The NewStandard ceased publishing on April 27, 2007.

Collective Blog

Weblog HomePage | The NewStandard
The item below is a weblog entry, not a news article. This weblog is unedited, and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of The NewStandard, which is an edited, hard news website.

January 11, 2006

Your Input Needed!

As part of the site redesign, we are considering various masthead ideas. Since preferences among our own staff vary widely, we need your opinion on these proposed logos for the masthead. Please tell us which one(s) you like best and why by commenting on this entry.

NOTE: All logos have been re-sized to fit this page. The phrase "independent. ad-free. non-profit. uncompromised." would be clearly legible on the actual version.

Masthead Logo 1


Masthead Logo 2


Masthead Logo 3


Masthead Logo 4


Masthead Logo 5


Masthead 6 (reader submitted)


Masthead 7


Masthead Logo 8 (reader submitted)


Masthead Logo 9 (reader submitted)


Masthead Logo 10 (Reader Submitted)


Masthead Logo 11 (Reader Submitted)


Masthead Logo 12

 


Masthead Logo 13 (Reader Submitted)


We also welcome your own design ideas. If you would like to submit a masthead logo for consideration, please send it to jessica at newstandardnews dot net, and I will post it here for all to see and comment on.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Jessica Azulay
TNS Co-founder

Comments...

tnswoofer: Your Input Needed!

I like Logo 5. It's classic, neat. Grabs well.

abcde06: Your Input Needed!

I also like 5.

(This is exciting!)

jeanine: Your Input Needed!

I also like no 5! Do you mind if I print it and stick it on my carwindow?

Gabriel Voiles: Your Input Needed!

5 for sure. The others are too blocky &/or difficult to read.

arikasler: Your Input Needed!

I agree too. 5 looks best. The only other one worth cosidering is 4.

Mike Stabile: Your Input Needed!

Definitely #5. Nice classy/quality look.

alberdi: Your Input Needed!

My vote is for no. 3, it is simple and discreet, kind of peeping tom perhaps, but not trying to bully anybody.

msszczep: Your Input Needed!

At the risk of evoking the movie "Short Circuit", I like Number Five. :-) Logo #5 got a professional air to it that not really there in the other logos.

By the way, I have a very good friend in New York City who is an outstanding graphic artist, and does some amazing work for nonprofit organizations from time to time. If you need more logos for mastheads, I can ask her to help design more logos for TNS.

diablo943: Your Input Needed!

I disagree. I think #1 is the best design. Remember. This is an online publication. Sans serif fonts have been proven to be easier to read online than serif fonts. Secondly, good typographical design recommends that you don't mix typefaces or styles unless to achieve a specific purpose. So, if the masthead is a serif font, then the rest of the publication should reflect that. That would make it all serif and hard to read online. Currently, we all read the TNS online and I expect we will far into the future. I say work on refining #1 a little, but stick with Sans Serif.

fiskhus: Your Input Needed!

I prefer #4. It's clean and graphically communicates the point-of-difference.

fiskhus: Your Input Needed!

I prefer #4. It's clean and graphically communicates the point-of-difference.

aej2281: Your Input Needed!

I like number 5 too- even though I do see the point of the sans sarif v. sarif argument, I think it can be worked around. I think that #5 looks more professional and catchy versus the others.

mommydearest: Your Input Needed!

After viewing all choices I had settled on #5. Then I scrolled down and read other subscriber's comments and viewed the choices again trying to look at them from other people's perspectives. I still like #5.

sukerufu: Your Input Needed!

On first glance I liked #5 but it doesn't bear close inspection, and I agree with the comments about the serif/sans-serif fonts. Also what is the deal with the small-caps in the "the" but not inthe rest of it. So therefore my vote goes to #1.

timato: Your Input Needed!

I like #1 and #5, probably #5 more -- it looks like a newspaper, which I think is important in conveying the standards of integrity and professionalism TNS upholds.

In terms of the "subhead," I think one of the tags should express the level of professionalism -- perhaps rather than one of the other tags you have to choose. Something like "unsurpassed." As much as being independent and non-profit, the quality of TNS's journalism is its greatest virtue.

Nathan: Your Input Needed!

One lonely vote for #3. I like the emphasis on "NEW", as in NEW standards, NEW integrity, and a NEW paper for People not corporations.

BigSister: Your Input Needed!

I like masthead number 5. It's very classic.

Cernig: Your Input Needed!

