Oh my.

We're in the final days.

Okay, I give up...can this site start cleaning up the newspaper websites' turds?

How sad.

I think this looks great. My newspaper is trying to accomplish some similar goals with its features sections -- more items, shorter takes, quick and easy read -- but Arizona seems to have pulled it off a lot better.

Wow, this is sharp! Luke, kudos to you and Tracy and Bill for this! The design is simple but executed very well, the flag and the section headers are really well done, with the color bar and the faux slab serif (it's not, but it looks like one!). And the storyforms, this coming from the paper that has THE storyform catalog and executes them to a high level ... I'm rambling, but it's great work, good job Arizona!

So I guess "busy people" love text all over photos. What a shame. Must make the photographers happy to know they now provide backgrounds for words.

Brilliant! Terrific presentation of some super smart editing. I always wondered what a tabloid approach in a broadsheet format would look like, and here it is. So nice to see a paper of this size pulling off something so innovative at such a large scale. Applause to everyone involved!

Busy people want the top stories of the day, not a feature on lawn care.

I'm busy, on-the-go and have a short attention span, but I don't care for this at all. For me, this is a colorful, unorganized mess. Unrelated items are visually grouped because they have similarly shaded text boxes. And, with so many other things going on, the mortised, overly-designed headlines and side saddle subheads only complicate matters. I would suggest a little restraint in that regard. Not feeling this one at all.

Like the inside section fronts and the consistency of the approach throughout. Very impressive that the Republic was able to maintain a distinct identity page after page.

Not liking the front page. I'm willing to believe lawns are a big deal in AZ and I wouldn't blink at that as the centerpiece -- if it wasn't the only loud element on the page. This front actually looks like it's an inside page -- so many small heds, so little shouting.

This reminds me of trying to find the Frosted Flakes on grocery shelves that are packed end-to-end with boxes of different brands; everything seems to blend together. I'll be interested to hear if readers like it; my reaction to the front could just be the conditioning of so many years of newspaper reading.

To me, all of these pages look like inside pages. There's a lot of small headlines and most of the pages here are too symetrical. There's definitely a magazine feel to this, I think it might look better as a tab.

Why this treatment only on Monday? Aren't people just as busy Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday?

A whole lot of decoration and very little content. Tell me more about this "free mail." Is that something you get when you buy one of those new phone modems? But it looks colorful.

"A lot of deoration and very little content." Isn't that what design is about these days?

And a great comment from Sarah about the text on the photos. Designers love to do this; it makes them feel important.

Kinda has a USA Today thing goin' on . . . which isn't *necessarily* a bad thing. Certainly aids in scanning the paper, which is what people -- esp. busy ones -- do. Should probably wait for the circulation/revenue numbers before declaring whether or not it works.

Of course, once the circulation numbers come out, the designers will start spinning the rationale by saying it makes the product easier to read, even if the readers disagree, etc.

It's all becoming a really sad joke in an industry that should have called a halt to the deception some time ago.

Boring stories designed for busy people...

I thought Wordhawk was banned from here, Hugh Craig.

This isn't so much a criticism of what I see here -- which is a brave step in the right direction -- as an observation about it and other papers. I am always saying to our staff that newspapers try too hard to be a Swiss Army knife, and that I want our paper to be a spork. This redesign still looks more knifey than sporky -- very complicated and grand, maybe a tad daunting. There's an awful lot there to have to get through. In practice, it may go down easier. Even with this, I think there's an opportunity out there for papers to simplify with a sharper focus. If these guys keep pushing, it may eventually arrive there.

Another comment from Putney that has us the dumber for hearing it.

And Josh -- I know you suffer from designer disease when it comes to these arguments. The symptoms are the usual: lack of proof, lack of logic, etc. But continually acting like Cindy Brady is not the cure.

As a designer, it's funny to me how the Hawking doesn't ever seem relevant or logical. I think of him as a real-life (or rather, Internet-life) Dwight Schrute - mean spirited and insane.

I think the Monday edition looks good, but wow, that top left ad really is painful. Is that going there every week? I love the flag treatment.

And I would assume to a place with no rain, a story about lawn care in the early days of Spring is entirely newsworthy.

I liked you better when you had intregrity.

Any idiot can find a new IP address and a fake name after being banned from a blog.

But it takes a genius to truly believe he's not as transparent as plastic sandwich wrap.

For someone making a life out of pointing out factual inaccuracies, you'd think you wouldn't want to factually, and quite intentionally, misrepresent yourself.

Clearly, your editor is spending all his time designing you and not enough time fact-checking you. I suggest starting a blog about him.

Experimentation is important. Even if all of these pages don't work perfectly, at least someone is trying something new.

I especially like the editorial page. Why not offer opinions in list form and break out of the droning "voice from above" tone that alienates readers?

Oh my god, they tried something different ... the world is going to end.

Newsflash – the status quo isn't cutting it these days. Readership and advertising are slipping. Congrats to Phoenix for trying something different. It may not be the answer – but you can't fault them for trying.

----

"And I would assume to a place with no rain, a story about lawn care in the early days of Spring is entirely newsworthy."

You have no idea how right you are ...

I have to say the idea of introducing a fluid design concept - a different type of paper for a different day of the week - is intriguing. Nice idea.
But how does a busier design help a busier reader? I can get behind shorter stories and more visual aids, but isn't organization even more critical to the busy reader? One could possibly make an argument that blowing up the daily paper and reassembling it in brighter, flashier colors makes it more difficult - not easier - for the busy reader to utilize.
I think the idea is interesting and will be eager to see next Monday's edition, and the week after that.

