against all of those. It says entertainment.

So I guess it fits.

If they want to improve readership, what they really need to change is the contents.

Well, I needed a week for it all to sink in, but here goes:

Even glaciers think the LA Times moves slow. So, it's good to finally see some design changes hit the news sections. Which, for the most part, are a step forward. You put it next to the other big guys, NYT, Washington Post, etc., it still conveys authority but with just a little more punch. I actually like the tall condensed font for lede stories and 1-column heds (I lament that that trend even fell out of favor, frankly); it really works, for example, over that wildfire photo on Friday. And call me old fashioned, fine, whatever, I happen to be one who DOES think upstyle headlines are more dignified, and I always thought it was cool that LAT was one of the few holdouts on that. (Of course, I realize there is no place for dignity anymore in our society ... but that's a rant for another time.) As for multiple decks, they seem a little forced, too choppy; I think the summary decks they used before were more informative. The Kis is a definite improvement over the old type, although the bold version seems a little chunky to me, not quite as refined as it could be.

"the bold version seems a little chunky to me, not quite as refined as it could be."

Todd that's a fine point ~ we think the same thing. Somehow it looked better when we were doing practice pages but in actual use, it doesn't work as well as we would like. We're working on it. We're still shaking out the decks as well. Thanks for your thoughtful observations.

mw

In this time, Internet kill papers and news fast and in smart form, Internet look, colorful (attractive for readers), clear and aggressive design! We have to know this is real, and in short time, maybe we have to shut down the papers for another big animal Media (internet) and we have to loss a lot of money and no jobs around, so please I'm publisher, and Design Consultant, so I have to know this is real, if you don't change the classic, like your actual design, maybe you loss money, spent money, in L.A. (I lived in South Bay Area, Hermosa Beach for 27 Years) you don't have a reader they don't spent time in read, they spent time in read ADS, that the different with Europe Market, in Europe you sell newspaper in USA you sell ads, my advice, change your design and change everything (colorful, aggressive..) and in short time you get revenues, for sure yes...the old fashin loss money, we are in a New Century and we have to change, or not??

Michael, you're welcome, and one more thing: This is some great work. After watching the paper evolve -- or not -- over the past several years, I appreciate how hard you guys must be working to steer this big ship. (Not to mention gracious toward a peanut gallery of newspaper design critics!)

Gone is the austere, reasoned look of the Los Angeles Times front page. We longtime readers have always trusted Times editors to give us our headlines in a calm, moderated tone and leave the sensation and the splash to others. Now one of America's eminent publications looks like any smaller-city daily. A succession of L.A. Times publishers and editors have concerned themselves with how their paper compares with a certain eastern "newspaper of record." Apparently not well enough to their minds--when was the last time the New York Times redesigned its front page?

New Yorkers read New York Post, daily News, The Sun, politics, old fashion, conservatives and old people read New York Time, who spend the money in advertising, and who read newspapers?, PEOPLE, regular people, they like Internet, colors, they like Ipod, Cellular Technology, They like Bold and colorful newspaper, who like boring and old fashion, you?, me? or the advertisers, in real world, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune are Dinosaurs, and which is the best paper around the World, The Guardian, The Observer (Sunday) Colors, Colors, Colors, please we dying...open your eyes. Don't support old styles...

My lament has not so much to do with the introduction of color as it is with the bold--I prefer to say loud--headlines. Bold-faced, all-caps headlines are traditionally used for such landmark stories as military invasions, natural disasters, and election results. If every story on the page blares earth-shattering importance, then how do we sort out what really is important? This is what happens when creeping sensationalism rears its head. Most of the newspapers Tom cites as modern are tabloids--in both the literal and figurative sense of the word. They give us stories, but the New York Times and Washington Post give us what we really need--news. It is to be hoped that the Los Angeles Times will continue to give us news.

pvkwo pmadhizcn thix zxykqic tiwrj hxtd onkbwvit