Two formatting improvements for Connect Magazine
Connect Magazine has a fairly new ad campaign aimed at soliciting user-generated feedback from its readers. The campaign shows close-ups of several individuals (some prominent) with the quoted text, “I’m Editor-in-Chief,” suggesting that anyone can make recommendations for improvement. That’s a good thing. So it is in this public forum and with the utmost respect that I offer the following two suggestions after reading the first article from the magazine’s January issue (Nota bene: The online version only contains half of the print formatting problems I’ll discuss below):
- Reference yourself as a proper noun. As you’ll see on both the online and print versions of Connect Magazine, the publication always references itself in-paragraph as “connect” sans capitalizing the “c” despite their being a proper noun. The reason — I suspect — is because the publication uses all lowercase letters in their logotype like several other companies do including my own. But the war waged against uppercase proper nouns in writing will never be won. Rather, the attempt in creating an exception to the rule is confusing to readers, and frankly, looks amateurish; like something a brash mom-and-pop shop would do shortly after creating their first company name. People don’t expect proper English on a creative logo, but they do expect it when reading copy. So ditch the lowercase “c” at the paragraph level if you want to mitigate confusion.
- Quit changing the font type, its size, or its color in-paragraph. In paper form, Connect now uses a bright orange (its corporate color) when referencing itself or its URL in addition to snubbing conventional proper nouns. It also appears that they change the font type and its size a bit. This issue is largely more problematic that the first. It significantly reduces the readability by disrupting text continuity. The overall reading experience feels like that of driving your car over those annoying speed bumps in front of elementary schools. I’m betting the magazine did this in a vane attempt to combat the reader confusion cited above, which — if accurately assumed — would be ridiculous. And no, just because online articles can get away with colored hyperlinking doesn’t mean you can in print form. You’re a magazine not a website!
The above two suggestions are sure to increase the professionalism, usability, and most importantly, the readability of an already excellent publication. After all, Connect sells reading material for a living. They’d be wise not to alienate that experience for creativity’s sake or ambitious differentiation.
Disclosure: I write for Connect.
2 Comments
Colin,
I believe your thinking too much about this. Can you cite an example of when a proper noun was confusing despite its being a common word (think Monster, the employment site)? Run the poll, and I’m 99% sure you’ll find readers prefer the proper anotation of proper nouns. It’s been around for years. 🙂
Thanks for the input Blake. As implied in the “Editor-in-Chief,” program, we encourage and appreciate reader feedback. It’s one of the ways we hope to keep the magazine from becoming stale. We also host occasional focus groups and regularly get suggestions and criticisms via e-mail.
Let me explain why we notate “connect” the way we do. We’re open to discussion and debate on the topic. The original intent was to enhance readability and curtail confusion regarding an unknown brand.
For usage in the printed magazine:
When the magazine launched in early 2003, we were completely unknown as a brand and were faced with a bit of a dilemma when referencing the magazine’s name.
We worried that the word, “connect” was too commonplace in everyday life. We also thought it risky to use the name as a proper noun (such as “The next issue of Connect has some pretty pictures.” ) especially in the exact same typeface, color and weight as normal body copy thinking the name of the magazine could get lost in the shuffle and confuse people (or at least trip them up for a few seconds causing readability issues).
It’s not common for other magazines such as Time, Life, Wired etc. to be referenced as Time Magazine, Life Magazine, or Wired Magazine unless the “magazine” part is officially part of the name (usually isn’t). Because of that, we stayed away from “Connect Magazine.
So, we debated the idea for a while and in the context of “connect” being an unknown brand combined with our belief that using “Connect” in the normal body copy style may momentarily confuse readers and therefore for impede readability, we decided to use “connect” in a different color (usually the spot color, Pantone 137 Orange we use so often). In addition to the color change, we increase the weight a bit too. That is due to the fact that the typeface we use for body copy is in the same family as the typeface we use on the flag (lingo for a magazine’s logotype). That typeface is DIN and comes in a few weights. We use a thicker version for the flag and it just carried over into the usage of the word “connect” in the magazine to further differentiate the name of the magazine.
For usage in the printed magazine:
On our Web site, a CSS template overrides any color choices we have with our WYSIWYG HTML text editor plug-in for the back end of the site. Since we don’t get to use color (and no one building the online articles actually knows how to code anything in HTML or CSS anyway), we decided just to keep “connect” all lower case, but to bold it.
Now, there are a few different people who help build the online version and some forget to apply new or any formatting to the word “connect” so I’m afraid that the Web site lists “connect” in a variety of different ways. We’ve been sloppy there, that’s for certain.
Anyway, I’m always open to feedback and suggestions. Maybe since now the “connect” brand is starting to become recognized in Utah, the conditions have changed. If a majority of people believe now that using an unformatted “Connect” is the way to go, I’m OK with it. I just want to use whatever is the least confusing and most readable.
We’re doing a bit of an overhaul/redesign on the magazine in March or April (not much has changed since 2003 and we’re getting sick of the same general formatting all the time). I’ll make sure to bring this point up during those planning meetings.
I’ll also try to include a poll question about this topic on our next “Editor-in-Chief” online survey sent out to those readers who have joined that unofficial editorial board.
Thanks,
-Colin