If it airs, you must despair

He's back! Just when you thought television and publishing standards could get no lower, OJ has been given yet another public forum by his enablers in the media. This one is truly despicable. He has a new book titled, incredibly, If I Did It, Here's How It Happened. The book is being published by the shameless Judith Regan who will also interview the deranged lunatic in a two part special on the equally shameless FOX network. Everyone involved here sucks: OJ, the media, anybody that watches or buys this crap, and certainly any advertisers that support it. I'd guess that they won't find any, but I won't be too surprised (I've overestimated corporate ethics many times before) to hear some corporate lowlife that would support this bile. Say, like News Corp, the parent company of both FOX, and the publisher Harper-Collins? There is just no depth to how low this guy and his enablers will go.

Gee, that's big of you, Quark

Just got this email from Quark, the page layout program that I ceremoniously dumped about a year ago. I no longer use the program, except for the occasional update to an old job that I haven't felt like converting to InDesign. Quark just came out with a new version that I have no intention of buying, and know next to nothing about. The email stated with great excitement, Important licensing change: Upgrade to QuarkXPress 7 and continue to run QuarkXPress 6. Yes, it’s true. Your license for QuarkXPress 6 remains alive and well when you upgrade to QuarkXPress 7

Well, what the fuck, Quark. You mean that before this big announcement you were actually forcing people to disable the old version that they had payed $1000 for? When anybody who has ever used Quark knows that any new version will be so full of bugs that they will end up reverting to the old version for the two years it takes Quark to fix all the problems anyways?

That's the bullshit that has caused everybody to abandon this company in droves. The fact that you set up the new release like that in the first place, and now consider it a big gift to your customers to let them keep using the old version shows that nothing has changed in Quarkland.

I'm very happy to be through with you.

[computers] [graphic design] [products] [publishing]

Globe magazine becomes Gay Lifestyles Weekly

When did the Globe magazine turn into The Advocate?
(Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

Lately it seems almost every feature in the Globe magazine focuses on a gay couple. This week's issue is the home design issue, and the lead story focuses on Marty Layne and her partner, Patty Bird's new kitchen/living area. Last week, the story was about couples overloaded with mortgage debt, and sure enough the opening of the story featured Gregory Truman and his 56-year-old husband. A few weeks ago, I remember some story on schools, and one of the features was on a gay couple choosing a school for their kid. The "Coupling" column is just as often about a gay couple as a straight couple.

Now let me preface this by saying that I could care less about gay marriage at this point. When it first came up, it did seem overreaching to me. Why not settle for "domestic partnership" or something, rather than pushing for something you know is going to rile up all the right-wing lunatics, and play right into the Karl Rove playbook. But at this point, who the fuck cares! There is a lot more to worry about in this country, and I'm certainly against any right-wing efforts to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

But it is clearly obvious that the editors of the Globe magazine are going out of their way to infuse gay culture into the pages in a major way. And even though I am generally liberal, especially on social issues, I still find it strange, and a little manipulative to be reading a mainstream magazine, and find so many what seem forced instances of gay domestic bliss portrayed. It's almost like a mandate that the editors now have to include an example of a gay couple in every feature package.

Sidekick is swallowing my Globe

So today the Sports section from my Globe was missing. Searched everywhere and finally found it inside of Sidekick. Yesterday the same thing happened with the Calendar section.

So what is the deal with Sidekick? It's this silly little section the Globe launched with great fanfare a year or so ago. I never read it or quite get the point of it. On the web, it makes a bit or sense, but in print It's just an annoyance like the Sunday advertising flyers. I guess it's supposed to tell you everything that's happening in town today. But I would expect that to be in the Arts section where all the other arts and entertainment is. It seems to me like a place for them to stuff all the things they don't know what to do with. It has comics and TV listings in it, but I never bother with either. I seem to remember the comic people being pissed in the beginning because they shrunk the comics down to fit them in it. And here's a question: If the TV listings are in it, why aren't the movie listings in it?

My biggest gripe is that it's always printed so badly, that at least the color pages are illegible. I mean, I'm in the publishing business, so I know that newspapers always send the crappy copies as far away from the city as they can-mainly so advertisers don't see them. But how can a big city paper like the Globe regularly have copies that are printed so badly they barely deserve to be put under a birdcage? Hey, maybe I'll send my copy directly to the advertising department of Jordan's Furniture. Their ad in the center of the thing today is so out of register, that's it's illegible. I'm sure Barry and Elliot would like to know what their hard earned advertising dollars are buying them. Mine always looks like this. And not only that, but the section is so thin, and the paper is such shit, that there are always creases across it, so even if the type is in register, you still can't read it.

But printing issues aside, the thing is ridiculous anyways. If it had all the arts and entertainment in it, and was like a mini-Phoenix or something, that would be one thing. But to stick a few listings, some stupid sections like the chess quiz, the "Reflection of the Day" (today's is "One does not love a place the less for having suffered in it") in this pidly little 12 page section & try to make it out to be some big innovation is ridiculous.

Any then to start burying Sports and other legitimate sections inside this joke of a section it is sort of like AOL taking over Time Warner. Look how well that worked out.

Shit work I've done for cash

As requested, another post about my day job.

I could fill a whole blog with crappy shit that I've been forced to do by clients or bosses during my life as a designer: having to use crappy photos for political or budget reasons; having some senior marketing dufus come up with a "brilliant" idea that he forces me to do, that is really the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my life; clients who say they want something "edgy" but are terrified of doing anything they haven't seen before. On and on and on.

