On Gannett Graphics and Web Design.

[Jess 1110]

Forking this from the ESPN Digital Center 2 thread:

 

HulkieD,

 

tell me how you feel when you get to be 40 and you can't read the liberal-looking graphics.

 

This graphics package is great if you are a coder or a DBA admin, because those people have no artistic abilities whatsoever and when you lower the standards to the have nots, they love it. If you have the haves, you'd be pissed with this new package.

 

I don't like the lowercase on the bottom line and like I've said before flat looking graphics can't be done in a world still (whether you like it or not!) receiving channels via SDI or even a CRT based set (yes, there are still CRTs laying around being used!)

 

Now if they got the deathbed Belo look, maybe I'd feel different! ;-)

I usually don't respond to things like this but I feel like I have to.

 

First off, I wear corrective lenses that are pretty thick. Without them, I can't really see. I'm also 31, which is nine years away from 40. I have streamed the Gannett graphics to a small HD monitor and have found them satisfactory.

 

Second, and more pressing:

 

Your dismissal of web designers and developers is extremely misguided and does a disservice to what we actually do. Many web designers and developers work in code. But the majority of web designs begin in a design application like Photoshop, Illustrator, or more recently Sketch. These comps are then translated into code. It is a more challenging task than most people would probably realize, because it involves going from something you can see to something that's much more abstract.

 

Many web designers, myself included, would give their spleen for a product that translates Photoshop-like designs into real code. So far that has not happened, not for lack of trying.

 

I appreciate the Gannett graphics because they use some of the principles used in UX and web design. They use grid layout, spot color, typography, and so on. It's an innovative approach that translates well to the TV screen.

[Thundershock MN 169]

Hulkie,

 

You can carry the flag on this one. But, I'll be the "sacrificial" little drummer boy that has your back. I have resisted posted my feelings on the Gannett graphics and web design as I didn't want get into a digital pissing match. But, since I'm in early I'll share my thoughts. For the life of me I cannot understand the "hate" for the Gannett graphics and web design. They created a "theme/look" that is carried across all platforms: Web, Mobile, TV & Print (via USA Today.) The broadcast graphics are simple, clean and easy to read. I've viewed them on TV's of multiple sizes, tablet and smartphone. Never have I had a issue with reading them on any of those different devices. The websites are relatively uncluttered and fairly easy to navigate. The USA Today app that follows the same theme is again very easy to use and navigate. And, best of all the whole thing allows the various entities to still maintain their current logos. In an era of homogenized branding/logos (ie: Fox, CBS, etc.) they could have slapped a circle/globe logo on every property. But, they didn't...I really think that's something that should be applauded.

 

I don't know that I'd rank the broadcast package "the best." But, I'd definitely rank it pretty high up there. Overall (web, mobile, tv, print) though I think Gannett has created a nice corporate look.

[cbs2newengland 71]

I wasn't sure how to respond, if I should or should not or what. I didn't mean to attack any specific individual. Sorry if that came off that way. I was challenging one's view thats all.

 

 

Second, and more pressing:

 

Your dismissal of web designers and developers is extremely misguided and does a disservice to what we actually do. Many web designers and developers work in code. But the majority of web designs begin in a design application like Photoshop, Illustrator, or more recently Sketch. These comps are then translated into code. It is a more challenging task than most people would probably realize, because it involves going from something you can see to something that's much more abstract.

 

Many web designers, myself included, would give their spleen for a product that translates Photoshop-like designs into real code. So far that has not happened, not for lack of trying.

 

I appreciate the Gannett graphics because they use some of the principles used in UX and web design. They use grid layout, spot color, typography, and so on. It's an innovative approach that translates well to the TV screen.

 

 

By no intention was I trying to diss web designers/coders. What I have a problem is a lack of common sense. A lack of reaching an appropriate audience, and a lack of quality. I personally hate lower thirds that do not have a drop shadow (because for my eyes it causes it to key into the graphic - eye catching?) or if its going to be more colorful than the USA Today print edition, then make those thin lines pop out.

 

There is nothing abstract about the challenge of coding. Its lack of common sense. Coders do not care about any PC made 3 years ago and their arrogance ruins my respect for all. My MacBook of late 2006 (now the possession of the mother) was a frequent fire hazard because the CPU was always on, and the thing could never get a break. Why? because all the "clean" and "minimal" websites are actually cluttered on the back side of the browser eating away every resource of one's computer. (and all these "responsive" UIs just make it worse.) Can we admit that the hipster demographic cares about nothing about the substance of a local story, only to be "cool" to appear to "fit in"?

