magazine design quirks.
One of my least favourite common elements of magazine design is the quote (usually edited in an odd manner) repeated somewhere on the page, as a visual element.
I guess I just don't get it. If the point is to emphasize the quote, wouldn't it make more sense to do so completely, and in context? Or to have some kind of visual link between the large image / quote and it's original place in the text?
I'm not saying this space should always be used for images, or that pages should be pure text. I'm just arguing that this 'text as a visual element' think could be better used to add information, rather than just repeat it out of context. Imagine using this space for footnotes with images, or for background information on the article subject, or further information on an abandoned tangent in the interview.
As it stands, I still think of this as something done purely for a visual boost, without being optimized. And, frankly, the magazine industry isn't doing so well that they can afford to regularly put out a product with examples of waste by design on every other page.
Then again, I seriously doubt anyone gets as irked by this as I do.
2 comments:
The pullquote is a quick sell of the article as readers flip through the pages. It's a traditional motif in magazines and helps break up big grey hunks of text. Also, to ask writers to supplement their story with footnotes and asides undermines a) the authority a writer has earned by researching the piece, and b) undermines the writer's right to filter information as it suits the story. Most people read magazines to read an abbreviated or enlightened version of the facts, why would they pollute it with only semi-relevant factoids, graphs, and charts? Writers take great pains to refine every word, it is beyond sloppy and counterintuitive to put deletia back in.
Interesting point, but I think it's undermined by the fact that the pull quote is usually edited oddly, which goes against the idea that extra information is insulting because 'writers take great pains to refine every word'.
I agree that adding semi-relevant information is irritating, but usually there's a fair amount of useful information that could be put somewhere.
I understand tradition, and I understand pages of pure text confuse the eye. But I think tradition is usually a poor excuse to explain why it's okay that something is counterproductive, and I think there has to be a better way to break up pure text than further, larger, more or less meaningless text.
Finally, I have to argue that additional information and justification never undermines the authority of an argument. When I say footnotes I don't mean in an academic sources sense. A writer's right and need to filter information is a reasonable thing, but pretending that presenting information in any way other than plain text undermines that somehow confuses me.
Post a Comment