Members of SND, Associated Press Managing Editors and Associated Press Photo Managers were asked — what should our print and online publications look like? Based on those survey results, a team of editors, designers produced a rapid round of prototypes based on those preferences. SND Vice President Matt Mansfield led a group of participants in a discussion of the results.
Key discussion point: As journalists, what we say we want and what we produce on a daily basis diverge, sometimes radically. Do American papers look like the Bakersfield Californian? Overwhelmingly, no. But 60 percent of APME respondents said that they would prefer a paper which looked like the Californian over other choices (The L.A. Times - 18 percent, The Guardian - 15, USA Today - 5, RedEye - 3). SND members split their preferences between the Times and Californian (26 percent apiece), while APPM members overwhelmingly chose the Times (48 percent) over the Guardian (26 percent) and Californian (22 percent).
All three groups preferred nytimes.com and slate.com over site designs from the Huffington Post, the Lawrence Journal-World and the Houston Chronicle.
Results of the print and online prototyping sessions can be found at quahogtimes.com/
Quote: “Why did we make those choices? We’re boring and safe. We say that we want papers like the Bakersfield Californian but we don’t produce papers that look anything like the Bakersfield California.” – Matt Mansfield.
Ideas to consider: Mansfield said that there were a number of large themes about print designs which emerged from the survey and the prototyping sessions:
– There is too much safety in news design decisions.
– We must be more ambitious about trying new things.
– Don’t have too many things competing for attention.
– Too much text is a big turnoff.
– Too many choices = far too confusing.
– Our efforts at completeness are often boring.
Discuss:
Submit a comment
Commenting is not available in this section entry.