<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The new Bee &#8212; what&#8217;s the verdict?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/</link>
	<description>Sacramento News, Gossip &#38; Snark</description>
	<pubDate>Wed,  7 Jan 2009 19:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: RunnerGirl</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45672</link>
		<dc:creator>RunnerGirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45672</guid>
		<description>This is awfully picky, but the New York Times crossword now has a wider layout, so it takes up more than the half-page width (as it used to -- it was so easy to fold the paper in half across the fold, then lengthwise to do the crossword.) It's not as ergonomically friendly for me to fold the paper and do the crossword while I'm in a slightly reclined position.  Again, this is an overly picky observation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is awfully picky, but the New York Times crossword now has a wider layout, so it takes up more than the half-page width (as it used to &#8212; it was so easy to fold the paper in half across the fold, then lengthwise to do the crossword.) It&#8217;s not as ergonomically friendly for me to fold the paper and do the crossword while I&#8217;m in a slightly reclined position.  Again, this is an overly picky observation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Turty Squip</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45604</link>
		<dc:creator>Turty Squip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45604</guid>
		<description>And now you have enough money to buy your own name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And now you have enough money to buy your own name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Squip Turty</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45597</link>
		<dc:creator>Squip Turty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45597</guid>
		<description>Well, I happened to make it thru the first delivery of the very gutted (content wise), newly redesigned Bee, and just couldn't see myself being a sub. any longer. I redesigned my household budget and narrowed the width of my wallet by cancelling the Sorry Bee!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I happened to make it thru the first delivery of the very gutted (content wise), newly redesigned Bee, and just couldn&#8217;t see myself being a sub. any longer. I redesigned my household budget and narrowed the width of my wallet by cancelling the Sorry Bee!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melly</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45187</link>
		<dc:creator>Melly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:49:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45187</guid>
		<description>I was flipping through the paper and saw what I thought said..Our Religion.  I said, "oh shit Dave, the Bee actually has a damned religion section now!"  

I was reading an article about a woman who was shot in the foothill (do they mean heal of the foot...that would really do damage to the entire foot)

town of etc.,  There was a large gap in the story. 

I am way impressed with jlt and his assessment.  I am going to look at the front page right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was flipping through the paper and saw what I thought said..Our Religion.  I said, &#8220;oh shit Dave, the Bee actually has a damned religion section now!&#8221;  </p>
<p>I was reading an article about a woman who was shot in the foothill (do they mean heal of the foot&#8230;that would really do damage to the entire foot)</p>
<p>town of etc.,  There was a large gap in the story. </p>
<p>I am way impressed with jlt and his assessment.  I am going to look at the front page right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dirk</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45172</link>
		<dc:creator>dirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45172</guid>
		<description>I just can't stop being negative today, so I'll agree w/ everyone that the headline fonts/layout look awful. And I dislike the color comics - first, they're smaller (due to smaller pages), then the color makes them even more difficult to read.  I already read a bunch of comics online via the Houston Chronicle (www.chron.com), where you can build your own comics page w/ all the comics you like, then just visit it every day - I think I'll add the Bee comics I like to that, and stop reading the comics in the Bee entirely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just can&#8217;t stop being negative today, so I&#8217;ll agree w/ everyone that the headline fonts/layout look awful. And I dislike the color comics - first, they&#8217;re smaller (due to smaller pages), then the color makes them even more difficult to read.  I already read a bunch of comics online via the Houston Chronicle (www.chron.com), where you can build your own comics page w/ all the comics you like, then just visit it every day - I think I&#8217;ll add the Bee comics I like to that, and stop reading the comics in the Bee entirely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Turty Squip</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45148</link>
		<dc:creator>Turty Squip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45148</guid>
		<description>My significant other and I will be getting a divorce over this, since the first one to get the paper hogs the local/business section for twice as long as before, while the other one is left with nothing but colourful comics- and the good ones take all of 30 seconds to read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My significant other and I will be getting a divorce over this, since the first one to get the paper hogs the local/business section for twice as long as before, while the other one is left with nothing but colourful comics- and the good ones take all of 30 seconds to read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RunnerGirl</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45145</link>
		<dc:creator>RunnerGirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45145</guid>
		<description>Yikes -- the bouncing papers in the online explanation were just a little too much first thing this morning.  A better investment would have been to upgrade the sacbee.com site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yikes &#8212; the bouncing papers in the online explanation were just a little too much first thing this morning.  A better investment would have been to upgrade the sacbee.com site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RonTopofIt</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45143</link>
		<dc:creator>RonTopofIt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:44:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45143</guid>
		<description>Their &lt;a href="http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/ads/nrd/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"&gt;Flash explanation&lt;/a&gt; of the change is quite fanciful.  Lots of "newsy" and "newsier."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Their <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/ads/nrd/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Flash explanation</a> of the change is quite fanciful.  Lots of &#8220;newsy&#8221; and &#8220;newsier.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stickie</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45119</link>
		<dc:creator>Stickie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45119</guid>
		<description>My cousin is named Tim-Tom Happy-Pants.

