Newsweek Unveils Redesign of Magazine, Site

As a long-time Newsweek subscriber, my reactions to the redesign of this mass-market newsweekly was perhaps to be expected. Familiarity falls victim to a "new and improved" ethos. Old favorites are not where I expect them to be, or at least are sufficiently altered to be off-putting. It feels like someone broke into my home while I was sleeping and rearranged all the furniture in my home. But redesigns are like that -- your reflexes are jarred and your expectations confounded. The question is how the "improvements" will stand up over time. It's "new" but is it "improved." Some initial thoughts. --It "feels" more substantive. There seems to be more words per story; fewer of the "Periscope" style, tidbits you can read in the time it takes to perform the average bathroom duty. --The separation into thematic sections -- "The Take", "Scope", "Culture" gives the articles a nice context but the section names aren't reinforced in the footer. Instead, they feature a meaningless plug for Newsweek.com, a completely self-serving non-sequitor. --The column width feels more difficult to scan. Reading these articles feels more effortful. Is it the writing? Is it the width? Both? I noticed it especially in the editor's note "Top of the Week." --The design is bold and for the most part well-thought-out. They're intelligent choices. The Scope section page features Carrie Prejean sashaying in her bikini, but with a big horizontal red banner across the controversial surgically enhanced portion of her body. The Conventional Wisdom piece marries the up/down arrow with a photo of the person in question (and no sideways arrows.) Graphically interesting though it diminishes the impact of the smaller, easier to read arrows. Like I said. It's bold. --A nit: they don't feel a need to mark the conclusion of stories graphically. For every story, I had to turn the page to see if it continued or not. Not a big deal, but it detracts from the impact the story might otherwise have had. Why couldn't use a simple diamond or even the omnipresent "N" that sits in the footer as if to say, "this is the bottom of the page in case you didn't know." --The substance: most importantly, some articles seem weightier, like they want to live up to the promise of a more serious, graphical design and editorial approach. Jon Meacham's profile of Obama is first rate, Farid Zakaria continues to shine as one of the most sensible, and well-informed, commentators, Jacob Weisberg isn't up to his usual standard, a bit snarkier than usual, Howard Fineman delivers his consistently solid if workmanlike column, Tina Brown, well I hope she's merely a guest columnist. --Bottom line? Some smart design choices. Let's see how it wears over time. Interesting to see if they can sustain a quality level that they've achieved in this two-weeks-to-prepare first issue. Have they bitten off more graphically than they can chew editorially?