Unclaimed article payments

Perhaps it would be appropriate to put a list in the Forum and on Facebook, "Would the following people please contact us by phone...."

You wouldn't need to say why you want them to call you, but you might reach them that way.

Pictures appear fuzzy

Have been reading the new Gen3 layout and noticed that many of the pictures in many of the advertisements appear fuzzy or possibly pixilated. I was hoping it was me, but I looked at both versions (portrait and landscape) and see the same thing. What gives?

Al Behler

...

It's a nice Simple logo - nice work, though perhaps If I Ran The Zoo I would have maintained the same color motif [blues/purples].  But it looks good, regardless!

The font change, on the other hand...sorry, it feels like a step back.  Sans Serif looks better on a screen, it's cleaner, and it's shaper [i.e. easier to read] when I'm zoomed out.  I noticed the font relatively quickly too, when I realized my eyes were stumbling over the text blocks.  The captions on your pictures are still Sans Serif, and they're easier to read.  I believe in time you'll likely agree with me here...

Callibri is a good modern font - and it looked good.

MRH's Gen3 new look...I only

MRH's Gen3 new look...

I only have a couple of thoughts regarding the new look.

Since I am one of the very few people that only use a PC (windows XP and 22" monitor), my opinion is probably worth nothing as this new format is for everyone to try to use a smart phone or tablet.

The new logo looks great.

I find the new font harder to read. I hate it !!   Much prefer the original text font.  The stark white background made my eyes sore, and I had to put the mag down for a while and take a break. First time THAT ever happened, as I usually read a new issue right through to the end.

I realize you can't please everyone, but I am sooo disappointed, depressed,  all this just to please the whiney phone crowd. "OMG, I can't read my MRH while crossing the street, standing in line, or driving!   Oh no...." 

The pleasure of reading MRH just went down the drain.

Sorry Joe, but that's just how I feel about the new look...

Randy

Stark white background

The thinking here is your screen devices allow you to adjust things to increase or lower contrast and brightness as desired. We assume MRH isn't the only thing you're reading with your device, so if the screen is too bright with Gen3 MRH, then you'd better adjust it down for everything - your eyes will thank you. Otherwise MRH with the gray page background is letting you cheat - but everything else will still blow out your eyes.

font change

I was paging through the new edition and i couldn't figure out at first why it didn't read as easy a before. Then i read the explanation and i have to agree with the posters above, the new font stinks and I can't believe professionals are telling you that a serif font is the font to use on digital media, especially on a small computer/portable screen. We all know these smaller devices are often lacking in the amount of pixels, so why use a font that is wider by having 'twirly' bits added to it (serif), it defies logic to me. Also as noted before, the headers etc are still sans serif, which makes the pages look odd by crossing font families like that. I'd either have everything serif or everything sans serif on a page, with sans serif fonts having my vote.

Serif Font Is Just Fine

I have downloaded the January edition to an Android phone, an Android tablet and my PC, and I find the serif font pleasant and easier to read even on the smallest screen. Thanks for the update.

Font Change - Yes

I am going to break from the crowd and say I like the serif font. There is a good reason books have used serif fonts forever. Makes the text more readable for me. 

ePub to the rescue

Serif Font, etc.

I like it in print ... but on my PC, it looks fuzzy or "pixilated" as another pointed out.  I got used to it as I went along and I think I'll come to like it here as well ... perhaps an acquired taste on screen.  It does give the publication an overall professional look though.

White background ... really did not notice it on my screen, so could be something that others can adust with the brightness/contrast controls of their screens?

Layout -- I really, really do like the new "look" ... I think you have made a significant stride toward a more "professional" looking publication.  I do not have a "mobile" device, so can't comment from that angle, but on my PC it is quite refreshing.

I prefer a sans serif font

I prefer a sans serif font for reading on the screen... but I'm patient enough that I can wait for the e-pub version to get it back.

...

You don't have to change it.  We'll just change our reading patterns.

AKA, more looking at the pictures, less reading the text.

I understand you may be trying to move towards a Book Format for Printing, but... I find it interesting how you're stepping away from the conventional wisdom for electronic formats, when this is chiefly an electronic based format.

Not conventional wisdom any more ...

This has become almost urban legend and isn't really true any longer. Check out this recent website discussion about this topic ... here's some key excerpts:

Only Use Serifs in Print
This is one of those myths that is repeated without merit. Why would you only use serifs in print? Look at websites like Church of The Atom and Indigy. Each uses serif typefaces in a beautiful way. They are perfectly readable and add a lot of emphasis to the overall design concept.

So where did this myth come from? The top argument in support of his flawed theory is that screen quality is not as good as the quality of printed materials, therefore making serifs hard to read on a screen. While some printed materials do have higher publication resolutions, this is still a flawed argument.