I most liked #5 - it is reminiscent of a mixture of the logos for the UK's Independent and Daily Telegraph newspapers - it sends a message that this is not just another website but a serious newspaper online. The sans-serif comment is well said but I think is overcome by this consideration and by the fact that the logo only really needs to be read once and be instantly recognisable on a second visit, which this one does admirably.

Oh, and congrats on the further future!

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog blog.

alexwein: Your Input Needed!

I like #4. It's clean, contemporary, and sharp. #5 is nice, but too cumbersome for my tastes. I think you want something clean and eye-catching. Just my opinion!

Jeffrey Parrott: Your Input Needed!

In order of preference:

#5 #3 #4 #1 and 2

Keep up the excellent work!!

dbhamson: Your Input Needed!

After reading all the previous comments, I still favor #5. Somehow it commands more attention than the others and conveys the idea that this is a serious and important publication.

Virginia Druhe: Your Input Needed!

I also go with #5

karni: 4 or 5

I like #4 and #5. 5 looks like a "classic" news organization masthead so it conveys right away "what's in there". Of course if you want to be different from other outlets and convey that right away then choose 4. With that one, I don't like the subtitle sticking out to the right side so much.

sajhand: Your Input Needed!

The best is #5. I like the design and the single color mast-head.

danieltubb: Your Input Needed!

1 - 4 are nice. I prefer 4. I really really dislike number 5.

Georgy Vladimirov: Your Input Needed!

I like #4. Doesn't take too much space and is nice and simple.

Jean-François Lemaire: Your Input Needed!

My vote goes to #1. I found surprising that some people prefer #5 on the grounds that it is "classic" or "serious newspaper-like". I think this is exactly what The NewStandard is not (or is trying not to be): "classic" and (Heaven forbids) "serious/broadsheet newspaper-like". #1 is neither. It is modern and clean.

Benjamin Melançon: I like the old one! But put the web address in.

And #5 is second place. But whatever one you choose please please please put the web site address in the tagline of the logo-- newstandardnews.net or something shorter but you ARE an on-line newspaper and people need to be able to remember the address. I almost couldn't find my way back after my first visit. Congrats etc. and don't get and I think we'll all keep reading no matter what logo you choose.

blucht: Your Input Needed!

Number 5 by a mile. It captures the true tradition of journalism, while establishing this is a new standard for journalism.

jenahjane: Your Input Needed!

No. 5 has the most professional look.

syndi: Your Input Needed!

Number 5 because the information in blue is clear and as important as the title.

buermann: Your Input Needed!

I vote for 3. I like an organizational masthead with a little transparency.

Ryno: Your Input Needed!

1-4 are the choices I like the best. Number 5 looks like is very traditional, with its newspaper-like heading. We need a heading that can set us apart, something fresh, and new. The reason why I read The NewStandard is because it is refreshing, true media coverage, not like the traditional newspapers I aviod

Mennonite: Your Input Needed!

Number 5 is great! Thanks so much for being awesome, NewStandard!

apromisemade: Your Input Needed!

5 looks very professional.

3 looks a little like CMJ's (College Music Journal) masthead.

emersberger: Your Input Needed!

Number 5 is best in my opinion

mjw: Your Input Needed!

I vote for #5 then #1. #5 is striking and catches the eye. of the non-"traditional" logos #1 is the best - clear and direct, also emphasizes the smaller text more than #2.

BarneyBate: Your Input Needed!

I say #1, with the caveat that you somehow highlight the sub-heading more like #5. #1 is clean, emphasizes NEW while suggesting NEWS, and is decisively non-traditional -- like you folks. #5 is popular, I think, because a) it embodies a more traditional newspaper graphic that we all identify with, and, importantly, b) the sub-headings are legible and leap out at us. .

harmony: Your Input Needed!

I like 5. I understand the arguments against it, and for some of the others. But I like 5. Thank you for asking for our opinions. You guys rock.

Rick S: Your Input Needed!

I'll go with #5. Seems a bit large though. Earlier comments about readability of serif fonts on the web are probably most important for small fonts, which a masthead isn't. I agree somewhat with other thoughts that something _different_ from usual logo looks could be desirable. On the other hand, we are trying to provide alternative content to the mainstream. a mainstream/professional look might be helpful to reach wider, such as #5. the subtext is good. If you want an alternative look (probably not), the original GNN.tv design was beautiful and worth looking at if someone has saved a copy [i'm not too fond of the current look].

derekg7: NEW standard, not OLD standard! :-)

I would have to say that although the old-school serifed logo (#5) is attractive and stately, I think emphasizing 'new' and 'sharp' is a better plan. #1 is the clear winner in my opinion. The font is unique enough to be distinguished above the all-pervasive (as much as I love it to bits) Helvetica of #3 and #4, but still bold and simple. The tag line could be tucked a little more neatly under the STANDARD, but overall the best choice.

lc: Number One

As people have said, number 5 is very traditional, classic, and professional (and a bit stuffy) and evokes images of the journalism of the past. It brings to mind, say, the journalism of the 1950's.