I think I agree with Malcolm on this. The concept is solid, but the execution still needs work. Sometimes it seems the hardest thing for newspapers to do is to be simple.

Honestly, I don't see this as anything new or beyond the status quo. 50 word items; a rail down the left side; a sports calendar for local teams; NCAA region capsules; a quirky photo of the day; 3/4 of a page devoted to free email accounts (what year is this?). Sure, maybe the mass of retirees in Arizona are dabbling with email, keeping in touch with their family on the East Coast, but how busy are octogenarians, really? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing brilliant editing or content that makes me think any differently about a newspaper. The day we, as an industry, put more thought into developing content that examines our respective communities in different ways, rather than "new" ways to package the existing content, I'll be much happier as a designer.

"Intregrity" -- you mean bashing writers. Did that for a while. This was all explained to you; try to keep up.

Other than that, we see some of the same tired comments from the infopimp crowd: "It's different, so it HAS to be better! It HAS to be." (I can hear Mike Rice repeating this to himself as he walks down the hallway and plans out his next giant thermometer for the next breaking 100-degree story in Arizona. I guess that passes for "different" in his newspaper's world.)

And yet again, someone clamors for the content and editing to be better but offers no specifics. Typical designers. Yawn. Nothing is any different here.

"Intregrity" -- you mean bashing writers. Did that for a while. This was all explained to you; try to keep up.

Other than that, we see some of the same tired comments from the infopimp crowd: "It's different, so it HAS to be better! It HAS to be." (I can hear Mike Rice repeating this to himself as he walks down the hallway and plans out his next giant thermometer for the next breaking 100-degree story in Arizona. I guess that passes for "different" in his newspaper's world.)

And yet again, someone clamors for the content and editing to be better but offers no specifics. Typical designers. Yawn. Nothing is any different here.

Perhaps I'm wrong, Mr. Schrute - and I'm sure you will correct me if I am - but I believe the word you were looking for was "Integrity."

Unless I just don't know what "Intregrity" means.

Read my post next time Hugh. I never said it was better. I simply applauded the effort.

Why not let the readers decide if it is a success or not? Let's see what the numbers say about Phoenix's Monday paper in a couple of months.

And if the numbers are down, what will you say then?

You said "Congrats for trying something different." Do you often congratulate people if they are not doing something better?

After all, I don't hear people congratulating someone for poisoning a pet. Do you think people are congratulating the pet food company right now?

I think not, Mike Rice! I think not.

Hyperbole is the bomb, yo.

Triple-threat guy, that's great!

* Lacks integrity: Established above.

* Bad editor: We established this four years ago, but if you were looking to buck that trend, misspelling the fourth word of your first post isn't exactly the way to turn over a new leaf.

And to that, we add ...

* Hypocrite: Your little allegation of no proof (which is false anyway) comes in this context:

-- You routinely tell the world what designers like love to do and how they want to feel important, despite the fact you have no proof.

-- You routinely make assumptions (which competent journalists don't do) about how MEs and design teams at papers operate, despite the fact you've never met those designers or set one foot inside those papers.

-- You concoct something called a "design agenda" in your head, which neither exists nor pretends to exist, and carry on as though there's one iota of proof.

Basically, in five years, you have nothing but personal anectodes to back up anything you allege, or say about the visitors to this site.

And yet, you're quite comfortable saying we can't prove you're Wordhawk, Wordhawk.

A hypocritical bad editor who lacks integrity. That'll get you shown the door at any shop around.

... Also, I don't bash writers, but if I did decide to bash a writer, I'd have the common decency to keep it professional and the integrity (only one E in there) to sign my real name to it.

And that name is Stormy Wetdry.

Josh:

Um, in case you haven't realized it, the "intregrity" thing is playing off your typo, dude! Wow. Just wow. (Two R's, by the way. Not two E's. Reading and comprehension, my friend. Reading and comprehension.)

But hey, if you think typing and editing are the same thing, then you are right in the middle of that stereotype.

And my name would be on every post everywhere if there would ever be a real debate on the issues. The main one is that designers cannot prove that what they do is beneficial in any way, shape or form to the reader.

You talk about nothing being backed up in five years, but that's really the main thing.

The rest of this is your tired Cindy Brady imitation; you run and tattle whenver I post anywhere and think that somehow establishes some cred.

All it establishes is you're a tired, whiny little girl who can't back up what you claim and have to hide behind the lies perpetuated by a sharply declining industry that can't figure out what it needs to do to repair itself, so it hides behind flash and a drive to hire the latest, greatest "new talent' that really doesn't have much to offer other than bluster.

Now shouldn't you be having that conversation with Mr. Brady right about now? But just remember -- if Tiger runs off with the latest SND issue, you need to tell someone.

"And if the numbers are down, what will you say then?"

I'd look for another solution - instead of running around screaming that the sky is falling.

Bye, Robert (or Hugh or whatever your sock puppet du jour is). Time for you to take leave of us again.

I really like the opinion and sports sections. They look REALLY sharp!

BTW, what a creative use of ads for the "Heat Index." (And I honestly don't mean that facetiously.)

Every day, our industry is hemorrhaging readership. It's ridiculous to expect that we can just stand by and readers will come to their senses eventually. Is the AZ Republic's new Monday the answer? Who knows -- but you've got to at least give them big-time credit for trying to win back readers.

And, to answer the other question raised, if the numbers come back and show that readers don't like it, we have to be brave enough to abandon the idea, and try something else.

My experience at my current paper is that if you package news right and hit the right tone, people don't just like you, they love you. Newspapers are so beaten down by bad news that they seem to lose sight of this fact. My fear is that there aren't enough people in the industry that think about papers as anything other than what we've always done.