I received my copy of 333, and I've been reading through it. I've noticed a trend to use "blotchy" backgrounds on which to print words. It was the case for the demonomicon article, as well as the relics of Faerun article.
I certainly can't speak for anybody else - but I find these images detract a lot from the article. In fact, there were spots in both articles where I simply wasn't able to read the words that were printed over the images.
Does anybody else find these blotchy backgrounds for articles to be distracted, or worse yet - to make a section of the article unreadable?
|
I agree 100%. Decorative pages are fine, but "splotchy" is bad. Generally, a high contrast page is best for reading text. That is one reason black text on white paper is the "default".
Page layouts should look nice, but not too busy. This particular issue doesn't have the worst examples I've ever seen, but I would really like to avoid seeing anything remotely like it in the future.
I had a problem with this as well. I think the artistic backgrounds are a big improvement over the ultra-plain concept that a different recent editor tried to go with, but the words need to be readable. It's important that articles stand out with different colored backgrounds and interesting borders, but it should never interfere with the text of the article.
Also, some of the wacky fonts are a little tough to read as well. Visions of Fear...it took me a good 30 seconds staring at that to figure out what it said, and even then I had to look at the article itself for a clue. Different is good. Barely readable is not.
I had a problem with this as well. I think the artistic backgrounds are a big improvement over the ultra-plain concept that a different recent editor tried to go with, but the words need to be readable. It's important that articles stand out with different colored backgrounds and interesting borders, but it should never interfere with the text of the article.
Agreed. I don't want to go back to plain white pages. Textures, colors, patterns, etc are all cool and interesting - as long as they don't interfere with the text.
Also, some of the wacky fonts are a little tough to read as well. Visions of Fear...it took me a good 30 seconds staring at that to figure out what it said, and even then I had to look at the article itself for a clue. Different is good. Barely readable is not.
I was going to save that issue for another time - I didn't want to bring up too much at once. ;)
Agreed. I don't want to go back to plain white pages. Textures, colors, patterns, etc are all cool and interesting - as long as they don't interfere with the text.
...and then there's a guy like me who'd love to see black text on white pages with crisp b&w art with the occasional color plate thrown in. Sure, all the colors and pictures make the magazine visually more attractive I could usually do without them. Granted, I also fondly remember the plain white pages of the old books. Boring, maybe, but functional.
...though as I finish this up I do think I prefer color monster pics in the monster manuals. Didn't the 2E Monsterous Compendiums use color pics (can't remember and mine are in storage right now.)
- Chris Shadowens
|
|
Well, I've already said I like clear, but I don't want to demand straight black and white, either.
There can be clearly written text using a variety of colors and textures. Black on cream is really as legible as black on white. It is when the cream has black smudges or burn marks that we run into trouble.
Likewise, white text on a blue background is fine. I can read it without difficulty. I like the use of shaded sidebars, and fonts that illustrate a different section of text. Still, title fonts are often difficult to read. I don't really want anything "dripping gore". It never lends itself to easy reading.
"Backgrounds articles are printed on."
Passive voice, babe - should be, "Backgrounds Dragon prints the articles on" or something similar.
:-p