 

This sentence gives me less respect to the hacks (no pun intended ) to the designer community "But the majority of web designs begin in a design application like Photoshop, Illustrator, or more recently Sketch. These comps are then translated into code."

 

And I wonder the creative professionals are squawking about the new look of the web, and how iOS 7 looks silly and soon the Mac OS 10.10 will look. I think there is a real reason to not love coders IMO.

 

Whether its Gannett or ESPN or another entity that is cutting quality to be "cool" its not. Call me old fashioned but I take graphics intended for broadcast TV any day.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

I wasn't sure how to respond, if I should or should not or what. I didn't mean to attack any specific individual. Sorry if that came off that way. I was challenging one's view thats all.

 

 

 

By no intention was I trying to diss web designers/coders. What I have a problem is a lack of common sense. A lack of reaching an appropriate audience, and a lack of quality. I personally hate lower thirds that do not have a drop shadow (because for my eyes it causes it to key into the graphic - eye catching?) or if its going to be more colorful than the USA Today print edition, then make those thin lines pop out.

 

There is nothing abstract about the challenge of coding. Its lack of common sense. Coders do not care about any PC made 3 years ago and their arrogance ruins my respect for all. My MacBook of late 2006 (now the possession of the mother) was a frequent fire hazard because the CPU was always on, and the thing could never get a break. Why? because all the "clean" and "minimal" websites are actually cluttered on the back side of the browser eating away every resource of one's computer. (and all these "responsive" UIs just make it worse.) Can we admit that the hipster demographic cares about nothing about the substance of a local story, only to be "cool" to appear to "fit in"?

 

This sentence gives me less respect to the hacks (no pun intended ) to the designer community "But the majority of web designs begin in a design application like Photoshop, Illustrator, or more recently Sketch. These comps are then translated into code."

 

And I wonder the creative professionals are squawking about the new look of the web, and how iOS 7 looks silly and soon the Mac OS 10.10 will look. I think there is a real reason to not love coders IMO.

 

Whether its Gannett or ESPN or another entity that is cutting quality to be "cool" its not. Call me old fashioned but I take graphics intended for broadcast TV any day.

 

I want to add to what you have to say by saying that I also don't know what it is with the hate of Arial as a font in broadcast graphics. Arial is clean and easy to read. All these fancy fonts may be eye candy but they are not easier to read and sometimes if I don't have glasses on I have to squint to read the text. Thereby it takes much longer to get the information you need.

 

I don't like using this analogy, but I will. Why do you think the DOT uses a certain font on interstate highway signs? Because it is easy to read and process the information quickly. When you're driving a vehicle you only see the sign once. There's no time to waste. That's also why, for the most part, the signs are kept clean and to a minimum. They get to the point without giving you any fluff.

 

 

(unless you're in Texas then you see this ugly font instead:

)

 

You'll never see Gotham or any other fancy font on a highway sign because it is not easy to read.

 

Now I'm not saying we should use the highway sign fonts for broadcast graphics but TV graphics should be the same way in terms of which fonts you use (like Helvetica or Arial) and design principles, because the CG operator only leaves up the supers for five seconds before taking them down.

 

I'm a bit old-fashion in some of my beliefs and am generally not very open to change (I'm sure that has come across in my posts) and I do think there is a certain segment of the population who turns a blind eye to this and wants people to embrace the change or else. Sorry but some of us like the "old" way and don't see anything wrong with it...

 

Also, you're right, I don't think graphics should be a one size fits all approach. Designing for the web and designing for television are two different things. Television predated the internet by over 50 years. They were not necessarily designed to be interchangeable with one another and when TV was being developed I don't think Philo Farnsworth ever envisioned the internet....

 

There's a reason I always scored low on creativity in grade school, or why I'm not a graphics artist. I'm simple, right to the point, and bland, as some would call it.

:rant:

[Jess 1110]

Believe it or not, I agree with most of sanewsguy's points.

 

FHWA Highway Gothic - or the commercial version, Interstate - is one of my favorite fonts. It's clean, easy to read from a distance, and distinctive. I also agree on Arial - while it's seen as a poor knockoff of Helvetica, it was absolutely fine on the CBS O&Os. In fact, I often tuned to them during breaking news events because of those lower thirds. It was so easy to read and get informed. (I'm starting to think the Giant Glass Eye will be sorely missed by me.)

