Response to Tim Harrower's critique

I’ve had several folks take odds with Tim Harrower’s critique of the Skiff redesign.

I agree with their comments, but I was perhaps unfair to publish Tim’s text without informing folks that I gave all the people who were critiquing the prototype as little as background on the project as possible.

I was searching for frank, honest assessment of the design and presentation of content.

If reviewers knew that this was a project to migrate basic style, set the stage for fall production, had limited staffing for the project and was done on a part-time basis over 6 weeks I would be concerned they would soften their criticism.

Tim's reaction is much like our readers.

The only thing they focus on is what they have in their hands at the moment.

The reader doesn’t care what your deadline was, how much time it took to produce something, if you are understaffed or had a migraine at the Mac while editing a story.

If the content and presentation fill the reader’s needs, the reader is happy.

If the content and presentation doesn’t fill the reader’s needs, she will turn the page or dump the paper and move on to the TV or iPhone to find what she wants.

So Tim’s critique is as solid and valuable as the opinion of any one reader.
Maybe a little bit more because he knows our industry.

Some responses to his critique support his comments on too much advertising, a need for tighter, shorter stories and a presence of roundups or briefs.

One comment in particular, from our director, John Lumpkin, does give objection to Tim’s dislike of the big photos:

“I disagree with the big illustrations on the covers being a waste of space.
Done correctly, they are a profoundly different and compelling way to tell a story. How many gray words would it have taken to make the point of the domino graphic about NCAA realignment?”

Good point.

And student feedback moves in direction of really enjoying the big picture on the front.