I meant to include this part in the previous post (although it’s a moot point because it will take weeks for these posts to show up).

Designers and pseudoeditors have proved they are incapable of offering the feedback when it matters. That’s why many of them should be fired. Simply waiting for the paper to come out and then to say: “Doesn’t work for me” is asinine and always has been.

By the end, you’re simply back to the old strategy of trying to protect yourself by creating a way to blame to the content for the failings of designers.

Also, I mentioned the part about keeping designers’ schedules packed because the person quoted in the article says the graphics people could do the work more quickly. That’s because they don’t putz around as designers do. The only way to prevent the putzing is to load the designers with work; that keeps them from spending entire shifts creating pencils in PhotoShop or wasting time on other nonsense.

There aren’t enough design guidelines. That’s why, especially at small papers, everyone who touches a page does his/her own thing. Styleguides are good things, and all papers big and small would do well to implement one.

About the after-the-fact critiques, I also agree with him wholeheartedly. I’d much rather have some feedback and input when it could do some good — on the front end — rather than have a page shredded after it’s finished and in readers’ hands.

Where I disagree is keeping my schedule packed (mine’s already pretty full) and slashing the time devoted to design. I’m a content guy — I started as a reporter, so I know the value of the words. At the same time, visual impact and engagement is a large part of attracting the attention of readers. Make ‘em stop and look, and chances are they’ll want to read. That takes time and resources if you’re going to do it well. I’m not trying to start the typical pissing contest with our friend because I feel he genuinely has the best interest of the business in his heart, but to compete with TV (the epitome of visual engagement) and the immediacy of the Internet, we have to show we’re visually savvy AND have content that’s relevant, compelling and engaging. Design is nothing without quality content, and a newspaper is only as good as its content. If the best-looking paper in the world has crap content, it’s a crap paper. It’s that simple.

Yeah, I know, I know, it’s a paper I helped redesign in 2003. But I’m not affiliated with them now. How’s that?

I’m giving you easy answers, Robert, because instead of arguing with you, I have work to do, play to do and life to live. You really need to find some happiness, too.

How about something:

(1) not involving you

(2) at a paper with some size that someone has heard of

(3) at a paper that someone on the face of the planet would notice.

I’m not discounting the content changes that were made during the redesign, because the design is nothing without content, but the way the content is developed and presented (that’s the design) had a lot to do with it.

Otherwise, no one would have noticed as much.

The 21st century is fast becoming the haven for crazy people like Lee Abrams who have no intelligence.

“Even the smallest newspaper will see gains once a more visually savvy presentation is adopted.” Really, Doug? I’m sure you can just fill up the screen with verifiable examples. (eyes rolling)