That's why I think you should go with number 1 instead.

pfsoto: Your Input Needed!

Ditto this comment: in order of preference: #5 #3 #4 #1 and 2

But, i would make 'The' in #5 a lot smaller... Acually - i like your old logo :-)

I look forward to real news!! Thank you...

jester: Your Input Needed!

5 is it!

Gregorio: Your Input Needed!

Number 5. The actual masthead didn´t seem to have any problems with the serif issue. Though, the small caps do leave some doubt... No big deal as long as the articles keep saying what they say...Peace

smonti: Your Input Needed!

#5 is my favorite, but how about changing the color of the word 'New' so as to emphasize it?

-- ste

mm22libra: Your Input Needed!

I like #5 the best.

Second is #4.

dcsambol: Your Input Needed!

I like #5. I know nothing about fonts and stuff like that, it's like art for the layman, you either like it or not. I like #5 the best.

peggym: Your Input Needed!

Okay, I guess I need to be different, but I like the top of #4 with the blue "New," but with it I like the bottom of #5 with the words "independent, ad free, etc" in blue, as well. Combine the two?

brussel: Your Input Needed!

I like no. 5 best5. Number 4 next.

Graham: ...

#4 looks good to me...i wonder if #5 is so popular because it is the only logo that hasn't been resized...?

pee-tah: spiffy

i think number 5 is pretty spiffy, it reminds me more of tv media whereas 5 calls to mind a newspaper.

i'm glad to see the old one go.

Isabelle: Your Input Needed!

Number 5's good.

jose: Your Input Needed!

By far, number 5 looks the most solid and "conservative" even. It therefore wins my trust as something that will draw attention from those who otherwise might not read TNS. Go for 5 and get some new readers!

JChavis: Your Input Needed!

Logo #5......classy and classic

jessica_azulay: Your Input Needed!

Thank you all so much for your feedback. It's really helpful. We've posted two new ones since the comments above mine. Number 6 was reader submitted. Number 7 was reader suggested. So keep the opinions coming and if anyone who has already posted wants to change their vote based on the new ones, go right ahead, but note that it's your second post.

PS. Feel free to print any of these out and put them in your car windows or anywhere else!

tthomson: Your Input Needed!

I like haveing all of the differentiators under the title; i.e., adfree, independent etc. So I think I prefer #7 or #5 if you added all the differentiators to #5

Joey Borda - starwalker: Your Input Needed!

Jessica et al... Masthead #7 gets my vote. It's so good I could have designed it. ;-)

While the old news-biz saw says it's black and white and read all over, those days are clearly gone. We live in a world of color, and not merely shades of gray. The NewStandard can certainly use the color.

Of all the submissions listed so far the clear winner is #7. Even my gay artistic genetic sensibility concurs, which otherwise rarely makes itself known. :-)

Jason Walsh: Your Input Needed!

Hate to be the voice of dissent, but I like numbers one and two.

Gill Sans is a lovely typeface with modern(ist) feel yet retaining a delicate feel with its idiosyncratic elements (for example, take a look at the lowercase italic p). My preference is for version two with perhaps looser kerning.

johnirwin: Your Input Needed!

I like # 7

Joey Borda – starwalker: Your Input Needed!

This is as good a place as any, too, to express my hope that "containers" surrounding the text of pages, including this one, lose their SQAURE external corners, i.e. if you are going to keep the rounded internal corners. The dissonance makes me absolutely crazy!

wmccarver: Your Input Needed!

#5 rocks, but I'm sold on #7 for its beauty. But! The scripts below should be those of #6. For me, #7 wins out for its expansive qualities--it seems to grow. The letter spacing creates balance, allowing the title to garner a sense of being freely expressed. What lies below it, however, has a clutter effect, there being too much to say which is why I think what lies below #6 adds a more composed, more effective rivet to the mast.

Jason Walsh: Your Input Needed!

"Good typographical design recommends that you don't mix typefaces or styles unless to achieve a specific purpose. So, if the masthead is a serif font, then the rest of the publication should reflect that."

