JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
It's on the spine. Odd not to have it on the cover, I admit.
New Look YM.... the FONT of all trouble
- Thread starter TiggerToo
- Start date
It's on the spine. Odd not to have it on the cover, I admit.
pvb
Well-Known Member
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Here is the start of the word "mast" from Snooks' January review of the Sun Odyssey 440
and here is the start of the word "mast" from his February review of the Hallberg-Rassy 340
Same microscope, same scaling. The January "m" is (on the original) 185px high and the February "m" is 195px high, which is a 5% improvement, or at least a 5% increase.
(Absolutely nothing personal, Snooks - your January review was the first thing I came to with a white background and it was easy to find the same word in February.)
and here is the start of the word "mast" from his February review of the Hallberg-Rassy 340
Same microscope, same scaling. The January "m" is (on the original) 185px high and the February "m" is 195px high, which is a 5% improvement, or at least a 5% increase.
(Absolutely nothing personal, Snooks - your January review was the first thing I came to with a white background and it was easy to find the same word in February.)
westhinder
Well-Known Member
Here is the start of the word "mast" from Snooks' January review of the Sun Odyssey 440
and here is the start of the word "mast" from his February review of the Hallberg-Rassy 340
Same microscope, same scaling. The January "m" is (on the original) 185px high and the February "m" is 195px high, which is a 5% improvement, or at least a 5% increase.
(Absolutely nothing personal, Snooks - your January review was the first thing I came to with a white background and it was easy to find the same word in February.)
If you need a microscope to notice any difference in size, what does that tell you?
mjcoon
Well-Known Member
1) You need a microscope to quantify the difference in size
2) If 10% increase is not noticeable, the original cannot have been so marginally illegible.
Mike.
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
Having it on the cover may have destroyed the purity of the design...
:ambivalence::nonchalance:
:sleeping:Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
Humm might say that the Font choice is certainly not the best choice for ease of reading, so just perhaps its a reflection not only of Font Size but Font Type, eh ?
Just maybe the Arty Tarty get in the way of a real choice suitable for ease of reading across a very wide range of Human eyesight's.
Might suggest consulting with those that know about the actual font Type with reference to the ease and ability to read it to those of us with aging eyesight, after all why go to the great trouble plus expense of producing a written article that less of the population can actually read when one does not have to. eh ?
Just maybe the Arty Tarty get in the way of a real choice suitable for ease of reading across a very wide range of Human eyesight's.
Might suggest consulting with those that know about the actual font Type with reference to the ease and ability to read it to those of us with aging eyesight, after all why go to the great trouble plus expense of producing a written article that less of the population can actually read when one does not have to. eh ?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I used the microscope because I could not detect any difference in size with the unaided eye.
I don't see how that follows. Both the original and the new, improved, 5%-supersized fonts are equally annoying to me,
westhinder
Well-Known Member
Totally agree
BelleSerene
Well-Known Member
Is it just Yachting Monthly that you find trouble reading, or do you fibd the same with say physical newspapers, some books, any other magazines?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Yachting Monthly uses by far the smallest typeface of any publication - book or periodical - I read. What's particularly irritating about YM is that they use a much larger linespacing than the font needs; it's pure affectation, not lack of space.
pvb
Well-Known Member
Affectation?? I'm sure they'd say they were ensuring the correct style and consistency, both visually and typographically, to deliver the right pace, visual hierarchy and continuity throughout each issue.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Affectation?? I'm sure they'd say they were ensuring the correct style and consistency, both visually and typographically, to deliver the right pace, visual hierarchy and continuity throughout each issue.
You mean they're saving money in a desperate attempt to avoid going under? Damn it, how much does ink cost?
This post presented in YM-O-Vision.
pvb
Well-Known Member
No, not saving money, it's a style thing, created by creative people, who are managed by creative people, and they just love creating artistic-looking page spreads, regardless of how functional they are. In a former life, I ran an outfit which included a design studio, and I can assure you that many of these creative types are the most precious, impractical and stubborn people on the planet!
RedFox
Member
YM content has improved but on a quick look at WHSmiths I decided not to buy because of the difficulty I had in reading just a little bit of it. Reading it should be a pleasure and not a chore. So one lost sale. Sad really as they do look to be getting their act together. Content over style should be the watch word. At the moment style seems to be winning.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I know what you mean. I think it comes from doing all the designs with lorem ipsum - they forget that people are supposed to be able to read the final product.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Sniper
Well-Known Member
+ 1.
I'm on the tail end of my subscription, having cancelled it when the page size got reduced, but I have received the first two copies of the 'new look'. Normally I skim through magazines as soon as they arrive and then read them properly over the next day or so. With the 'new look' magazines I've skimmed them but then left them largely unread. It's not the content but the presentation. The font is just too small for comfortable reading.
BelleSerene
Well-Known Member
That must be why they employ about five different fonts on the front cover, some serif and some sans serif, some in black and sone in white.
dunedin
Well-Known Member
Here is the start of the word "mast" from Snooks' January review of the Sun Odyssey 440
and here is the start of the word "mast" from his February review of the Hallberg-Rassy 340
Same microscope, same scaling. The January "m" is (on the original) 185px high and the February "m" is 195px high, which is a 5% improvement, or at least a 5% increase.
(Absolutely nothing personal, Snooks - your January review was the first thing I came to with a white background and it was easy to find the same word in February.)
Interestingly the example you selected has a serif text font. Elsewhere in the same magazine (eg the Cruising section) it is mostly sans-serif.
To be fair Theo has already said it was too late to fix for this “February” edition, so presumably still a work in progress.
I can actually read the small sans-serif type font reasonably well, provided it is on top of white paper, which it mostly is.
The font that really does my sight in is the headlines for some small box items, where the headlines are white serif capitals on bright blue. That really annoys
Boathook
Well-Known Member
PBO I sure, gave one many years ago. I think that I still have it on board ..............................
