Staring at the Wallpaper

Part of what I'm doing to prepare for next month's panel discussion is look at a wide range of how different publications handle print and web content differently. With my background in design, one of the publications I picked up first was Wallpaper, a magazine that handles interiors, fashion, automobile, and product design with a fetish-istic flair, to see what they are doing across different media.

Content choices
In both web and print, they're taking the less-is-more approach to writing. It's about visual culture, so they let the quality of the photographs tell most of the story. The stories they select are unabashedly chosen for what's newest and trendiest. The celebrities included, people like Kayne West or fashion designer Stefano Pilati, are agents of change or avatars of couture design philosophy.

Presentation of content
The big picture of how the arrangement between web and print differs is customization. The web side sorts by category rather than theme, which allows me to choose my own experience with their content based on personal interests. If I'm not interested in automobiles, I can dive right into architecture. If I have a preference for media type, I can simply skip over the pictures and copy and head straight for the video. Nothing too cutting edge, but the minimal interface gets me to the content I'm looking for almost immediately.

High points of both web and print
• They keep the headlines and writing concise and nearly devoid of tone. In terms of creating editorial for a publication that's only about visual culture and style, the choice is clearly intentional and well-executed across the board.

• They use incredible photographers for portraits, objects, architecture, and interiors. They understand the differences between these types of photography, and they're using the right people to capture the nuances of each kind of subject matter.

• The video is handled in a web-appropriate way. Lots of motion, music, bits of decoration, focus on the objects and the environments, all broken down into bite-sized chunks. They have longer videos that feature interview content that is recorded at higher quality and are filmed as minimal documentaries.

The nature of Wallpaper
Wallpaper is pretty topical. I don't think their editors would disagree with me, based on what they named their publication: a decorative paper that we use to cover more solid surfaces.

Like real wallpaper, we're given the beauty (the high gloss photos), and the pattern (a carefully curated and stylized selection of objects and interiors), but the editors do not necessarily show us the logic that drives them (the clearly prefer YSL for men's clothing, but do not explain to the audience why).

If they handle the content in a shallow way, the editors of Wallpaper still do something good. They narrow the scope of the world, and create a place where the people who take risks, and are most in touch design trends, are recognized for their good taste and awareness.

The Great Nonfiction Reading List

                               Several years ago, Johns Hopkins Magazine's Dale Keiger tossed out a query to the CUE listserv in which he asked folks to name their favorite nonfiction titles. Two years and three versions later, Dale had compiled four-plus pages worth of titles.

I'd like to resurrect the reading list and include it in our list of resources in this year's Forum conference packet. To be as comprehensive as possible, I'm issuing another call for suggestions.

I'll prime the pump:

• Newjack by Ted Conover
• What it Takes by Richard Ben Cramer
• Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard
• Can't Remember What I Forgot by Sue Halpern
• Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer
• Random Family by Adrian Nicole LeBlanc
• Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis
• The End of Nature by Bill McKibben
• The Pine Barrens by John McPhee
• Up in the Old Hotel by Joseph Mitchell 
• The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean
• The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan

So, what do you have to add? Hit the comments!

Steal This Idea

Last week a friend sent me a link to Smith Magazine. They're home to the Six-Word Memoirs (which are exactly what they sound like). Browse the plethora of six-word memoirs others have written or write / upload your own. The website serves as a repository for all the memoirs submitted and Smith has just released a second book of the best memoirs.

(Inspection of the website reveals that Smith Magazine isn't the magazine of Smith College but that doesn't make the idea any less appropriate for appropriation.)

A few memoir samples:
My world's a play, awkwardly cast.
There's a lesson in here somewhere.
70 years, few tears, hairy ears.

Pretty simple, pretty great. But why should you care?

The barrier to entry is low. If you're reading a memoir, 10 seconds. If you're writing one, you're free to spend as much time as you want but could reasonably be done with your memoir in five minutes.