That's not true at all. Granted, mixing too many typefaces is a bad idea but a mixture of sans-serif headlines and serif body text (Helvetica Neue Black, specifically) suited the Guardian very well from 1989 until 2005.

I'm also surprised that no-one has brought up the politics of typography. It's an interesting subject and worth looking into.

Kyla: Your Input Needed!

Hey. I'm glad to see that all those early votes for # 5 came in before # 7 was posted, because that is my choice: # 7. But I would use the darker blue. My second choice is # 1. It just looks neater than the other sans serif versions.

On 7 I would also right-align the small type under the name.

gderig: Your Input Needed!

I vote #5. It has a classic look to it and represents a classic era when the internet, for many of us, is now the trusted, ethical source for news.

jearls: Your Input Needed!

Yes, I also think 5 is the best -- though I like your present "old English" logo.

John

Meegwun: Your Input Needed!

I like the the old masthead the best - very classy. But if you intend to go with a new one, I agree that #5 is the best. But with one small change; make the "S" stand out so it can be read as either "The New Standard" or as "The News Standard."

DesertRain: Your Input Needed!

I like #3 the best. I thought #3 and #5 were the most eye catching, but #5 was far TOO classic, when the emphasis seems to be about NEW. I see the attempt to include the "new" emphasis in #7, but it just looks weird. I also like the added focus of the subheading in #5. But overall #3 does the most for me.

LindaGale: Your Input Needed!

I prefer 1-4 for the simple reason that they take up less screen space. Linda

winnylourson: Your Input Needed!

It seems to me that the #5 and #7 are more noticed because they pop out of the page, probably due the small shadow around the letters. Would it be possible to add that effect to the #1-4 series for comparison?

Maryellen: serif/sans-serif

With regard to diablo943's well-reasoned comment, I agree that sans-serif for the text body is key for ease of online reading. OTOH, I don't think that a serif masthead would necessarily detract from the overall look. My personal favorite newspaper website, as far as design is concerned, is the IHT (http://www.iht.com/). They _do_ mix a serif masthead with sans-serif text. Admittedly, the purpose of their masthead is to evoke their hardcopy paper - not the case with TNS. I'm still contemplating the masthead design (why I've not indicated my preference so far) but if possible, consider a page layout like IHT's. They offer a format - I call it invisible tabs - which loads but doesn't present the entire text of an article. It's also otherwise very well organized and the main features of their front page fit nicely within a 15 inch monitor.

Flexible_Flyer: Your Input Needed!

I vote for #5, but without "non-profit,ad free". "Independent" and "Uncompromised" alone, as in #6, reads better.

Pehota: Your Input Needed!

I really like example #7 because it is similar to #5 but I like the colour variation better.

jessica_azulay: Your Input Needed!

All this advice is confusing, but very useful, so keep it coming. I've now added an 8th logo submitted by another reader. So feel free to change your votes, yet again. :-)

TrevorCuthbert: Your Input Needed!

IMHO Number 5 looks the best.

Besides, I read for the content so the brand has little relevance. Which means that all discussion about the minutae of the masthead is definitely Old standard, not the New espoused by your wonderful website/newspaper.

jesuitlezoot: Why #8 is best so far

1. Horizontal layout best use of space on landscape computer displays. 2. Serif typeface implies credibility, seriousness. 3. Sans-serif a must for legibility of small type. 4. Typefaces (Georgia/Verdana) widely available and designed for display in low resolution. 5. Blue is color of credibility. Using gray for remaining text preserves the emphasis on "New" when logo rendered in grayscale. 6. Easily reproduced in grayscale or small type sizes. 7. Italicized tagline adds urgency and increases contrast. 8. Two typefaces maximum, please.

#1-7 serif tagline not legible on low-res screen! #1-7 blue/black will fade "New" on conversion to grayscale. #1-4 all caps hard to read! #5-7 waste precious vertical space!

Look carefully at #8 (submitted by me to address the above problems) and see if you agree.

fignewton: I vote for logo #5

Logo #5 gets my vote for Best in Show.. It has the most appealing combination of typeface, word-positioning, and color scheme.

Logos 1-4 are too blocky and highlight the word "New," which is distracting. It's too much like "New & Improved" on a box of detergent (and nobody's going to be impressed).

Logos 6 and 7 have a nice typeface and word arrangement but suffer from the same annoying highlighting as the first four.

Logo 8 has the right typeface but uses a dull word arrangement and also highlights the word "New" for no good reason.

