I really like the boldness of this prototype. It’s clean and generous with images. But I agree that it’s at a dangerous point where impact trumps content. Not that I think A1 or any page should be filled to the brim with unbroken gray, but I think (just my two cents, no offense to anyone!) what the Trib is missing here are several more entry points on A1 to pull readers inside. Four or so just doesn’t seem enough.

The opportunity you have with a redesign is not just, as some people have mentioned, to add a design-y sheen to the same old long-format content. Again, that’s doesn’t mean no depth whatsoever, but I think section fronts can be very effective when they offer their readers options — to read just the tidbits or to continue with the in-depth coverage inside? Simply allowing readers to choose from a smattering of content inside is important. You want hard news? Political junk for the junkies? Lifestyle? Food? Sports? Football? Let them know it’s in there, and more importantly, why they should care.

This is where the Web has spoiled readers. You can glance over a page and have a million options. This obviously can’t be entirely replicated in print, but the idea is valuable if you think of readers as wanting what they want when they want it, and they don’t have time to hunt for it and they won’t bother unless they have a good reason.

The problem I have with this in particular is, though I enjoy the treatment of the large photo, someone’s face doesn’t (to me) sell the story. And that’s what it’s about. We have to learn how to sell it, or people won’t buy it. It is worth the effort though, because as we know, what we bring is important. But convincing readers why is the job of every person in the newsroom. Us v. Them attitudes are killing print. Really.