

So everybody’s linking to this cartoonist guy who’s harshing on the LA Times’ typography (scroll down).
Beginners who get their hands on a computer for the first time are usually fascinated by fonts, and produce documents that look like ransom notes. If your church newsletter looks like a ransom note, you can be sure that it was designed by the pastor's sister-in-law on her new Macintosh. So it is with the Times' front page.
Update: Robert Landry, design director of the Los Angeles Business Journal, steps to the defense of the Times at LA Observed, and you can read many opinions about the redesign in the comments of the posts I made after the new design launched last October here and here.
1) The guy doesn't know what he's talking about and Quentin Lueninghoener thankfully pointed that out. My newspaper has more than 50 type treatment styles and only 3 main fonts (one of which is strictly for body text), so it's really not that uncommon.
2) Also The LAT must ask itself (from a reader's perspective), what is the function of all the different treatments? Yes they act as entry points but how many make sense? Wherever the answer is "it doesn't," the treatment should be eliminated.
When it comes to typography used to navigate a page, it's as simple as that. If your readers don't understand what something means, it's pointless. But if it does make sense - such as the difference between the column's treatment as a whole and a news story's treatment - keep it.
Besides, the LAT still doesn't know why it should care about design "we're the LA Times, we know everything" is kind of the general attitude last time I checked.
Posted by: Mike Higdon at March 25, 2007 6:51 AMsolver?ranked animal Einstein Ferber booklet explain complicates!
Posted by: at August 24, 2008 6:15 PM