P.S. As someone who can't even draw the stick figure in a game of hangman, I respect the design of any logo, even if it's not my favorite.

abcde06: Your Input Needed!

Perhaps a minor point, but whatever you go with, I think it ought to say "ad-free" rather than the full word "advertising."

maddibee: Your Input Needed!

I like the #5 design -- good-looking and clear. Easy to read.

didier123: Your Input Needed!

No. 5 is my favorite, and it appears that a lot of other comments are in agreement with this choice.

chingyehchen: Your Input Needed!

I like #6, I think "new standard"is a good word to represent your ideal and principle, therefore should be focused.

nityamukta: Your Input Needed!

As much as I'd like to vote "against the grain", I'll refrain. Number Five conjures up authentic and newsworthy, which is exactly what I can always expect with your publication. Keep up the great work.

diverlee: Your Input Needed!

For a change, surprisingly, I agree with most other voters; I prefer #5 by far.

cvanwey: Your Input Needed!

I like 4 and 5.

isoldembelfont: Your Input Needed!

I love # 5.

robert_fiske: Your Input Needed!

Number 5ive! It just jumped out at me.

megan_tady: Your Input Needed!

It's a tough call, only because you guys have created a couple of great options. I really think it's down to either No. 1 or No. 5. The first one because it's clean and professional looking; the second one because it's more daring and lively. Doesn't help much does it...

Jean-François Corbett: comments

About the "subtitle":

It looks and sounds better when the entire motto, "independent. advertising-free. non-profit. uncompromised," is there, rather than some portion of it.

If #1 or #2 end up being chosen, make sure to correct the typo! Although by some stretch of the imagination, "uncomprised" could presumably allude to "not being part of" a large media conglomerate...

As for the main masthead:

The mix of uppercase and lowercase in #5/#7 looks sort of strange.

#4 and others like it are reminescent of AlterNet's logo: http://alternet.org/

My choice:

#8 is the most modern- and solid-looking, with a nice choice of colours (this from a colour-blind person...). Though I would keep the subtitle in small serif font; the italics don't harmonize well with the rest.

But really, I'm just happy you're moving away from the old, pompous gothic font! And that The NewStandard will pull through!

viviane: Your Input Needed!

The ones I like best are #5 and #8. Best of luck to you [and to us all], Viviane

Terry Jones: no 5

I'd go with Number 5 - not sure why you'd want to isolate the word "new" by giving it a different colour.

regt: Your Input Needed!

Happy to follow the herd - I think #5 is clean, confident and projects an authoritative image.

Keep up the great work! (And congratulations on the successful fundraising.)

petesbigmouth: #1

I like 1 and 5. But you cant go wrong

pedrofreitas: Your Input Needed!

I prefer #4. I guess most people went for #5, because it is the 1st on the list with a more intricate font, and maybe for north-american eyes this is related with class, distinction and quality. I prefer the simple, more clear and direct type of the first four, #4 being the one I prefer.

Joey Borda – starwalker: Your Input Needed!

jessica_azulay wrote above: "All this advice is confusing, but very useful, so keep it coming. I've now added an 8th logo submitted by another reader. So feel free to change your votes, yet again. :-) "

ROTF LMAO...

I've got to stay with #7. Generated for me from another's comment though, I would drop the sub-text altogether, though the stretch of baby blue does act as a kind of projective shadow, which I like very much.

The only thing that might work better is what I can only call (and it may be improper terminology at that) a 3-D or extrusion effect, a barely discernable baby blue (robin's egg?) shadow, perspectively receding rightward, from the currently foreground TEXT. If I had the software tools I'd try to illustrate it. :-)

Look at it this way Jessica, you all get to decide. :-) There is no way to control how shaggy this "dog" might get, so enjoy the ride. ;-)

nganga1: Your Input Needed!

I like 5 with a blue THE just to add to the confusion

jessica_azulay: Your Input Needed!

This just in... Number 9.

stardesea: Your Input Needed!

I like the arangemeny of no 5. but if you change the font to number 4. old english type letters is not for your new newspaper. thanks kindly -RicH

Valv1: Your Input Needed!

Am I the only one who likes #7!! #5 is my second choice,,,so it seems like that style wins. I'm so excited to watch these changes unfold!

brendan_coyne: Your Input Needed!

I thought I would second Jessica's expression of delight at all the feedback we are getting. Though confusing, it is nice that folks care enough about what our publication looks like to take the time and regiater their preference.

I look forward to our redesign and the growth we expect this year and would like to thank you all for helping build a truly important news outlet.

