A friendly headsup to the fact that there’s a really nice feature on John Gall in the latest issue of STEP. (I’m convinced they stole the majority of their questions from us. *whistles* )
Also, since this is somewhat of a meta post, this is as good a time as any to reiterate what Chris has been saying in the comments of the last few covers.
In the past we have chosen to show you guys the respect we think you deserve by not moderating your comments. However, it has now gotten to a point where lewd and ad hominem attacks are being made on a regular basis. As such, we will now start policing the blog a bit more heavily.
Just a friendly wag-o-the-finger to all our regular commentators. Let’s keep the conversation intelligent and relevant.
Man I love this magazine, I’ve found nothing in Australia which compares to the depth and quality of the articles. Only problem it’s always bit pricey. There’s also a great article on Dave Eggers/McSweeny’s in Volume 19 No. 5 2003. It also manages to always look really good although the covers, in my opinion, have alway seemed, while clean and strong, a bit stocky. This one is a bit strange, it looks less like a growing tree and more like one which has been rudely uprooted.
Shout out to Carin Goldberg, she’s in the issue too!
ad hominem |?ad ?häm?n?m| adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] the office was created ad hominem for Fenton. |
[as adj. ] an ad hominem response. ORIGIN late 16th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to the person.’
Some good advice in this issue about running a graphic design business, but they did a horrible job on some of the graphs. Some are completely unreadable.
Does anyone hate the paragraphs of tight leading where the ascenders and descenders crash into each other? I cancelled my subscription after a short while but I’ve seen it in bookstores and it’s the same design, it’s usually the lead text in color, that has always annoyed me bigtime.
While i think it has great articles and good advice overall (Bucher’s Ink & Circumstance especially), I wonder how professional designers put together such a poor looking magazine. Their covers are always weak.
That photo screams STOCK. An obvious case of “this photo is close enough.” I agree that it’s odd to have an uprooted tree when the title is “growing your business.”
business minded people doesnt respond much on design. its about the topic and context..etc…etc…
the design? i dunno… can someone can relate the word “grow” aside from a tree? plus the use of earth tone colors, and associated with a plant? this is a business mag. and talks about design firm. i dont see any connection in it…
I believe that the redesign was done by the same team that did Living.
I don’t necessarily mind the intentionally awkward typography (the negative-leading call outs can add visual variety to an otherwise dull page) but it bothers me how often they use tiny all-caps type in overlong measures—feels like a “screw you” to the reader. Spreads often look “designy,” rather than designed.
Still, it’s a massive improvement from their earlier incarnation…
With Step I have come to expect it’s hap-hazard, last minute thinking cover designs. Actually, this is one of the better ones. The photos used still smell of the stock sites they came from, but… I still purchase each issue. The stories and interviews are consistantly well written and if only they could get the covers right (and the way too tight leading used for pull quotes within) they’d have a solid two thumbs way up mag.
A friendly headsup to the fact that there’s a really nice feature on John Gall in the latest issue of STEP. (I’m convinced they stole the majority of their questions from us. *whistles* )
Also, since this is somewhat of a meta post, this is as good a time as any to reiterate what Chris has been saying in the comments of the last few covers.
In the past we have chosen to show you guys the respect we think you deserve by not moderating your comments. However, it has now gotten to a point where lewd and ad hominem attacks are being made on a regular basis. As such, we will now start policing the blog a bit more heavily.
Just a friendly wag-o-the-finger to all our regular commentators. Let’s keep the conversation intelligent and relevant.
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-07-09 10:31:00
First glance-A book that looks like a magazine, brilliant!
— ERIC, 2007-07-09 11:55:00
Will pick up a copy. I can’t stand what’s happening with the type on this STEP cover.
I always wondered how far you would let the carnage go on. Glad things are being moderated. Now back to business at hand… ah, yes—the covers.
Can we still swear when we’re excited?
