The armored wedge My principal concern here was 'is this shape too dominant on the page?'.
The technology in focus (in this case the m18 ) is meant to be the image that readers see first - it is often on the left (where oddly in magazine design the eye should read first but may see second due to the turn of the page - or maybe people are obedient readers and don't sneak a look at the right page - but i doubt it.)
Anyway, I was worried that the 'armour wedge' not only attracted too much attention but created a compositional discord on the spread - effectively dividing a double page spread into two. Many print editorial designers say you need to fill the whole spread - I am in two minds on this.
In one way the story I tell every time is of a technology, with key features highlighted and how it fits into a bigger picture - the context of it's use, manufacture or invention.
It is my singular editorial purpose with the articles to highlight the bigger picture of WWII using the technologies as an accessible starting point. But there have also been times where at the rough stage that the weapon in question and the rest of the story haven't been so well united. This results in everything from reading difficulty (where do I start? What is this about) to general confusion (what is this about ?). It is a frequent discussion point between the excellent editorial teams and I - and I find their second pair of eyes invaluable there. (Contributors/ Creatives, what ever you do - You need a good 'editor') Or maybe I need to get better at uniting the different elements. I hope I am not jamming reluctant actors together in each if these scenes.
I like the idea of real life sizes on the graphic - I wouldn't want to do it every time - but there is something rewarding it the immediacy of this.
A few graphics appear on a 'landscape' vista. Have I been affected by Apple's shiny floored warehouse? Hmm - not sure - seems a nice way to set our certain ideas though.
And on the render - things are looking a little vector-arty - fades, line-art isometry, more fades - i may need to cut down on this. They are entirely appropriate to the needs of the story and data within, but there may be a Tuftian unintended consequence of this render - that of dating the work back a decade and so readers pause briefly to question it's provenance, distracting them from their primary task of understanding. (this may be a small price to pay for work that I believe seeks a timeless quality of integrity to the information and not modern fashion).
But - these are read on many levels - and the render will give signals - it's up to me to orchestrate those impressions - and one of them is an anonimity - a quality that immediately imparts the information without drawing attention to itself.
Some would say that the render needs to bring the reader in, that impartiality is sterile. I agree that if I am putting off new readers with coldness then that is an issue. I would like to think that the ideas contained within - the data, the story angle will shine through the glass of a sympathetic vessel to communicate and entice, rather than falling back on fashion, which always attracts but seldom informs and never lasts.