 

I want graphics to be more like highway signs, not less. Gannett's graphics are pretty close to that idea - DIN is a pretty damn easy font to read - with a simple black bar and bold text.

 

I'm not advocating that Internet and TV graphics should be identical. They shouldn't. I think that TV graphics should be approached differently. We need less of WPVI's approach - which is throw things at you with abandon - and we need more things like Gannett, or WBZ, or NBC Look F. Hell, even the Giant Glass Eye. I think adopting PRINCIPLES of web design - grid system and bold typography being two of them - is something motion designers should begin looking at.

 

(Oh, and that ugly font in Texas? That was intended to succeed Highway Gothic. I say intended because FHWA is rescinding usage of that typeface and going back to good ol' Interstate/Highway Gothic.)

[cbs2newengland 71]

 

I want to add to what you have to say by saying that I also don't know what it is with the hate of Arial as a font in broadcast graphics. Arial is clean and easy to read. All these fancy fonts may be eye candy but they are not easier to read and sometimes if I don't have glasses on I have to squint to read the text. Thereby it takes much longer to get the information you need.

 

I don't like using this analogy, but I will. Why do you think the DOT uses a certain font on interstate highway signs? Because it is easy to read and process the information quickly. When you're driving a vehicle you only see the sign once. There's no time to waste. That's also why, for the most part, the signs are kept clean and to a minimum. They get to the point without giving you any fluff.

 

 

(unless you're in Texas then you see this ugly font instead:

)

 

You'll never see Gotham or any other fancy font on a highway sign because it is not easy to read.

 

Now I'm not saying we should use the highway sign fonts for broadcast graphics but TV graphics should be the same way in terms of which fonts you use (like Helvetica or Arial) and design principles, because the CG operator only leaves up the supers for five seconds before taking them down.

 

I'm a bit old-fashion in some of my beliefs and am generally not very open to change (I'm sure that has come across in my posts) and I do think there is a certain segment of the population who turns a blind eye to this and wants people to embrace the change or else. Sorry but some of us like the "old" way and don't see anything wrong with it...

 

Also, you're right, I don't think graphics should be a one size fits all approach. Designing for the web and designing for television are two different things. Television predated the internet by over 50 years. They were not necessarily designed to be interchangeable with one another and when TV was being developed I don't think Philo Farnsworth ever envisioned the internet....

 

There's a reason I always scored low on creativity in grade school, or why I'm not a graphics artist. I'm simple, right to the point, and bland, as some would call it.

:rant:

 

Good points.

 

 

Believe it or not, I agree with most of sanewsguy's points.

 

FHWA Highway Gothic - or the commercial version, Interstate - is one of my favorite fonts. It's clean, easy to read from a distance, and distinctive. I also agree on Arial - while it's seen as a poor knockoff of Helvetica, it was absolutely fine on the CBS O&Os. In fact, I often tuned to them during breaking news events because of those lower thirds. It was so easy to read and get informed. (I'm starting to think the Giant Glass Eye will be sorely missed by me.)

 

I want graphics to be more like highway signs, not less. Gannett's graphics are pretty close to that idea - DIN is a pretty damn easy font to read - with a simple black bar and bold text.

 

I'm not advocating that Internet and TV graphics should be identical. They shouldn't. I think that TV graphics should be approached differently. We need less of WPVI's approach - which is throw things at you with abandon - and we need more things like Gannett, or WBZ, or NBC Look F. Hell, even the Giant Glass Eye. I think adopting PRINCIPLES of web design - grid system and bold typography being two of them - is something motion designers should begin looking at.

 

(Oh, and that ugly font in Texas? That was intended to succeed Highway Gothic. I say intended because FHWA is rescinding usage of that typeface and going back to good ol' Interstate/Highway Gothic.)

 

I agree except for WBZ's and NBC's Look F. WPVI's look is so radical even a few years since it launched. I believe they still had their simple graphics after their move, then went radical a few months/year later. I was a WCAU Look F fan myself, enough eyecandy but strong on the substance. The stock version is so lame, and so unprofessional and so F25-54 demo and alienating the male audience. WBZ's was more of an "F' you" treatment to the CBS O&O group and their look showed action by how crappy it looked. It was so simple it must've been designed by coders.