Please change my name to Joey Joe-Joe Junior Shabadoo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My cousin is named Tim-Tom Happy-Pants.</p>
<p>Please change my name to Joey Joe-Joe Junior Shabadoo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stickie</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45118</link>
		<dc:creator>Stickie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45118</guid>
		<description>The heads and the sub-heads just look.....odd.  I'm glad you designer types are better at expressing this than I am.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The heads and the sub-heads just look&#8230;..odd.  I&#8217;m glad you designer types are better at expressing this than I am.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JA</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45111</link>
		<dc:creator>JA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45111</guid>
		<description>It definitely looks better. Good way to disguise the fact that their journalistic content keeps getting worse and worse. 

The New Sac Bee, now with color comics! Drool.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It definitely looks better. Good way to disguise the fact that their journalistic content keeps getting worse and worse. </p>
<p>The New Sac Bee, now with color comics! Drool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sergio</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45105</link>
		<dc:creator>sergio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45105</guid>
		<description>they're going broke...

been on a downward spiral for some time, mimicking the state of Sacramento...

writing stinks, columnists now stink, editor stinks...they've managed to turn a decent paper into a pile of crap...but then Fargo and Kerridge have managed to screw up and give away millions of the tax payers dollars to con and flimflam artists too...so what's the diff?

It's the WaPost, NY or LA Times of SF Gate...the Sac Bee is junk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>they&#8217;re going broke&#8230;</p>
<p>been on a downward spiral for some time, mimicking the state of Sacramento&#8230;</p>
<p>writing stinks, columnists now stink, editor stinks&#8230;they&#8217;ve managed to turn a decent paper into a pile of crap&#8230;but then Fargo and Kerridge have managed to screw up and give away millions of the tax payers dollars to con and flimflam artists too&#8230;so what&#8217;s the diff?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the WaPost, NY or LA Times of SF Gate&#8230;the Sac Bee is junk</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jlt</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45103</link>
		<dc:creator>jlt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45103</guid>
		<description>The narrow page size is the international standard, so I don't have a problem with it.

I think some things are VERY weird though.

The headlines are capitalized very oddly - sentence capitalization without punctuation, versus standard head cap. Very odd, and I've never seen that in ANY newspaper or magazine before.

They don't use fi ligatures in the headlines, either, which looks cheap. Look on the front page, right side, halfway down for 2 in the same head; the dot on the i runs right into the ball terminal on the lowercase f.

the new body type is nice, but the headline type is hideous. Just horrible. Spaced way too tightly, too, and obviously not designed for that sort of use.

The biggest problem is they obviously had a non-designer make the new masthead. FAKE SMALL CAPS. Yes, it's true; look at the width of the big caps vs. the small caps - not the same. Every other newspaper in the world would either have an experienced typesetter AT THE VERY LEAST set this using true small caps; any newspaper that cared about quality would have had the masthead redrawn by someone who knows what they're doing, like Berkeley's own Jim Parkinson or another good masthead designer.