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-07-09 12:42:00
Man I love this magazine, I’ve found nothing in Australia which compares to the depth and quality of the articles. Only problem it’s always bit pricey. There’s also a great article on Dave Eggers/McSweeny’s in Volume 19 No. 5 2003. It also manages to always look really good although the covers, in my opinion, have alway seemed, while clean and strong, a bit stocky. This one is a bit strange, it looks less like a growing tree and more like one which has been rudely uprooted.
— Nick, 2007-07-09 16:22:00
Shout out to Carin Goldberg, she’s in the issue too!
ad hominem |?ad ?häm?n?m| adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] the office was created ad hominem for Fenton. |
[as adj. ] an ad hominem response. ORIGIN late 16th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to the person.’
— Auguste, 2007-07-09 17:14:00
Some good advice in this issue about running a graphic design business, but they did a horrible job on some of the graphs. Some are completely unreadable.
— Chris Papasadero / Fwis, 2007-07-09 21:09:00
Does anyone hate the paragraphs of tight leading where the ascenders and descenders crash into each other? I cancelled my subscription after a short while but I’ve seen it in bookstores and it’s the same design, it’s usually the lead text in color, that has always annoyed me bigtime.
— Auguste, 2007-07-09 21:25:00
While i think it has great articles and good advice overall (Bucher’s Ink & Circumstance especially), I wonder how professional designers put together such a poor looking magazine. Their covers are always weak.
— Kevin Kelly, 2007-07-10 06:38:00
It just looks like it was thrown together last minute. But the STEP masthead is undeniable and the articles are interesting—for the most part.
As a design, this cover looks as if the masthead is a big magnet that’s sucking all the copy upwards—in this case—the tree sprout as well.
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-07-10 07:10:00
That photo screams STOCK. An obvious case of “this photo is close enough.” I agree that it’s odd to have an uprooted tree when the title is “growing your business.”
— Doogie, 2007-07-10 08:12:00
business minded people doesnt respond much on design. its about the topic and context..etc…etc…
the design? i dunno… can someone can relate the word “grow” aside from a tree? plus the use of earth tone colors, and associated with a plant? this is a business mag. and talks about design firm. i dont see any connection in it…
— supercow, 2007-07-10 18:12:00
This isn’t a business magazine though, it’s a design journal that is doing a feature on design business.
— Nick, 2007-07-10 18:37:00
ooopppppsssss….
well, it still doesnt fit with the earth tone colors…
— supercow, 2007-07-10 21:55:00
I too thought this was a book cover. What a drag. Instead it’s a magazine plug and a scolding thread…lolz.
P.S.
It looks too Martha Stewart Living to be a magazine about design, don’tchya think?
— C-Dog, 2007-07-10 22:26:00
I believe that the redesign was done by the same team that did Living.
I don’t necessarily mind the intentionally awkward typography (the negative-leading call outs can add visual variety to an otherwise dull page) but it bothers me how often they use tiny all-caps type in overlong measures—feels like a “screw you” to the reader. Spreads often look “designy,” rather than designed.
Still, it’s a massive improvement from their earlier incarnation…
— Jose Nieto, 2007-07-11 05:19:00
Martha Stewart Living is essentially also a design magazine. ...about incorporating design into your lifestyle.
— natalie, 2007-07-11 10:08:00
Jose: They should use a different font. It’s a dead giveaway.
— C-Dog, 2007-07-12 07:23:00
Growing is plants or design business. Should have been a “design” plant!
— unnikrishna menon damodaran, 2007-08-23 04:40:00
With Step I have come to expect it’s hap-hazard, last minute thinking cover designs. Actually, this is one of the better ones. The photos used still smell of the stock sites they came from, but… I still purchase each issue. The stories and interviews are consistantly well written and if only they could get the covers right (and the way too tight leading used for pull quotes within) they’d have a solid two thumbs way up mag.
— Tyler Lang, 2007-09-20 19:11:00