[WCAUTVNBC10 408]

 

(Oh, and that ugly font in Texas? That was intended to succeed Highway Gothic. I say intended because FHWA is rescinding usage of that typeface and going back to good ol' Interstate/Highway Gothic.)

 

FHWA is leaving up to the individual states as to how/if they're adopting the new font (called Clearview). There are guidelines as to when to use it and when to use Highway Gothic (like Clearview is never to be use for numbers unless its in a street name).

[LexTVandRadio 412]

WHAS is getting the new look.

 

http://www.whas11.com/community/Video-Change-is-coming-to-your-WHAS11-newscast-265419411.html

[huebomont 3]

By no intention was I trying to diss web designers/coders. What I have a problem is a lack of common sense. A lack of reaching an appropriate audience, and a lack of quality. I personally hate lower thirds that do not have a drop shadow (because for my eyes it causes it to key into the graphic - eye catching?) or if its going to be more colorful than the USA Today print edition, then make those thin lines pop out.

 

There is nothing abstract about the challenge of coding. Its lack of common sense. Coders do not care about any PC made 3 years ago and their arrogance ruins my respect for all. My MacBook of late 2006 (now the possession of the mother) was a frequent fire hazard because the CPU was always on, and the thing could never get a break. Why? because all the "clean" and "minimal" websites are actually cluttered on the back side of the browser eating away every resource of one's computer. (and all these "responsive" UIs just make it worse.) Can we admit that the hipster demographic cares about nothing about the substance of a local story, only to be "cool" to appear to "fit in"?

 

This sentence gives me less respect to the hacks (no pun intended ) to the designer community "But the majority of web designs begin in a design application like Photoshop, Illustrator, or more recently Sketch. These comps are then translated into code."

 

And I wonder the creative professionals are squawking about the new look of the web, and how iOS 7 looks silly and soon the Mac OS 10.10 will look. I think there is a real reason to not love coders IMO.

 

Whether its Gannett or ESPN or another entity that is cutting quality to be "cool" its not. Call me old fashioned but I take graphics intended for broadcast TV any day.

This shows such a massive lack of understanding of design and development that it's hard to even parse into coherent arguments, but I would like to just hit the big points:

 

"Coders," better known as developers, have pretty much no bearing on the issue of broadcast TV graphics. "Minimal" websites should be less taxing on your computer as there is less to load and handle. If they are truly the culprit of your computer running slowly, then the website was built poorly. But again, this has nothing to do with the visual design, and even less to do with broadcast TV graphics.

 

To your point about "flat" graphics having no place in a world where CRTs still exist: For much of the early days of newscasting, when TVs had much worse resolution and poor reception, "graphics" were as flat as can be: text and a color background if you're lucky. It worked then and can work now.

 

Lastly, the Gannett graphics are intended for broadcast TV, obviously, and so your final comment makes no sense, though I assume what you mean is that you prefer more motion-heavy "flashy" graphics. They have their place and aren't harming anyone, but from a design standpoint, the Gannett graphics do a great job, looking sophisticated and modern while doing the more important working of clearly laying out information in a legible visual hierarchy. Compare it to something like WPVI's "LOOK MOVING LAYERS UPON LAYERS" graphic look and I think it's evident why eye-catching and flashy isn't all it's cracked up to be when you just want a graphic to give you the information at a glance.

[cbs2newengland 71]

 

This shows such a massive lack of understanding of design and development that it's hard to even parse into coherent arguments, but I would like to just hit the big points:

 

its because everything has become so obscenely complicated, just for the sake of everything needs to be more complicated. I don't understand design and development because there is so much unneeded technicality to what one used to call "art"

 

"Coders," better known as developers, have pretty much no bearing on the issue of broadcast TV graphics.

 

Ok where does a DBA fall into then? Not a developer? Knowing a little about the Vizrt*, the graphics system requires things to be stored into databases. How crazy is that? The only great graphics package I knew came from the Viz was FBN's graphics from inception to late 2012. Most "minmal" looking news graphics often can be done on the Viz just perfectly since it is a simple pseudo graphics engine.

 

*I hate using mixed caps - because looks so tacky

 

"Minimal" websites should be less taxing on your computer as there is less to load and handle. If they are truly the culprit of your computer running slowly, then the website was built poorly.