The reader is involved. The invitation to submit your own story is a great way to engage the community of people reading the memoirs. And to keep people coming back. Smith even lets you send a memoir to a friend as an e-card.

This could work brilliantly for a college magazine. Even a pretty lazy alum would likely be willing to submit a ten-word recap of their college days. Maybe a ten word recap of what they're doing now. Or the call for submissions could vary every issue as you make requests specific to academics, campus traditions, athletics or something entirely different.

Basically, find something easy for your readers to get excited about contributing to and then make it easy for them to contribute. The web could be used as your tool to ask for submissions and to harvest quick, simple, thematic posts from your readers. And it could be the place where someone goes to read all the submissions. Then your printed magazine is the place to showcase the best / quirkiest submissions on a semi-regular basis, perpetuating the process.

And if you're looking to steal this idea and add it to your magazine, I'm guessing a talented programmer could  recreate this functionality and add it to a website in a day or two.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Howdy. I'm Patrick, one of the guys doing the pre-conference workshop, "Beyond the PDF". Our plan for the workshop is to share thoughts / experiences in publishing... both in print and on the web, both inside and outside of higher-ed. To provide some context for where I'm coming from I thought it'd be helpful to crank out a series of blog posts highlighting magazines I think do good jobs fusing print / web (as well as a post or two on magazines that could/should be doing a much better job).

Without further delay...

GOOD is Great
Do you know GOOD magazine? I hope so, because it rocks. In addition to being beautifully designed and compellingly written it's also one of the most socially aware publications I've read. In their own words: "GOOD is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. Since 2006 we've been making a magazine, videos, and events for people who give a damn. This website is an ongoing exploration of what GOOD is and what it can be." Pretty snazzy, right? It only gets better; 100% of your "subscription" donation goes to a non-profit.

Since I need to constrain the list of things I like about the magazine to a word-count you're willing to tolerate I'll try to be brief. GOOD is one of my favorites because:

1) They indicate what's available in print, what's unique to the web.
When you browse the magazine online, each article has tag that let's you know whether it's repurposed from the print edition or unique to their blog, their video archive or something totally different. Because I have access to both the editions of the magazine, when I'm reading online I tend to concentrate on the additional content only available on the web.

2) You can browse the content available online in a number of ways.
You can browse articles in the web edition by most recently posted, most discussed (the site allows reader commentary) or 'most good' (the site also employs a Digg.com type interface that allows readers to give articles a thumbs-up or thumbs-down). There's also a tag to denote content from the current issue of the magazine.

3) Context is king.
GOOD takes care to provide a lot of contextual info about their content. From an individual article page you can see the additional articles GOOD considers to be related, you can see who else has recently read this article (via the "Recent readers" feature) and you can dive into additional articles written by the current author. So if/when you find an article you really like there's an array of options available to keep exploring the topic.

4) The website hypes the print edition (and vice versa).
The web edition of the magazine clearly highlights the benefits of the print edition while pushing readers to explore physical magazine. And when reading the print edition they're constantly highlighting URLs you can head to in you want more depth.

5) There's a vibrant community, making things happen.
Readers of the online edition are encouraged to create online profiles. Once you have a profile you're able to tag and rate content, to create content and to contact other readers. This allows the calls to action sprinkled throughout both editions to be a lot more meaningful... instead of asking you to read more they're asking you to do more.

So that's my take... I love GOOD. What's your take?

When Ok is not OK

There is a great commentary on the blog for the Society of Publications Designers that makes a case for boldness in periodical design. In part, the writer says:

If people, and advertisers, are asking if print still matters, won't they question its validity even more if the print in question--magazines, newspapers, etc.--is safe and expected? Won't readers simply get bored and go somewhere else? And conversely, won't readers stay with us if what they get every day, week, month is brilliant, fun, and surprising, and exciting and smart?

Read the whole piece here and let us know what you think!