So, I just have to wonder - what exactly were they thinking? Why the cavalier attitude toward typography? Too bad to see a paper with a fine tradition of clean type throw it down the drain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The narrow page size is the international standard, so I don&#8217;t have a problem with it.</p>
<p>I think some things are VERY weird though.</p>
<p>The headlines are capitalized very oddly - sentence capitalization without punctuation, versus standard head cap. Very odd, and I&#8217;ve never seen that in ANY newspaper or magazine before.</p>
<p>They don&#8217;t use fi ligatures in the headlines, either, which looks cheap. Look on the front page, right side, halfway down for 2 in the same head; the dot on the i runs right into the ball terminal on the lowercase f.</p>
<p>the new body type is nice, but the headline type is hideous. Just horrible. Spaced way too tightly, too, and obviously not designed for that sort of use.</p>
<p>The biggest problem is they obviously had a non-designer make the new masthead. FAKE SMALL CAPS. Yes, it&#8217;s true; look at the width of the big caps vs. the small caps - not the same. Every other newspaper in the world would either have an experienced typesetter AT THE VERY LEAST set this using true small caps; any newspaper that cared about quality would have had the masthead redrawn by someone who knows what they&#8217;re doing, like Berkeley&#8217;s own Jim Parkinson or another good masthead designer.</p>
<p>So, I just have to wonder - what exactly were they thinking? Why the cavalier attitude toward typography? Too bad to see a paper with a fine tradition of clean type throw it down the drain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Turty Squip</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45101</link>
		<dc:creator>Turty Squip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:24:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45101</guid>
		<description>Why not combine the whole paper into just ONE section?  WTF do business and local have to do with each other?  And does anyone read about "sports" in the paper any more?  Heck- if the Bee wants to save on ink (the stated reason for the narrow page- as if ink more expensive than paper?), stop printing dailys and just print one book at the end of the year.  But as a lifelong sansserifist (making me pro-serif), I'm pleased to see some recognition of "our little friends."  Ariel font be damned!

Isn't this the 12th revamp in the last 6 months?  When people do that with their shopping lists they are called "crazy OCD" types or similar.  Seems like the Bee is flailing about, trying to attract attention- just like a drowning man before he goes under one last time.  G'bye Bee...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not combine the whole paper into just ONE section?  WTF do business and local have to do with each other?  And does anyone read about &#8220;sports&#8221; in the paper any more?  Heck- if the Bee wants to save on ink (the stated reason for the narrow page- as if ink more expensive than paper?), stop printing dailys and just print one book at the end of the year.  But as a lifelong sansserifist (making me pro-serif), I&#8217;m pleased to see some recognition of &#8220;our little friends.&#8221;  Ariel font be damned!</p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t this the 12th revamp in the last 6 months?  When people do that with their shopping lists they are called &#8220;crazy OCD&#8221; types or similar.  Seems like the Bee is flailing about, trying to attract attention- just like a drowning man before he goes under one last time.  G&#8217;bye Bee&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CoolDMZ</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45097</link>
		<dc:creator>CoolDMZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45097</guid>
		<description>just to be crystal clear, by "favorite new feature" I meant "favorite" in the sense of "favorite to make fun of"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>just to be crystal clear, by &#8220;favorite new feature&#8221; I meant &#8220;favorite&#8221; in the sense of &#8220;favorite to make fun of&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RunnerGirl</title>
		<link>http://sacrag.com/2008/07/sacbee-july-redesign-whats-the-verdict/#comment-45096</link>
		<dc:creator>RunnerGirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacrag.com/?p=1781#comment-45096</guid>
		<description>I've already expressed my dismay to Tim-tom Happy-pants about the "bloggers weigh in" section, as it really is just a repackaged "man on the street" interview. 

It says on the front page that the margin issue will be worked out -- they're wider now than they ultimately will be.

The new font choices are interesting, with some headers in serif and others in sans serif typefaces. (Does our frequent commenter/font guru JLT wish to weigh in on this?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve already expressed my dismay to Tim-tom Happy-pants about the &#8220;bloggers weigh in&#8221; section, as it really is just a repackaged &#8220;man on the street&#8221; interview. </p>
<p>It says on the front page that the margin issue will be worked out &#8212; they&#8217;re wider now than they ultimately will be.</p>
<p>The new font choices are interesting, with some headers in serif and others in sans serif typefaces. (Does our frequent commenter/font guru JLT wish to weigh in on this?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
