Readability: Rule one in magazine design

Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, Jan, 2000 by John Johanek

Poor training, an emphasis on technical rather than artistic ability, and the creative wish to do something "new" are interfering with good, basic magazine design.

Magazine design is subjective, for sure, and heated debates over design have undoubtedly rung through the halls of editorial and art departments ever since Gutenberg's first impressions were cast. But one aspect of magazine layout that should serve as the benchmark for a design's success--without question--is readability.

Nobody wants to discourage inventive design. That's the stuff that sets each magazine apart and stimulates and motivates readers. And fresh design suggests that the editorial message is equally up to date--a desirable attribute for every publication. The downfall for many designers, however, is page presentation that's so exhaustive, so energized, so intently a matter of pure design, that readability is lost.

Publication design requires a graphic sensibility that's different from other forms of design. Creating a terrific billboard or eye-catching cereal box is nothing like designing a magazine. So if you've hired someone with expertise in other graphic areas, don't expect those skills to transfer to designing your magazine.

Computer know-how carries weight

Then, there's training. Resumes today look much different than they did five or 10 years ago. Technological expertise is paramount, and computer know-how carries as much weight as design skills. Forced to choose, many publishers hire a designer who understands technology over one with merely strong design skills to ensure that their publications are put out properly. But to acquire this computer expertise, students spend less time learning basic design. The result is a new crop of designers graduating each year with the ability to crank out weak design at a very fast clip.

But most magazines have designers who have a balanced understanding of technology and graphics. And still the product suffers. Where do they go wrong? It's tough to put design into hard and fast rules, because so much of creativity results from breaking rules. Yet the majority of readability problems occur when some basic design principles are violated in just a few key areas.

Overprinting and reversed type

When it comes to surprinting (overprinting) and knockout (reversed) type, readability problems abound. How often have you seen text printed on, or reversed out of, a photo with such variations in background that much of the type detail was lost? And more than once you've probably come across a story where so much type was placed against busy backgrounds that the story went unread. If this sounds all too familiar, here's some guidance.

Examine each photo closely to see if it will support the type treatment you intend. Good candidates will have large, uniform light or dark areas. Keep reversed and surprinted type to a minimum--especially on busy backgrounds.

Even on solid backgrounds, set the type in a larger point size with extra leading and a bolder weight to give it more substance. If possible, use sans serif fonts, which don't have the thick and thin variations in characters that reduce recognition, as serifed fonts do. On smaller chunks of text, try adding a tint panel of gray between the knocked-out type and photo to minimize distracting contrast. This will allow the type to hold a crisper edge.

When surprinting, do the opposite--ghost back the photo behind the text area to minimize conflicting dark spots. On larger type like headlines and subheads, outline the type or add shadow to help give characters stronger definition.

Color choice and usage

Typography in any color is readable provided it's against the proper background. Color contrast alone won't ensure readability, however. Of nearly equal importance is color value. A headline in the wrong shade of purple against a green foliage background, for example, can become completely lost. It's happened-in print.

Clever color schemes are counterproductive if they can't be read. Quite frequently, this is the result of an over dependence on technology. Screen colors produced by your computer aren't always indicative of what will appear in print. At times, it's not even close.

Unless you're working with a system that's properly color calibrated, consult a color swatch book when selecting and assigning colors on screen. In doing so, trust the color book--not your eye.

Few things discourage reading copy, even small chunks like sidebars, more than harsh color underlying type. Several raw colors applied in concert, such as a sidebar background dashing with its border, headline, or accompanying page background, results in something nobody wants to look at--much less read.

Most designers are better off using color as an accessory rather than a focal point. When color is too noticeable, it is probably being overdone.

Go with the flow

Page composition can be another culprit. Try to avoid placing graphics--photos, pullquotes, sidebars, artwork and so on--where the reader is forced to jump over them while reading the text. Instead, arrange elements on the page so the copy flows around them uninterrupted. In other words, position graphics in corners or at the very top or bottom of columns. Or have them straddle columns of text so the copy continues seamlessly around them.