I moved a pixel this morning. Did you notice?

I moved a pixel this morning. Did you notice?
: The non-est nonstory I’ve seen in sometime is the NY Times “redesign.” The change is so minor as to be unnoticable. And I liked the old typestyle better. The rule of newspaper type design was — for a reason — that one should mix serif and sanserif type for variety; the Times now has variations on only one face and it’s more boring. Wrong direction, I’d say. Not that anyone should care. This is a nonpost on nonnews.

  • button

    ok, i’m a bit of a fontee… this redesign may give a ‘cleaner’ look, but it’s not going to help too much, because the times ‘page’ (on the net) is still much too s’poodl’t (busy with lots of curls-like a poodle – german/yiddish slang)
    but, boy-o-boy, they’re picking on my fave: bookman! let’s look at the bottom 2 lines of comparison. they’re cheating because this isn’t a good speciman of Bookman–hey, that’s not a real Bookman– it’s much too smoothed out, uniform, and rounded.
    I’m a huge fan of the old-fashioned, old-style Genuine Bookman– ooh, i love that that wide x!! this font they labeled bookman is just a poseur! so, of course their new pet Cheltenham looks good in comparison, because they’re comparing it to a fake, phony bookman.
    hey, fontees, look at that typeface they’re calling Bookman– they’ve got brass balls trying to pass off that phony face as a real bookman.
    Bookman really cruises. This one looks like melted goo.
    hey– you gotta problem with that???

  • I don’t know if I’d call the change unnoticeable… I noticed it right away. I was slightly traumatized at first, but I think I’ll get used to it, even if it takes away some of the Times’s uniqueness.

  • jonhouston

    Nonstory? You’re SUCH an editor, Jeff!!
    It’s a big, honking mistake.
    Let’s talk about it as if it were a website or electronic gizmo… let’s talk about users!!
    Users immediately noticed the missing Latin Extra Condensed– the very tall, “spindly” three-line headline face in column A-1.
    It was, more than any other font in their library, the NYT “brand”; and they’ve now relegated it to **labels** in Metro and Sports. Insane.
    Now, because they lack typograhphic variety– tho there’s no “rule” about it– they look like a brochure done by a low-budget designer. And yet, through sheer muscle and familiarity and volume, we’ll get used to its garden-variety sameness.
    A typographer friend described the addition of color photos like adding electricity to a rowhouse. This is like taking out central heating and putting in all fireplaces– romantic, but ultimately foolish and unhealthy.