And hey, for what its worth to this discussion here, I'm partial to choice number 7.

riofreddo: Your Input Needed!

I am a new Member and I like very much your present "old English" logo. But, if you have decided to change it, I would prefere n. 7

shibil: Your Input Needed!

I like the logo that you already have! Of the new ones, I'll go with number 7. It has the professionalism of 5, but the color is more catchy and inviting.

perez: Your Input Needed!

#5, #7, and #1 (in that order).

dougkat: Your Input Needed!

#5 or #8, because the second line is more prominent than in the first few selections. Otherwise, I would like 1-4 better.

jesuitlezoot: #5 and 7 a bad idea

The new #9 logo is well done and equivalent to #8. I like the tag line. The only quibble is that the tag line should be moved closer to the logotype to avoid wasted space.

I can't stress enough that the tag line *must* be in sans-serif. If not, it will become unreadable the moment the logotype is made any smaller.

While many people are attracted to #5 and #7, they waste vertical space, which is a premium resource on a landscape display. I would stay with the current logo before I would go with either of those.

Benjamin Melançon: Eight's Great

But Brian, if there is no space between "The" and "NewStandard" you will never, ever, for as long as you live, get people to accurately refer to "The NewStandard" accurately instead of as "The New Standard."

Glenn: Your Input Needed!

I go with 7 as a catchier version of 5. The rest don't stand out enough for me. My concern is that the logo should communicate the essence of the site quickly for newcomers. I think the comments about vertical space only apply once you're already at the site/ regularly using it. And by then you won't really care that you have to scroll down an extra line or two. Definitely put 'ad-free' in the strapline to make it obvious this is different. Plenty of papers claim to be 'independent' but aren't. And make the strapline larger rather than smaller for same reasons. One picky thing: make sure 'uncompromised' isn't misspelled as 'uncomprised' (as in the first few)!

molokodaisuki: 7 or 9

It's definitely either 7 or 9, forget the others. Especially the first several. The masthead is important as it will draw supporters and we don't want to have something unattractive.

7 has the better font design, but the color scheme is better on 9. It's much more effective to have the several words underneath as with 7-- the phrase underneath 9 is not nearly as strong.

nissenb: Your Input Needed!

I vote for #7. Definitely the most "eye-catching".

Bruce Nissen

purpletomorrow: five rocks

Five is by far the best; it's clear and easy to read, it's doesn't distract the reader, it gets your message across, and it's also beautiful and classic. well done!

phodd: Your Input Needed!

number 7

oakland: Your Input Needed!

#3

robinjsowards: Your Input Needed!

Another vote for no. 5. (In all fairness, though, I should say that I have a powerful irrational dislike of sans serif fonts.) Keep up the good work!

Soar: Your Input Needed!

I personally like them all, but think No. 3 works best because it seems to imply a certain 'forwardness', almost an embodiment of progressiveness, if you will. The look is very streamlined, modern (and doesn't look like it's knocking off the NYT, like mastheads 5-9) and purposeful.

LIke any progressive newsource should be, in my opinion.

The Newstandard should be making it's own way, not–stylistically speaking–following in the wake of others.

jansteph: Number 9

I like no. 9 best because it is short and to the point. I don't like the blue, or the mixed fonts real well, but the text of 9 appeals to me the most.

Lara Stewart: Your Input Needed!

It's a toss-up between 5 and 8 for me.

btw, the post above about san serif -- it's a myth. Poynter.org did a study a couple years back called "Eye Track", and there is no difference in readability between serif and san serif text.

Lara

P.S. Congratulations on the continuation of the site!

mhmele: Your Input Needed!

I like 7.

jerry best: #7 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7

#7----#7------#7----#7----#7----#7----#7[by the way--did i mention #7] it is unquestionably[always question] the one for me--- it says: who are we---THE STANDARD [by which all others are measured]---which standard are we: THE NEW STANDARD...and, why are we new---- because we are: INDEPENDENT. AD FREE. NON-PROFIT. UNCOMPROMISED. [and that would be new]---so, 'THE' and 'STANDARD' are black and go together--and, 'NEW' AND 'INDEPENDENT. AD FREE. NON-PROFIT. UNCOMPROMISED.' are in blue[and, it's important that it's light blue] and go together---depends on what you want to impact the most [and one day you may just be 'THE STANDARD' [by which all others are measured [if you aren't now]]........happy trails

dwight: no. 1 is my preference

versions 5-9, while not necessarily bad, are typographically reminiscent of the status quo leaning toward the kinds of typical treatment one finds in traditional newspaper signatures and may account, due to habit hence familiarity, why so many are leaning in that direction in their choice.

