For all their skills with language, people in newsrooms often have tremendous difficulty discussing visuals effectively. At newspapers and magazines in many countries, even across several languages, I’ve encountered lots of unproductive dialogue in the planning, execution, and especially critiquing of page designs before and after publication. Sometimes things get heated, feelings get hurt, and pages get published without a clear enough conversation, before or after, about their success or failure.
Following are the kinds of things I’ve heard along the way, in planning meetings, executive reviews of pages, and critiques. As much as I like to preach about integrated newsrooms, without fences, borders, or turf, this topic really seems to come down to two main divisions:
Unhelpful language from the “word side”:
- “Looks cool! Let’s run with it.”
- “I don’t like it. Doesn’t work for me.” Or, by contrast, “I like it. It works for me.”
- “Hmmm … That’s sure an ‘interesting’ solution …”
- “Keep trying, I’ll know the right solution when I see it.”
Unhelpful language from the “art side”:
- “It’s a design thing. You wouldn’t understand.”
- “This is my vision. I made this picture. I was there. You weren’t.”
- “Color (or type) is just something that you either ‘know,’ or you don’t.”
You get the idea. There may be good intentions here (who wouldn’t like to hear that the editor “likes” his page?), but often, we go by our gut instincts in making declarations like this. Not very helpful to making the page smarter for the reader.
Instead of using vague language like that above, newsrooms would do well to begin by asking new questions about the purpose of design, art, photos, graphics, type, and color in their pages (I always recommend putting a “design mission statement” in writing), then basing questions or comments on that specific mission.
Focused, fair questions to ask when critiquing an idea or solution:
- Does it live up to the requirements of our accepted design or stylebook?
- Does it accurately reflect the PRECISE content, tone, meaning, and spirit of the story? Or, if it’s not a literal reinforcement of the message in the text, is it compelling enough to stand on its own, or does it complement the text in an appropriate way?
- Is there anything in here that’s offensive, incomplete, or confusing in any way?
- Does it HELP THE READER? (My favorite! A negative or unconvincing reply shoots down lots of dumb visual ideas, especially design gimmicks and doodads.)
Language to favor
Give a green light to the element being discussed with language like this:
- “Great graphic. Illustrates the story exactly, will make even the busiest reader stop and think.”
- “Wonderful choice of colors -– they help convey the dark (or light or funny or whatever) mood of the story.”
- “This font treatment, while outside our everyday mix, reinforces the package in a way that a straight headline would not.”
Stop bad work dead in its tracks with clear, authoritative, specific language like this:
- “That art contradicts the headline. Redo one or the other.”
- “I’m confused here. You may have gotten an incomplete description of the story. Go back to the editor and reporter for more detail.”
- “Page 34 of the stylebook says clearly, WE DON’T DO THAT.”
- “This solution is pretty routine. Our editor wants us to take chances, surprise the reader, have fun. Is there another idea that lives up to that?”
If you’ve heard (or used!) language that has not been helpful in your newsroom, or have tips on creating a more constructive vocabulary, I’d like to hear it! E-mail me at ron@garcia-media.com.
From 1995-1999, Ron Reason was director of Visual Journalism programs at Poynter. Currently a visiting faculty member, he is also Chicago Bureau Chief and Vice President/Creative Director of Garcia Media. He has worked on many large and small redesigns including The Harvard Crimson, The Wall Street Journal, and The Dallas Morning News, and has conducted training programs for more than 100 newspapers and magazines around the world.
