“Machines for Life” Pitchfork cover story
2 Comments on ““Machines for Life” Pitchfork cover story”
I know we’re speaking to fonts here—and these choices look good when the browser is big—but this Pitchfork feature shows off my least favorite aspect of editorial design: gimmickry.
It’s hard to tell whether the site expects you to play with the page as if a game (a choppy experience) or to read the story. For example, a pull-quote slides in as you read the story, begging for attention. In print, pull-quotes serve various roles such as breaking up dense, grey pages or catching the reader’s attention as they flip through a magazine full of stories and ads. Perhaps this one (which shows up around the first story break) is only meant to stop an over-zealous scroller in their tracks. Many websites are trying static pull-quotes now, though unfortunately common is the floated div next its quoted paragraph. But a pixel-coordinated, interactive pull-quote is merely a distraction. It’s an annoying prod to Look over here! Stop reading the story! A typographer who respected the reader’s experience wouldn’t bother with such a disservice.
Lastly, I think that “responsive layout” is too vague a term here (and in general really, as it seems to imply “good” but so often means unrealized hierarchy transformations). In this Daft Punk article, the typography merely shrinks down as the browser gets smaller, eventually becoming unreadable. At that point, who cares which fonts are in use?
unrealized hierarchy transformations
Say more about that, André.