Comments on: The end of white space as we know it?

By: Good Housekeeping | rethink graphic design

Good Housekeeping | rethink graphic design — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:25:04 +0000

[...] The end of white space as we know it? from magculture blog highlights last year’s re-design of Good Housekeeping magazine, and asks whether ‘cramming more into less space really more ecological, or is it just cheaper to manufacture?’ [...]

By: Matthew Ball

Matthew Ball — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:50:17 +0000

A magazine cannot be judged on universal design principles. Does it work for the market it is aimed at? Has it met the brief set by the editor? Do the readers like it?
By the way, Angling Times sales went up by 16% after relaunch last year and the art editor won Bauer’s designer of the year!

By: grownuppants

grownuppants — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:20:14 +0000

Hey, it’s just the cover… and it’s the editor speaking not the designer. Seems to me like their are far more pretentious arses on this site than there should be. Anybody with a genuine interest in magazines appreciates old-school classics like Good Housekeeping through to the esoteric low-brow delights as covered by ‘Colophon’. The cover looks good. This magazine was overdue a design update. Let’s look forward to seeing what John Tennant has done throughout?

By: Rad4Ever

Rad4Ever — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:59:50 +0000

Main headline looks not quite centered, or is that dress effecting my eyes!

By: Doktor

Doktor — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:35:07 +0000

I forgot to say – the design look like a CATASTROPHY! Ok good Housekeeping is not a design title but thats exactly the problem – it looks still trashy and cheap with a little bitsy modern design in colour and typo. Sorry for me this is the worst of the worst, I even prefer the trashy-commerical-nodesign atall-look to something like this. I think design like that is far too polluting to our social environment and wellbeing. Companies should first work well withing their discipline (meaning making a pleasent looking, warm and modern good house keeping magazine) and then they can start throwing their eco-friendly posing around.

By: Doktor

Doktor — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:28:27 +0000

I’ve heard this argument of magazine makers since 15 years “we have to be more ecological” “printing on paper is bad for nature” and it never sounded convincing or believable to me. Its a cynic lie most of the time , at the best its naive. Do they really believe what they say. 99,99 % really dont care about ecological reasons, thats stuff magazine and fashion people like to say when its fashionable. They care about economics (and design, as they should)

By: LondonLee

LondonLee — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:27:51 +0000

So good design should be limited to “cool” magazines? Personally I’m not keen on that cover – the type is a bit bland – but we can’t all work for Love or Flaunt (or whatever the latest hip rag du jour is) you know.

By: Captain Scott (Oates has stepped out)

Captain Scott (Oates has stepped out) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:57:35 +0000

Less is bore.

By: Captain Oates

Captain Oates — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:10:14 +0000

You go outside to cool down for five minutes… and some condescending twat in the tent questions the validity of debating the major redesign of a ‘mainstream’ magazine. Have seen the new look GH and white space or no white space it is a huge improvement on what it used to look like. In my experience a little white space goes an awfully long way, and unless you are an ‘art’ magazine, people tend to want their magazines filled with great pictures and good reads… I’m going outside now…I maybe some time…

By: Captain Scott (Oates has stepped out)

Captain Scott (Oates has stepped out) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:29:44 +0000

Is this linkage a joke? PUNK’d? Where’s the hidden cameras? I cannot believe a debate about Good Housekeeipng on this site.

NEXT WEEK: Angling Times vs Jacques Derrida: Discuss