Print size

[Brian]

Why does the editorial persist with using large illustrations and headings alongside comparable small print? Surely this policy suggests the illustrations are more digestible for the readers class consciousness than any printed socialist analysis or comment?

[ALB]

We had this debate in the Party years ago. One side argued that what was important was the Party case and it didn’t matter if it was printed on bog paper. Another in that school of thought said that there were no photos in Das Kapital. Others took a more reasonable position — that people will be more likely to read an article if it was accompanied by an illustration to break up a solid block of text.

You don’t want the Standard to look like the ICC’s “World Revolution”, do you.

[alanjjohnstone]

Isn’t there a well-known saying that a picture tells a story worth a thousand words?

The lucrative advertising industry would not use images on products if they did not hold the merit of that saying.

Comics has led to the graphic novel as a legitimate form of literature.

I recall much of my socialist education arose from the series of “…made easy” picture books by Rius.

[Brian]

I’m not complaining about the use of illustrations. Just making the point that the size of the illustration should determine the print size of the article. But regardless of the size of the illustration the print size remains the same throughout the publication. Which means the primary purpose and default position of the use of illustrations is to fill space and not convey a means of reinforcement to the text.
The use of continuous small print also means those with sight problems can find some articles a strain and tiresome. Have you ever thought of doing a straw poll on the size of the print?

[alanjjohnstone]

For those who are now far in the majority who read the on-line version, there exists the option at a click of the key-board to enlarge text.

On the print version, various text sizes of articles would not be particularly pleasing to the eye.

So the problem isn’t the print size of the text but the size of the picture used to accompany the article.

I see no problem for the lay-out team to select suitably sized images that are not too small, nor too big, but as Goldilocks said, just right.

It may impose a bit more demand upon lay-out editor’s time, energy and resources, at a time when we find it difficult acquiring a volunteer for the task.

[Wez]

‘I see no problem for the lay-out team to select suitably sized images that are not too small, nor too big, but as Goldilocks said, just right.’

So says someone who is obviously ignorant of graphic design. It can literally sometimes take many hours to find an uncopyrighted suitable image. That together with the variable quality of images (if you can find a suitable one) makes the process incredibly tortuous on occasion.

[alanjjohnstone]

My following comment agreed with what you said, Wez

“It may impose a bit more demand upon lay-out editor’s time, energy and resources, at a time when we find it difficult acquiring a volunteer for the task.”

I also when blogging come up against similar problems but I tend to ignore copyright rules as posts are more transient and if on the very rare occasions a copyright issue is raised, I can easily delete and replace. (Also I can adjust the sizes of images to a degree.)

I am fully aware that the Socialist Standard has to exercise far more caution.

[Brian]

“So says someone who is obviously ignorant of graphic design. It can literally sometimes take many hours to find an uncopyrighted suitable image. That together with the variable quality of images (if you can find a suitable one) makes the process incredibly tortuous on occasion.”
I agree there can be problems with the images. However, these would occur whatever the print size.

[Author]

Posts