Every day, the life of a designer is filled with compromises. Usually I grumble a bit, argue why some other solution would be better, and then "do what the client wants," while trying to save the thing as much as possible from completely sucking. I can generally live with the results, even if most of the shit I do these days isn't award-winning. It pays the bills. As a former creative director used to say. "If 5% of the work you are doing is cool, then you are doing OK" Basically I feel that most of the cool work I've done is stuff I've managed to sneak by when somebody wasn't paying attention.

So looking back over the past year to find the worst example of shit I've done for money, there was one particularly horrifying job I worked on (for a client I would never work for again, so I could care less if they see this). It was during a slow period last fall that I agreed to be an interim art director for a couple weeks at a local business magazine.

INSIDE BASEBALL WARNING

Turns out it was one of these "all-advertorial" magazines. For those of you not in the business, "advertorials" are those little sections in the middle of "real" magazines that are really ads designed to look like a special editorial section of the magazine. They are totally bogus, but like stadium naming rights, are here to stay. Most legitimate magazines label them in very small type at the top "special advertising section"

But there is a particularly awful new breed of magazine where every article in it is bought, written by, approved by, art supplied for free by, or somehow else completely controlled by the company the story is about. To the average dope, they may look like a real magazine, but to anybody with a brain in their head, the real purpose is pretty obvious. In general these rags are horrible looking.

They are sort of the bastard stepchild of custom publishing, a slightly more legitimate branch of marketing where businesses will publish a marketing brochure disguised as a magazine. Starbucks had one for a while that was pretty cool looking. While those are still pretty dubious as far as having a legitimate editorial mission, at least they are professionally designed and produced for the most part.



So anyway, the above is a spread from the issue of this rag that I worked on. The red circles point out all the reasons why to someone who loves magazine design, this was such a stench-inducing job to work on.

• 1: Every feature in the entire 120 page magazine must follow this exact grid


• 2: Story is a 100% puff piece bought by the subject company, and either written by, edited by, or approved by the company it is about


• 3: Cheesy use of "vignettes" is required in all features


• 4: For some stupid reason there is a full line space after each paragraph, which looks ridiculous


• 5a: Every piece of art in the entire magazine is either supplied free by the client (aka, the subject of the story) or royalty free stock art. The art budget is $0. Note first use on the page of businessmen-shaking-hand partnership cliche photograph.


• 5b: Hard to make out, but there is a second businessmen-shaking-hand cliche in this cheeseball section icon, which is repeated 34 times in the issue.


• 6: Bio of the whore who wrote the story


• Not labeled: Had to chase this client down for nearly three months to be paid

If you have made it this far, and still care about this subject, first, get a life, second, here's a link to another blog that talks about this particular magazine, and its ilk.

Quark, you and I are through

This is going to be a bit of inside baseball for most general readers. Not sure how many people outside the publishing business even know what Quark XPress is. For the uninitiated, it is the software program that has been the standard bearer for producing newspapers, magazines etc., since the publishing world went desktop nearly 20 years ago. I have been essentially married to it since I started using version 1.0 back in about 1987. Do other people whose jobs center around the computer feel that way about the software program they use most? That you know it so well... know all its quirks (a favorite Quark nickname)... know what annoys you about it... how to manipulate it to make it do what you want. It really is like being married. Can't live with it, but can't live without it.

Anyway Friday, after whining (along with most other Quark users) for nearly five years and wasting half the day trying to uncover the reason for it's daily flip-out, I started to switch my largest job over to InDesign, the competing program by Adobe. It's a huge undertaking, because not only do you have to rebuild the entire job template from scratch, but you have to essentially learn a new language at the same time. InDesign, from all my experience so far does everything better, but also does everything different.

Now as to why, I have had to take this drastic step:

Quark Xpress, for at least the last five years has become the suckiest software program on earth, and Quark the most arrogant company. What other program regularly corrupts files beyond repair, rendering a 50 page magazine file useless. Of course anybody who used Quark with any regularity has become so paranoid that they back up files, make duplicates, copy the files to another machine about every ten minutes, just because they know that eventually Quark is going to kill the file.

Five or so years ago, Apple moved its operating system to OS X, a system that required software developers to completely rewrite their software. Every other software company whose clients worked heavily on the Mac, had their software updated within six months to a year. Quark took nearly three years to come up with a release that was compatible with OS X, forcing users to either put off upgrading their systems, and therefore upgrading any other software they owned. Or to run a completely separate system in the background, a process that led to a whole host of other problems.

When Quark finally did come up with a new version three years later, if was so full of bugs, that many people still didn't upgrade. It crashes regularly, displays things on the screen that aren't really there, and many other problems too numerous to even get into.

Quark Inc. has also behaved like the arrogant monopoly that is was. Nobody (except me) ever bought version 5.0, because it came out after OS X, but wasn't OS X compatible. So 90% of users were still using 4.0. When Quark finally did come out with a new version that was OS X compatible three years later (6.0), they purposely put a block on it, so you couldn't downsave to 4.0. Essentially they were forcing everyone to buy the upgrade for every computer they owned.

So anybody that did upgrade right away had to deal with clients that were still on 4.0, and hence, couldn't open the files. Any users with a history with Quark know not to upgrade right away, because every new version they come out with is completely riddled with bugs. So users were in this classic Catch-22. Should I upgrade first, and have my client not be able to open my files, of wait, and have the opposite problem?

Over the past year, most of the publishing industry has been switching over to InDesign. I bought it about a year ago, and have been slowly learning it, and building jobs for new clients in it for six months. It seems like a great program. It may have its own share of problems, and Adobe is an even bigger monopoly than Quark ever was. But if nothing else, I no longer live in quite the fear I always did with Quark, that if I do something it doesn't like, it's going to destroy a week's worth of work.

So goodbye Quark. You were my first software love. We had some good times together. But now its time to leave your sorry ass behind.