Metropol

WillPS wrote: Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10.11 The Guardian's new logo has been revealed: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... nline-apps

The paper goes tabloid on Monday.

I don't like it as much as the previous two.

This was my first thought:

thegeek wrote: Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10.53

WillPS wrote: Fri 12 Jan, 2018 10.11 The Guardian's new logo has been revealed: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... nline-apps

The paper goes tabloid on Monday.

I don't like it as much as the previous two.

This was my first thought:

Yes! I knew it seemed familiar.

I noticed that the Simple line of skincare products have changed their logo slightly, with 'Simple' now in title case instead of all lowercase like it was previously. Though I only spotted this because old and new were side-by-side on the shelf, it's such a subtle change I'm not sure why they've bothered.

The new masthead on tomorrow's Guardian.

Some real nasty spacing going on there. The top half looks too cluttered and the text looks a few sizes too big. The articles below have some odd looking spaces between headline and text.

Dislike.

Also not really seeing the need for a separate masthead font. That's three fonts they're now using in general circulation. Also the black-on-white is....boring.

It looks really similar to The Times' front page design to me, especially the fonts, which isn't good if you're wanting to stand out from the other 'quality' paper that is printed at tabloid size.

A shame as before the move to the Berliner format The Guardian had a very distinctive and unique front page design, with its use of (gasp!) a sans serif font in Helvetica. (Okay, the italicised Garamond is probably a bit dated now, I'll give you that).

“With two pull-out sections”

Does anyone actually pull them out? I always get annoyed at pull-outs within pull-outs, especially when I miss a financial pull-out completely because it’s inside a sport pull-out. JUST HAVE BLOODY SECTIONS.

Alexia wrote: Sun 14 Jan, 2018 23.00 Also not really seeing the need for a separate masthead font. That's three fonts they're now using in general circulation. Also the black-on-white is....boring.

I believe they tried mocks with the Egyptian masthead and tabloid sizes in the past and couldn't get it to work.

thegeek wrote: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 06.40

Alexia wrote: Sun 14 Jan, 2018 23.00 Also not really seeing the need for a separate masthead font. That's three fonts they're now using in general circulation. Also the black-on-white is....boring.

I believe they tried mocks with the Egyptian masthead and tabloid sizes in the past and couldn't get it to work.

Well the new one doesn't work either so they'd have been no worse off. The twitter avatars are hideous.

Pete wrote: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 07.48

thegeek wrote: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 06.40

Alexia wrote: Sun 14 Jan, 2018 23.00 Also not really seeing the need for a separate masthead font. That's three fonts they're now using in general circulation. Also the black-on-white is....boring.

I believe they tried mocks with the Egyptian masthead and tabloid sizes in the past and couldn't get it to work.

Well the new one doesn't work either so they'd have been no worse off. The twitter avatars are hideous.

Agreed. I wonder if the black-on-white is a further cost saving exercise? Or perhaps there's a hope internally that paper sales will drop further and in 9 months they can say 'well, we tried' and do an Independent?

Either way, the website looks much worse and much less distinctive than before.