 

Times this by tenfold. Facebook, Twitter, even eBay is so ridden of bad code for many users who are not on the "latest and greatest" hardware. The worst offender for media sites that often script video embeds and auto refreshes (in media I'll say the Fox O&Os, the Boston Herald and the CBS O&Os too.) I hate bloated scripts, but I am no dev, because my brain is not capable because its Greek to me...so what do I know

 

To your point about "flat" graphics having no place in a world where CRTs still exist: For much of the early days of newscasting, when TVs had much worse resolution and poor reception, "graphics" were as flat as can be: text and a color background if you're lucky. It worked then and can work now

I disagree on the latter being used as an excuse to use it today. We should never want to go back to the idea of the film. I cannot take news programs that are trying to be film like again (most notably Bloomberg TV.) Thank gawd for the Vidifont, the Chyron, ENG and the videotape! Just because it worked back then, doesn't mean its right to do it now. Somethings are best remembered in memory.

 

Lastly, the Gannett graphics are intended for broadcast TV, obviously, and so your final comment makes no sense, though I assume what you mean is that you prefer more motion-heavy "flashy" graphics. They have their place and aren't harming anyone, but from a design standpoint, the Gannett graphics do a great job, looking sophisticated and modern while doing the more important working of clearly laying out information in a legible visual hierarchy. Compare it to something like WPVI's "LOOK MOVING LAYERS UPON LAYERS" graphic look and I think it's evident why eye-catching and flashy isn't all it's cracked up to be when you just want a graphic to give you the information at a glance.

 

I don't take the Gannett graphics being for TV. I find it intended for a little embed on a web page. Its not appropriate for broadcast TV to look like a narrow audience cable channel for the "hipsta" neighborhood(s). It looks like a digital product for that audience, as you described midway sophisticated and modern. ,I for one - do not like modern looking graphics that resemble dare I say Europe? I don't live in Europe and if I want that snooty style and self absorbed chatter "[insert a British accent here] about the fancy, modern, anti traditional style blahblahblah" I'd be living there (or watching them online.)

 

I never did say that I liked or fully liked "flashy" graphics, I do some sexiness to some graphics package (like the Belo package where this thread kinda began about), but not like ESPN, or the old FNC, but Gannett's is just out of the real world in terms of weird 3D cube featuring random people with really sensational, un professional theme music.

 

I think we can all be in agreement about WPVI. From a station that had the most boringest graphics for years to go a billion different layers on one graphic alone is just an overkill. There is so much graphics, the context of the headline/newsmaker can be easily distracting.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

its because everything has become so obscenely complicated, just for the sake of everything needs to be more complicated. I don't understand design and development because there is so much unneeded technicality to what one used to call "art"

 

 

Ok where does a DBA fall into then? Not a developer? Knowing a little about the Vizrt*, the graphics system requires things to be stored into databases. How crazy is that? The only great graphics package I knew came from the Viz was FBN's graphics from inception to late 2012. Most "minmal" looking news graphics often can be done on the Viz just perfectly since it is a simple pseudo graphics engine.

 

*I hate using mixed caps - because looks so tacky

 

 

Times this by tenfold. Facebook, Twitter, even eBay is so ridden of bad code for many users who are not on the "latest and greatest" hardware. The worst offender for media sites that often script video embeds and auto refreshes (in media I'll say the Fox O&Os, the Boston Herald and the CBS O&Os too.) I hate bloated scripts, but I am no dev, because my brain is not capable because its Greek to me...so what do I know

 

 

I disagree on the latter being used as an excuse to use it today. We should never want to go back to the idea of the film. I cannot take news programs that are trying to be film like again (most notably Bloomberg TV.) Thank gawd for the Vidifont, the Chyron, ENG and the videotape! Just because it worked back then, doesn't mean its right to do it now. Somethings are best remembered in memory.

 

 

I don't take the Gannett graphics being for TV. I find it intended for a little embed on a web page. Its not appropriate for broadcast TV to look like a narrow audience cable channel for the "hipsta" neighborhood(s). It looks like a digital product for that audience, as you described midway sophisticated and modern. ,I for one - do not like modern looking graphics that resemble dare I say Europe? I don't live in Europe and if I want that snooty style and self absorbed chatter "[insert a British accent here] about the fancy, modern, anti traditional style blahblahblah" I'd be living there (or watching them online.)

 

I never did say that I liked or fully liked "flashy" graphics, I do some sexiness to some graphics package (like the Belo package where this thread kinda began about), but not like ESPN, or the old FNC, but Gannett's is just out of the real world in terms of weird 3D cube featuring random people with really sensational, un professional theme music.

