New Look YM.... the FONT of all trouble

[wizard]

Is this really the case I wonder?
As far as I have noticed, it is still the same tiny font. That makes It very unattractive to read and does a big disservice to all who do their best to improve the content. I see the improvements in content, but reading the magazine is more of a struggle than an enjoyment.

I agree I cant see any difference.

 

[TStocker]

We know the font size is too small at the moment, and are working on making things more readable. Thanks for all of your comments, which I can assure you we do listen to and do our best accommodate in the magazine.

One of the driving factors for the fonts we chose was that our readers have often told us that they value having meaty content in the magazine, and we didn't want to make articles shorter or more lightweight with fewer words. In fact, in several places we have created space for longer articles. Obviously, if we have gone too far and squeezed things in too much, then we will rectify that.

Cheers, Theo

 

[neilf39]

Must admit I can't see much difference to January. Also the white text on colour background is still unreadable.

 

[davidmh]

Why don't you reduce the size of the photos, too many are double page spreads,some photos seem to give no extra information to the reader so why are they there. Smaller pictures means more room for larger print size and still have longer articles

David MH

 

[pvb]

Why don't you reduce the size of the photos, too many are double page spreads,some photos seem to give no extra information to the reader so why are they there. Smaller pictures means more room for larger print size and still have longer articles

Sounds like a recipe for an argument with the art director!

 

[neilf39]

We know the font size is too small at the moment, and are working on making things more readable. Thanks for all of your comments, which I can assure you we do listen to and do our best accommodate in the magazine.

One of the driving factors for the fonts we chose was that our readers have often told us that they value having meaty content in the magazine, and we didn't want to make articles shorter or more lightweight with fewer words. In fact, in several places we have created space for longer articles. Obviously, if we have gone too far and squeezed things in too much, then we will rectify that.

Cheers, Theo

Why leave so much white space on many of the pages then other than to make it look 'arty'

 

[JumbleDuck]

Why leave so much white space on many of the pages then other than to make it look 'arty'

This, this, a thousand times this. There is plenty of room to dial up the font a point or two!

 

[chrisclin]

I thought it was just me! The content for the latest edition is excellent - I thought they would have difficulty maintaining it after the one in early December. However, reading it has taken forever as I find it too difficult to read more than a page or two before my eyes blur.
I also find the design slightly odd with sub articles inset into multi page articles. That either makes me lose the flow of the main article (sometimes mid-sentence) so I can read the inset, or turning the page and forgetting to turn back. I suppose it breaks up great slabs of text, but I do find it irritating.
However, the content (almost) makes it all worthwhile.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Humm FRED DRIFT ere
Reminds me of a heritage project some years ago, when the Lighting Designers came in during the dark evenings and worked through the night; as the job was behind target; all the Lighting Designers were quite young in age; well when the Project opened to the Public, virtually no one could see in the Darkness, the lighting was so low a level plus so discreet that we gave the entry fees back.
Soon realised it was the Young Eyes that could see what older people could not see, so a hasty up of the lighting was done.
Perhaps its similar now with this Mag, most are too young to see to the wood for the trees or the copy for the arty work; humm tis the modern way unfortunately; ah well reasons that do not hold water eh ?

 

[CCJ]

Humm FRED DRIFT ere
Reminds me of a heritage project some years ago, when the Lighting Designers came in during the dark evenings and worked through the night; as the job was behind target; all the Lighting Designers were quite young in age; well when the Project opened to the Public, virtually no one could see in the Darkness, the lighting was so low a level plus so discreet that we gave the entry fees back.
Soon realised it was the Young Eyes that could see what older people could not see, so a hasty up of the lighting was done.
Perhaps its similar now with this Mag, most are too young to see to the wood for the trees or the copy for the arty work; humm tis the modern way unfortunately; ah well reasons that do not hold water eh ?

Come back DS & his scran bag i say

 

[Concerto]

We know the font size is too small at the moment, and are working on making things more readable. Thanks for all of your comments, which I can assure you we do listen to and do our best accommodate in the magazine.

One of the driving factors for the fonts we chose was that our readers have often told us that they value having meaty content in the magazine, and we didn't want to make articles shorter or more lightweight with fewer words. In fact, in several places we have created space for longer articles. Obviously, if we have gone too far and squeezed things in too much, then we will rectify that.

Cheers, Theo

There was one space saving text article that should have been spotted. The long news item of expansion at yacht builders had some words missing. To me it looks as if this was not proof read, or your grammar checker missed the omissions.

Enjoyed the articles I have read so far, so keep on improving the magazine.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Come back DS & his scran bag i say

Ok


Humm well as you state maybes ???

 

[BelleSerene]

Obviously, if we have gone too far and squeezed things in too much, then we will rectify that.

You haven't.

 

[BelleSerene]

Must be the only magazine I've seen that doesn't put its month of production on the front cover. I took that as a one-off oversight on the January cover!

Content is still good IMHO. Many congratulations.

 

[pvb]

Must be the only magazine I've seen that doesn't put its month of production on the front cover. I took that as a one-off oversight on the January cover!

Is that because they do 13 issues a year? Which leads us, I suppose, to query the magazine's title!

 

[mjcoon]

Is that because they do 13 issues a year? Which leads us, I suppose, to query the magazine's title!

I believe there are ~13 lunar months per year (52/4).

Mike.

 

[pvb]

I believe there are ~13 lunar months per year (52/4).

Mike.

So what are the names of these 13 months? Then YM can put the month name on the cover.

 

[daverebbettes]

Me too. Could barely read the thing. Might have to cancel subscription. Eyesight is OK though I do use modest strength reading glasses. Needed two pairs to read latest mag.

 

[BelleSerene]

Is that because they do 13 issues a year? Which leads us, I suppose, to query the magazine's title!

No: they still call the editions Jan, Feb, ... Aug, 'Summer', Sep, Oct, ... Dec.

Yes, should be YLM of course. Yachting Lunar Monthly.

 

[TiggerToo]

You haven't.

+1

If you want to do some squeezing, try starting with the blank space.