Ramsin / September 17, 2004 3:01 AM

I don't.

jennifer / September 17, 2004 8:49 AM

as long as the content as the same, it could be designed by dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths for all i care.

Ian Olsen-Clark / September 17, 2004 9:35 AM

I think they did a good job. The content was always good and that hasn't changed. The design now feels more contempory and accessible, like a quality newspaper week-end supplement.

Overall good to see and I am sure none of the changes, were a reaction to the forthcoming TimeOut Chicago :)

Andrew / September 17, 2004 10:46 AM

I like it, although the new cover confused me -- I expected to open section one from there, not have to flip it to what seems like the back page and read on from there.

But the design is clean and eye-catching, and would flow easily into a redesign of their website, which is in desperate need of updating.

Shylo / September 17, 2004 11:01 AM

I hate the Reader's logo.

CW / September 17, 2004 11:17 AM

Are we talking about the website or the paper version? B/c the website was redesigned like a year ago. But, yes, that logo/banner needs to go.

Andrew / September 17, 2004 11:31 AM

We're talking the newspaper, which debuted a new design yesterday.

Steve / September 17, 2004 12:00 PM

Speaking of redesigns, what happened to the comments option for the Airbags columns?

steven / September 17, 2004 12:22 PM

haven't seen it yet, but yes, the logo has to go. how about a reader logo redesign contest, reader people?

daruma / September 17, 2004 12:36 PM

CHANGE IS BAD.

Wendy / September 17, 2004 12:48 PM

Aww, I'm kind of nostalgic for the Reader banner/logo, the way it's so 70s. It's from a time when Old Town was full of hippies, and the word "yuppie" hadn't even been invented. That font totally says "Fern Bar."

dav3 / September 17, 2004 12:53 PM

love it!

although like andrew i too was confused opening up section one, after that it was bliss. it actually seemed like there was ALOT more to read. was there more content in this issue?

biff / September 17, 2004 1:57 PM

Am I the only that thinks the Reader redesign sucks?? They're getting all Tribune on our ass. Bigger font, more color, big pretty pictures? C'mon! The Reader is our local "alternative" press. The focus should be on the writing and the stories presented. The old minimalist design was quite refreshing in today's world of "Red Eye" journalism. Obviously I'm not going to stop reading the Reader, but my first impressions are not good...
and I'm a bit concerned about the direction that the publication is taking.

Shylo / September 17, 2004 3:08 PM

Fern bar! lol.

Cinnamon / September 17, 2004 3:13 PM

I picked up the paper, all excited to see what they'd done and went, "That's it?" It's better I guess. But it doesn't knock my socks off like I expected. Hopefully they don't redesign their writing.

Kris / September 17, 2004 11:13 PM

Meh.

I like that there's a real TOC for Section One where there never was before. (That's Table Of Contents, not Time Out Chicago. Heh.)

Like Andrew I was confused when I first opened it and it was upside-down and backwards.

The calendars on the fronts of Two and Three seem like a good idea in theory, but they come off overcrowded and busy in practice.

"Chicago Antisocial." Is this really going to be a weekly feature? "Susanna's Night Out" for hipsters, just what everyone needed.

Are those serif headlines? What is this, the Trib? That looks so, so wrong.

Mostly, though, I think "Color. BFD."

Lyle from Lisle / September 18, 2004 12:14 AM

Don't know why I thought *this* would change, but . . . sigh . . . my lips still move when I Read it.

LfL

Lyle from Lisle / September 20, 2004 11:31 PM

The redesign trickled down to The Suburban Reader, aka The Reader's Guide to Arts & Entertainment. Tons more spot color, and internal shuffles that I have yet to compare with previous version(s).

Funny little apercu -- as The Suburban Reader's "cover story" is usually not the same as the city edition, but instead a thousand-word arts review/essay or subject think-piece from that (or previous) week's full version, the headline for Friday, September 17 was:

SAME OLD LEFTY CLAPTRAP

It was a Jonathan Rosenbaum essay about the new John Sayles flick "Silver City." But -- and I don't think The Reader engages in such self-depracating irony, this was unintentional -- it was the perfect headline for an edition portending change. Reassuring even . . .

LfL