Think about how you learned to type. It was likely on a screen using Times New Roman (a serif). Did you have trouble seeing it?

Think about changes in screens as well. In the last few years, high definition and retina-display have become almost the norm. These higher-quality screens also debunk the argument that you can only read serifs in print. The days of poor-quality screen resolution affecting readability are coming to an end.

Sans Serifs Are for Digital Publications
Just like saying serifs are only from print, some try to claim sans serifs are only for digital publications. Again this is just plain false. Designers have been using sans serif typefaces in print for many years successfully. To relate sans serifs only to digital publication is ridiculous. Look at the number of books and magazines that use sans serif typefaces for their covers and in text throughout the publication.

Serifs Are Hard to Read
Readability studies have actually founds that serif typefaces are easier to read because the added strokes make each character more distinctive. More distinctive letters are easier for the eye to recognize quickly.

Further, this style helps guide the flow of letters, words, sentences and paragraphs because serifs can help “push” you from one letter to the next.

For the full article, see:
http://designshack.net/articles/typography/serif-vs-sans-serif-fonts-is-one-really-better-than-the-other/

But no matter, if you want sans serif fonts back, just get the ePub version and change the font however you like.

...

 I read the online version.   I go through once, enjoy what I see, read anything that really catches my eye, and put it down.

I had to make these font choices when i was publishing my novel.  I ultimately went with Serif because its in print and because I'm seeking the appearance of book text, but I am debating redoing the ebook in sans serif.

The look?

   I Don't really notice the typeset or layout , I just read the articles as presented and enjoy the time spent.  Those who have a problem with the changes could always ask for a refund? ...DaveB

Photos

The photos in the articles really look great. Expanded views are fantastic on my IPad. 

All in all a nice improvement.

New format looks fine to me

Just a quick note in support of your new format. I read on both PC and iPad. The magazine looks good on either platform to me. Thanks for your continued efforts to bring out this awesome monthly magazine.

Mark L. Evans - MMR

You can't lube every squeaky wheel Joe

Logo change - Meh.  Font change - OK. Keeping the quality of the content at a high level - Hooray.

Jerry

I'm kind of curious

At one time you said that you had stopped putting page numbers on the magazine because as an electronic media, page numbers were not as relevant, technically everything is on a single page.

Now you're saying, "The new format also uses a bit more margin at the top for a page number on each page instead of just on each spread as before." It's still an electronic media, all on a single page. I also notice the pages are only numbered within the article, each article starting at page 1. Is there a reason for this? I suppose that if I have to stop reading an article, and move to a different device, it's nice to know what page in the article I was on, but how often does that happen? Besides, I can usually tell pretty easily what pages I've read. So I'm a little confused about the page numbering.

Page numbers ...

... perhaps are there for old brains like mine.  I like them; they serve as a road map, so I know where I am (and when I forget, I just look up at the top of the page and there it is!).  I tend to "multi-task" a lot while surfing/browsing the web on a computer ... several windows open and "bounce" around them.  I don't enjoy spending large amounts of time reading long articles on the screen and am frequently interrupted for anywhere from a few minutes to hours.  The current page numbering system was something that I noticed right away and I really do like it; it was one of those things I included in my general statement of liking the new layout.  (I can easily see what page I'm on in the eZine by looking at the navigation buttons.  

Observation

I find it a bit difficult to keep up with the "flow" of the articles.  Not the wording or writing, but the layout of the article.  I feel like I'm on a scavenger hunt trying to follow the content. I guess the new font, stark white background and possibly other factors contribute to this feeling.  To me, it all runs together.  Here's a couple examples:

It's a bit of a circus.  There are just too many font styles, headline styles, text sizes, and colors...all these different elements appear to be SHOUTING AT ME FOR MY ATTENTION.  It makes it difficult to differentiate the ads from the content.  Nothing really cuts through.

I'm just an average reader--no publishing or web design experience whatsoever--so I don't know if I'm expressing this effectively.  Too many of the things that would be considered "traditional" in a book or magazine are now gone.  Nontraditional display of page numbers, articles begin and end at any position on the page, there's no longer truly a left or right "page"... these things combined with the latest changes I believe add to the disorganized feeling I get trying to read this issue.  Perhaps some sort of standardization is needed.

I may be in the minority, but I thought I'd share my initial impressions.

I agree

Right with you Bill. I brought this up with Joe long ago in a private conversation. I get the same sense when browsing the magazine. I got the same with Gen2 although to a lesser extent but still there.

There are a gazillion ways to go about it but one simple to implement suggestion back then was to place ads in a standardized placeholder that was distinctive from article content. A simple shaded background would do.

Thanks for that Alan

I think your suggestion would help in allowing the content to have the spotlight.  Some sort of visual cue or color separator that is consistent and implies "advertisement" --beyond that word 'Advertisement' you see above the ads.  

@Alan

yup, that looks better to me too.