 

I think we can all be in agreement about WPVI. From a station that had the most boringest graphics for years to go a billion different layers on one graphic alone is just an overkill. There is so much graphics, the context of the headline/newsmaker can be easily distracting.

 

Good points but define "professional theme music".

[cbs2newengland 71]

 

Good points but define "professional theme music".

 

Something that doesn't sound like a morning show, a lifestyle daytime show or any program that is considered a "show", where some would consider that's entertainment. My vocabulary, I refer to something with substance or a serious newscast as a "program." Gari's theme fits what I call a "show" than a "news program"

 

Simply put the Gannett theme sounds more like a soundtrack or a showtune than a serious news music package.

 

LA Grove also fits this profile. WCAU's creditability went down the drain when they went LaLa land. I was actually expecting the old NBC 10 sensationalized news format to follow. I know news music is news music but if you got fluffy tunes or melody, then it can actually impact ones view of a newscast and most importantly ratings as Stephen Arnold claims it can impact up to 15%.

[WCAUTVNBC10 408]

 

its because everything has become so obscenely complicated, just for the sake of everything needs to be more complicated. I don't understand design and development because there is so much unneeded technicality to what one used to call "art"

 

 

Ok where does a DBA fall into then? Not a developer? Knowing a little about the Vizrt*, the graphics system requires things to be stored into databases. How crazy is that? The only great graphics package I knew came from the Viz was FBN's graphics from inception to late 2012. Most "minmal" looking news graphics often can be done on the Viz just perfectly since it is a simple pseudo graphics engine.

 

*I hate using mixed caps - because looks so tacky

 

 

Times this by tenfold. Facebook, Twitter, even eBay is so ridden of bad code for many users who are not on the "latest and greatest" hardware. The worst offender for media sites that often script video embeds and auto refreshes (in media I'll say the Fox O&Os, the Boston Herald and the CBS O&Os too.) I hate bloated scripts, but I am no dev, because my brain is not capable because its Greek to me...so what do I know

 

 

I disagree on the latter being used as an excuse to use it today. We should never want to go back to the idea of the film. I cannot take news programs that are trying to be film like again (most notably Bloomberg TV.) Thank gawd for the Vidifont, the Chyron, ENG and the videotape! Just because it worked back then, doesn't mean its right to do it now. Somethings are best remembered in memory.

 

 

I don't take the Gannett graphics being for TV. I find it intended for a little embed on a web page. Its not appropriate for broadcast TV to look like a narrow audience cable channel for the "hipsta" neighborhood(s). It looks like a digital product for that audience, as you described midway sophisticated and modern. ,I for one - do not like modern looking graphics that resemble dare I say Europe? I don't live in Europe and if I want that snooty style and self absorbed chatter "[insert a British accent here] about the fancy, modern, anti traditional style blahblahblah" I'd be living there (or watching them online.)

 

I never did say that I liked or fully liked "flashy" graphics, I do some sexiness to some graphics package (like the Belo package where this thread kinda began about), but not like ESPN, or the old FNC, but Gannett's is just out of the real world in terms of weird 3D cube featuring random people with really sensational, un professional theme music.

 

I think we can all be in agreement about WPVI. From a station that had the most boringest graphics for years to go a billion different layers on one graphic alone is just an overkill. There is so much graphics, the context of the headline/newsmaker can be easily distracting.

 

You really come off as a cranky old man shouting "Get off my lawn!". Just an observation and it's rather annoying. As someone actually in the art/design profession I find this whole post rather insulting since you feel things need to be tailored specifically to your tastes and needs cause you refuse to crawl out of the dark ages.

 

And I'm not going to dignify your videotape vs film comment with a response. Just reeks of trolldom.

[cbs2newengland 71]

 

You really come off as a cranky old man shouting "Get off my lawn!". Just an observation and it's rather annoying. As someone actually in the art/design profession I find this whole post rather insulting since you feel things need to be tailored specifically to your tastes and needs cause you refuse to crawl out of the dark ages.

 

And I'm not going to dignify your videotape vs film comment with a response. Just reeks of trolldom.

 

Well if you want to call a 27 year old with an "old heart" I guess that could be a valid argument.

 

Read the other thread on how poorly executed the Gannett graphics is being used on WHAS, I put some constructive criticism.

 

Sorry to offend you.

[Breaking News 802]

WVEC: 13 News NOW new graphics