Design Can Build (and Break) Trust
Bill Shander
Keynote speaker, workshop leader, LinkedIn Learning Instructor focused on information design, data storytelling & visualization, and creativity
I subscribe to two magazines (actual paper that is mailed to my house). I love a good paper magazine. And I love a good magazine redesign.
I've been a subscriber to WIRED since almost the beginning. It's gone through multiple redesigns over the past 30 years or so. And while I don't agree with every decision they've made, I remain a fan and love the magazine, including its design.
I am also a fan of Scientific American . They have amazing content, create really fantastic data and information visualizations, thanks in no small part to Jen Christiansen who runs that part of the show. I am a subscriber and look forward to getting the magazine every month.
But, I am not a fan of the new redesign, which came out a few months ago. Overall, it's fine, but there is one glaring problem that I struggle with every time I read the publication. Can you see what it is (in the image below)? And if you see it, ask yourself, how do you interpret it?
I'll explain my beef, starting with the slightly less important problem (although far from unimportant).
You can see that one article has a bold black headline and the body copy of the article is in a serif font. That font (I think) is the SciAm font I'm used to seeing. The article looks like most of the other pieces in the magazine and it's consistent, if slightly updated, from the prior look and feel.
The second article has a different type treatment (different headline/subhead font, different headline color, not bold, same head & sub font sizes, sans serif font for the body copy). It looks completely different.
Yeah, so? The problem is that I have yet to figure out if there is any logic to when they use one treatment or the other.
Design is meant to communicate something to me - a different treatment should mean there is something different about that article. It's about a different topic area, an editorial vs hard science, etc. SOMETHING. But as far as I can tell, there is no difference here. Maybe it's just being used to keep things fresh and interesting when you have two articles on the same page?
This is a problem. I am distracted every single time I read the magazine. Only a small percentage of articles are treated this way and yet I have no clue why. If it is to keep things fresh and interesting, that would be OK, conceptually. Except that they use exactly two standard styles. This reads more like two specific meanings, not "fresh and interesting" eye candy. If they wanted to be creative and keep things fresh, I'd expect more differentiation from one article to another.
As a reader, I'm just confused.
OK, so that is the less important problem. Let me get to the bigger problem. Maybe you felt it.
领英推荐
When I first saw this design, my immediate reaction to that second treatment was "this is sponsored content", and I almost skipped right on by, ignoring it.
How many publications do you read where the standard articles have a certain look and feel and if there is sponsored content (often a whole section), it has a completely different type treatment? The design is telling you, "this is different". It is helping you discern an important distinction.
Now every time I read SciAm, I hesitate. I'm tempted to skip that content. My trust alarm is going off, even if just for a moment. Breaking reader trust is an inherent risk when publishing sponsored content (the reader might not trust the editorial independence and integrity of the information). But a design change like this could make it worse. (In fact, part of me wonders if this is intentional - so I find it harder to differentiate between "real" and "sponsored" content...)
This is not good. Every time, my confidence in the content and the brand waivers, even if just for a moment.
Is it possible I'll get used to this design change? Is it possible the standard approach to sponsored content will evolve and more magazines will adopt a more flexible design system like this and I will feel differently down the road? Is it possible that I'm just missing something and this is a "me problem" and nothing more?
Yes, yes, and yes. But, it is a great lesson in the subtleties of design, trust, the modern media landscape, and so much more.
What do you think? Is this much ado about nothing? Do you have similar experiences with this or other publications?
==========
Ask me about virtual or in-person data storytelling and visualization training for your team
Learn more about data storytelling and visualization via my other LinkedIn Learning courses
Senior Graphics Editor at Scientific American ? author of Building Science Graphics: An illustrated guide to communicating science through diagrams and visualizations
7 个月Interesting—and of course, valid—points. I don't usually work on this section of the magazine, so I can't speak to month-to-month and page-to-page design decisions. But I can say that the last major redesign in 2010 (also by a celebrated outside design firm, albeit a different studio than the most recent redesign) also included more than one type design style for news stories in that section. Although external redesign firms aren't responsible for how those styles are implemented each month—and the rationale might drift over time—it's not uncommon for "front of book" sections to include a variety of styles to in large part help introduce visual dynamics. And a few different style options also help with the critical need to make the puzzle fit. The content needs to fit on a page. Cutting or padding text is one option to help with fit. But that's not always an ideal option. A range of bodytext and heading and image options can also simply be another tool in the design toolbox to help make things work.
Night Auditor @ Alpenhotel Montafon
7 个月while I consider myself one of the most well-read individuals across this universe and some others next to it, I NEVER for the life of me have noticed scripts, shapes, writing styles, etc. etc. while at the same time being design-dumb, I can appreciate good art, but scribble away? I could barely get away with the human figure being nothing else than two arrows and a circle for head! or a house, even worse! just a square for the living space, a triangle for roof, and if hard-pressed, some more squares for windows! ?? hence, I never noticed (and never will) any niceties to a text, I just dive straight in! so, making me a mag's editor would be the ultimate fail! however, you are 100% on the money, Mr. Shander on your observations, so I now kinda wonder if YOU would make the perfect candidate for a gig like this! ??
Data Analyst ??♂?at Select Sires | Turning Numbers into Stories that Spark Joy|Graduate Student at Northeastern University |
7 个月Hey Bill, your insights on the design changes in Scientific American got me reflecting. As someone who enjoys reading magazines, I'm curious: Have you found yourself hesitating to trust certain content due to design discrepancies?
I noticed the second article felt "different" but honestly, I was really offput by the photo in the top article and how it interacts with the horizontal line at the top. Even as I was looking all over the page, I kept going back to the odd spacing and the remnant of line hanging off the end and the photo hanging over the top.
Staff VP, Data Visualization & Reporting at FM Global
7 个月This is really profound Bill. I agree with you - I would be more skeptical of an article that looks and feels different. Trust is so hard to gain and so easy to lose when it comes to information display.