sans serif is the exception rather than the rule for newspaper identities, was originated if I'm not mistaken in the movement initiated by the Bauhaus, an approach to design which, among other things, attempted to celebrate rather than denounce new technology. it seems to me that no. 1 comes the nearest to capturing the politics and philosophy of The NewStandard and reflects more exactly this pioneering alternative to traditional sources of information.

i agree with Jason Walsh in that what Diablo 943 says about good typography is not true. fine and clever typography has the capacity of embracing an eclectic assembly of typefaces so long as the form doesn't over stretch the message.

Jason Walsh wrote: "I'm also surprised that no-one has brought up the politics of typography. It's an interesting subject and worth looking into." given the context of this online journal, why don't you get into it?

douger: Your Input Needed!

I like 5 best, but 3 is a close second. I like 3 because its smaller and hence wastes less of the page.

As you're redoing things, don't forget to give consideration to providing access for the disabled everywhere on the site.

[The color of this "Comment Body" box I'm filling out, fluorescent green with red text, is giving me a headache. What's wrong with black on white?]

-- Doug

JoshMalle: Your Input Needed!

I like #5. I like #9 to, but only the "The NewStandard" part, not the part about "Your source for the independent voice."

jamielejeune: Your Input Needed!

I agree with a few of the earlier postings that resizing on #1-4 making them appear fuzzy is tanking their ratings. I think out of #1-4, #4 is the best, but the sub-title needs to be emphasized somehow. You want a logo that goes some way towards expressing the values of the newstandard. The current logo does that by evoking images of the scripts used in the declaration of independence etc., it encourages a sense that TNS is for the people, by the people, etc. If you're going to change the logo (why, by the way, is this necessary?) I think #4 is best because it evokes a sense of progressive values and change from the past. The traditional looks of #5-9 communicate the opposit: TNS looks like just another one of the crowd of corporate media, with no sense of any difference or break from current convention. Get some new logo options if you must, but don't choose a masthead that uses the same script as Reader's Digest!

WhatNext: Your Input Needed!

5

Joey Borda - starwalker: Your Input Needed!

Bulletin, bulletin, bulletin: MY MOM likes #7 best too! Just scrolled through all of them without prompting her in the least. This 81 year old, first generation American, high school graduate, mother of 5, widow of 32 years, set-in-her-ways but loveable WOMAN, says #7 is BEST!

Now, nobody here wants to contradict my mom, do they?!

/s/ Joey

Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 9:38 AM EST

FalsSenhal: #'s 8 and 9 save space

I hate to be the first to contradict Joey's mother (my apologies!), but I must agree with the foregoing comments about the importance of vertical space on a landscape web layout. I prefer numbers 8 and 9 for that reason: they're clear, easy to read, and on one line. And most importantly, they don't occupy more vertical space than necessary, leaving that very important top space available for the actual site content.

Cancelledu-00000868: Your Input Needed!

I pick number 5. It's clean, modern-looking, easy to read, not overpowering, and the color of the blue balances with the intensity of the black.

lc: Second post

Before I voted for #1 and didn't like #5. But somehow I like #7 the best now. It's really nice!

I don't feel like you'll have much problem with any of these. They're all much better than the current masthead. Although I'm not sure why you need the motto in the masthead itself --- couldn't that be an "optional" thing? As an example, the NYT masthead is just NYT, not NYT _sub_ All the News [sic] That's "Fit" to Print (gag). Nevertheless the motto does often appear beneath the masthead... really minor points I know!

Jeff and Karen Hay: Logo

We liked #6 the best with a couple of changes - Have "New" in Blue and "The" and "Standard" in black. We particularly like having just the two words underneath - it's more concise and powerful.

brotherpayne: Your Input Needed!

Well, somebody's got to be the oddball. I vote for number 11. I like the color and the fade contrasted with the formal look of the font. But, as always, it's what's under the masthead that counts!

jessica_azulay: Your Input Needed!

Just for your information, I've added 10-13 since my last post and we are working on getting clearer images of the ones that are a bit fuzzy. We here on staff are overwhelmed and excited by the outpouring of advice and support. We will be taking it all into consideration as we try to figure out which one makes the most sense with the new redesign. In the meantime, keep the comments coming. More soon from TNS staff about other stuff we've been up to.

giorgos: ..

5, 6, 7, 11 or 12. Not really helpful I guess but these ones look more neat and proffessional. keep up

Mohsen: Your Input Needed!

