What works and what doesn't in newspaper design

API Roundtable's Warren Watson continues our new feature -- The Cyber Dialogue. In this edition, we work with a panel of five experts to probe a series of basic design questions. Watson is past president of the Society for News Design

Rules? Boxes? Screens? Mortising type? What works and what doesn't? We asked some designers, teachers and consultants to sort out myths and misconceptions about basic design.

Joining today's virtual panel:

Dan Ryan, design director, Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Pegie Stark, design consultant, University of South Florida
Rolf Rehe, design consultant, columnist, Design Magazine
Steve Dorsey, assistant managing editor for design, Detroit Free Press
Gayle Grin, assistant managing editor for design, National Post, Toronto
Phil Nesbitt, API adjunct and design consultant

WATSON: What are the specific traits of the best-designed newspapers – large and small?

DORSEY: Consistency, discipline, boldness, willingness to take informed risks, sophistication: The best papers don't assume their readers are idiots who need everything spelled out to the n-th degree. Also, awareness and control of details. Neatness DOES count.

GRIN: Consistency, yes. Also, a good underlying grid and limited typefaces.

RYAN: The best designs put an emphasis on information and ideas, rather than simple decoration. That's what makes papers like San Jose and, these days, Columbus, so good. Good editors don't tell designers to "dress this up." They're all about visual storytelling. Technical skills are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. The music isn't in the piano, as they say

NESBITT: The good papers have a strong organization and clear structure allowing the readers to know where they are and to navigate the product easily. The bad ones don't. The good ones use type well. There is a clear hierarchy, and they aren't all over the board. The bad ones either use poor choices in type or they use every font in the type library.

WATSON: How is design related to readership?

STARK : Each design decision must reflect the spirit, mood and meaning of the story or stories being displayed. The design should reflect the philosophy of the content of the paper. The philosophy of a paper reflects the audience it serves. Then, the design reflects the content.

RYAN: There's a lot of information out there, and people don't have a lot of time
to sift through it. Good design serves readers by presenting well-edited information clearly. Also, we're competing in a visually savvy world, and a slap-dash look can hurt credibility.

GRIN: Design helps readers navigate the stories. Design should be created to reflect the readership. Is the audience upscale, high end? Are the readers subway readers? The design needs to meet that.

DORSEY: Design is about HOW we tell the stories and HOW we package the photos and other information in a paper. HOW you read a paper depends directly on how much the paper's staff knows its readers and prepared the product with them in mind. Design IS packaging too. Let's not forget that or be ashamed of it. Packaging is directly related to how someone interacts with a product. If you have clear, thoughtful and useful design, that positively benefits a customer's experience. But it's like the drums in a Tarzan movie: Readers shouldn't perceive good design all on its own, they should just be able to enjoy the jungle (the news). It's when the drums suddenly fall silent (when design is not working) that they become apparent.

NESBITT: Half the battle is to get the reader to stop on the page. Most often this is achieved through good design, though not always. A strong headline will do the trick. If readers don't stop on a page, they won't read. If they do stop, the chances are certainly higher that they will at least browse the page and perhaps read something that they otherwise wouldn't. Good design brings the readers into a product, then into a page. Bad design doesn't.

WATSON: What about rules and boxes? Good? Bad? Why?

NESBITT: Rules can be very effective when used properly. A box or rule should do only one of two things: isolate elements on a page or organize elements on a page. They need not be thicker than 1 point (often 0.5 point will be more than adequate). Any rule of 2 points or thicker becomes a graphic element.

GRIN: Some division of stories is necessary. It could be done with white space, as is done in the Boston Globe, or fine rules. Rules should recede, not call attention to themselves.

RYAN: Let's talk about rules of another kind – that is, the kind of rules that govern what we do in design. Rules are definitely needed. Rules provide standards. They help readers, who pick up on visual cues more readily than many give them credit for. Well-written rules (or guidelines) aren't stifling; they articulate objectives and limits so designers can generate and execute ideas and take risks where appropriate.

REHE: Rules and boxes are neither good nor bad; it depends if they serve a purpose. To me, they are an organizing tool and one that helps to show what elements belong together, i.e., which photo goes with which text.

WATSON: What about color screens (and gray screens)? Good? Bad? Why?

GRIN: Color screens work if they are pale and reproduction is good. ...But again, a limited color palette is necessary or they begin to be look messy. I would avoid gray screens. They can become muddy even with good reproduction.

RYAN: I'm not a fan of color and tinted screens. I believe you save your color for content: Photos and graphics are much more effective when they don't have to fight what I call structural or standing color.

NESBITT: Screens should be used sparingly. Know your press. Screens often reproduce heavier than we intend. That being said, they can be effective in highlighting specific information, calling attention to sidebars and for use in nugget (glance) boxes.

REHE: Screens reduce the legibility of text type, but they can serve a purpose. Use them sparingly and make the type slightly heavier (i.e., medium) and slightly larger to compensate for the reduced legibility caused by the non-white background.

WATSON: Are there situations where type inside photos (mortising) works?

NESBITT: There are few -- very few -- instances where type inside a photo works.

STARK: If the content calls for it, why not – as long as the photographer is involved in the discussion. Don't do it every day. Don't do it on every section front.

RYAN: Sure, type in photos can work, with limits. Our stylebook distinguishes between documentary photos and illustrative photos. No type is allowed over documentary photos (same with cutouts/silos). We define documentary photos (simply, photos that portray an event -- even sports!) and then give other guidelines (don't damage the basic content of the photo; make sure the type is legible). Even then, judgment calls are sometimes necessary.

WATSON: Any final thoughts? Why should I worry about design: I'm too busy getting out the paper!

RYAN: If you're that busy getting the paper out, you'll want people to at least pick it up, possibly even read it. Design isn't just flower arranging. It's storytelling, too, and be it simple or complex, design is a part of the package.

GRIN: Why should I care about design? Consistent well-maintained design is easy and time saving. A consistent-looking paper is easy for the reader to navigate.

NESBITT: If we don't pay attention to design and structure, our readers will migrate to a growing list of other media delivery vehicles to get their information. Potential readers won't even start.