Any one who read your pages would find out it is ad free. On the other hand your work should speak for its qualities and not your claims.

I suggest logo # 7 with same color but the following under it: independent news and analysis

If my suggestion does not sound and look good, I vote for logo# 6 with color in logo # 7. Thank you for asking our opinions.

Gabriel Voiles: Your Input Needed!

12 is the best of the new entries, probably the best overall. 13 is simply awful.

dh32019: Your Input Needed!

I agree that classic is best. #5.

mketo: Your Input Needed!

#10 appeals to me most. I like the clean look.

lambart: Your Input Needed!

I would probably prefer #5 like most folks seem to, if it weren't for #7. Obviously very similar, I think #7 is better as it emphasizes the "New". In fact I think it looks like "New" has "forced" its way into the logo there... and I think that's part of the whole point! The New Standard is not "the standard". We're all sick of "the standard" BS or we wouldn't be here, looking for someone to set a NEW standard.

I really liked another user's suggestion about "unsurpassed" for subtext at first, and then I decided that sounds too much like the typical meaningless, unprovable, corporate chest-beating that I'd expect to find with a "TM" after it (to make it so no one else can make the claim). History proves that no one can claim to be "unsurpassable", even if it *were* possible for it to be an objective statement in this context. But "uncompromised" is a statement of quality, not a boastful superlative, and can't be countered unless someone catches The New Standard in a compromising position. And that of course is when I, my eyes and my money go away.

I welcome any other opportunities you can give us to provide input on plans for the new layout. I'm a recent subscriber not *because* of the current look of the site, but despite it. I really hope you make things look a lot smoother... and yes, stylish. As long as the reporting doesn't get "stylish".

huberman: A Vote for #10

I'm a latecomer to this discussion; I've been too busy to participate previously. Of the entries submitted so far, I prefer #10. The serif font for "The NewStandard" is distinctly different from classic Times, thus giving an impression of newness and distinctness--and yet it's a serif font, which gives an impression of rigor and professionalism. I agree completely with previous commentators who have pointed out that the small subheading needs to be in a sans-serif font. Number 10 is one of the few entries (8, 9 and 13 are the others) that combine a serif main heading with a sans-serif subheading. Of this small group, I think #10 is clearly the best. The only improvements I would recommend would be to make the blue main heading somewhat darker and the gray subheading much darker, for easier readability. In fact, I suspect that pure primary blue and black would be fine.

nicky_fingaz: Your Input Needed!

I'm also pretty late on this one, but I like Logo 5, 10, and 11. I can't really narrow it down more than that.

Peace, love & chicken grease.

NF

Marah: Your Input Needed!

1 and 2: Don't like the smallness of the subhead. 3: Don't like the see-through "NEW" 4: OK if you gotta choose a blocky one. 5: Liked it until sukerufu pointed out the small-caps in the "the" but not in the rest of it. Now REALLY don't like it. 6: No! Don't take out "ad-free" and "non-profit" Don't like grayed-out "The". 7: Liked it until I noticed same as 5. Why capitalize the THE and not rest? 8: Don't like grayed-out stuff 9: Don't like it without the "independent. ad-free. non-profit. uncompromised." 10: Great except yuck on the grayed-out. 11: Cool, except REALLY don't like the slashes. 12: Perfect! I VOTE FOR 12 ! 13. Cool. No, weird. No, uhhhh, I don't know. Mesmerizing. But not in a good way. I vote for 12. Or 12.

edgwize: Your Input Needed!

Of the ones shown here, I like Logo # 7, with perhaps # 5 being my second choice. The splash of color in # 7 seems to give it a slightly more "cutting edge" style, but it is professional in appearance. (Likewise # 11 is nice, but that goes a little over the top.) In my opinion, some of your decision should be based on what you want to say: web-based or print-based or both, traditional and professional, or cutting edge, or somewhere inbetween. I already sent my suggestions along these lines... Good luck and keep up the great work! --DH

BEZERKO: Your Input Needed!

Of the logos submitted, I prefer logo #5. I kind of like the idea of TheNewStandard going for a look of a American Revolutionary war era newspaper, like it was printed on the same press that produced Tom Paine's Common Sense or a newspaper out of Boston or Philladelphia durring that period.

Woody1968: Your Input Needed!

I like 12. It's classic yet has some subtle flash with the color.


Post a Comment
Subscribe by e-mail to comments on this entry.

The NewStandard ceased publishing on April 27, 2007.