Magazine 2009

For best output concerning our magazine this year I've decieded to critique the previous magazines.

Overall, the 2007 magazine has a more professional look compared to the 2008 magazine. Things to improve on graphically:

1. Headers and footers

2007: Simple yet elegant design. The footers however has sort of a weird design that has no meaning whatsover to it and can be improved on

2008: The f&h that take up the whole page makes the magazine look very full, the colours. The really solid colours makes it look slightly unprofessional and a bit boring. Moreover the flowery design does not really match the theme. The design is not standard throughout the magazine making it look very messy.

~2009: A simple Approach should be taken this year in relation to the theme with a standard approach to all pages. Banners can be used (eg. the 2007 magazine speeches) to beautify pages and a change in h&f are not required

2.. Front page: The font at the side of the magazine.

2007 & 2008: Both have very boring font that badly changes the first impression of the magazine. A more san serif font shoule be used maybe a font that is standard to that of the cover?

3. The 2nd page of the magazine.

2007: Has a makna logo page

2008: Nothing

~2009: Something should be put on this page to make the magazine look more full.

4. Speeches page

2007: Has a really really nice simple yet elegant layout. The banners here are perfect for the situation. Just the positioning of the logo of the government/school badge that should be of standard size.

2008: Intersting but the pictures of different sizes make the magazine look messy. And phew, ZIZAH ALERT!

4*. The divider for the page.

2008: The divider never never should go on the left side of the magazine. It dosen't really introduce the section well

5. Editorial pages

2007&2008: Both designs are ok, but why the heck is there a takwin sekolah in the middle of nowhere for these two sections?

The takwim should be put in another section such as reports or something... Wierd.

2008: Why in the world is the twins pages in the editorial page section?

* Speaking of that, the twins page was badly done and should be given full introduction to twins and maybe a short interview of the twins to be posted up. For example a 'special feature' should be done with much given attention, or something that highlights. i.e. DJ's page for 2008.

6. The teachers pages:

2007: The pages are nicely done and a side border is smartly allocated when the teachers' pictures are shown in a landscape view.

2008: Quite nicely done except for the very messy background Nono to that this year.

7. PIBG

2007&2008: Both were done quite nicely. I would prefer 2007's one because of the grayscale colour making it not too saturated compared to

the striking blinding yellow. The 07 for 2007's mag isn't so appealing and a better font should be used.

8. The special feature's page being allocated properly in 07's mag

9. Student's pages:

2007: Again, 2007's mag. Really nice and elegant look. The border is smart.

2008: A lazy man's job done here. Banners look ugly and all they did was scan the picture in. In 2007, they had 2 pictures! one was the candid shot. And the names? All typed in nicely in a box. The design is actually alright but the put it overshadowing the rest of the picture and that made all the difference. What the heck is D doing at the bottom of the pages? swt.

~2009: Add in borders and shape the picture nicely.

10. Clubs and societies.

2007: The same design for this and the students pages was a really good choice.

2008: They added a border. An ugly one. No to that. Oh yeah they changed the headers and footers to become even more ugly this time.

THANK GOD WE'RE CHANGING THE PRINTERS.

~2009: Do the same thing as the students pages.

*10. Student's pages/Clubs and societies

2008: I disagree with the wierd layout putting the class pages 1st. Then only the clubs and societies.

~2009: Arrange them back to back because they are closely related to each other. Events and otherwise should come before.

11. Prefect's and librarians page:

2007: Again this is nice like the rest of the previous pages. This is because they look standardized and this means professionalism not some messy artwork

2008: The background isn't that nice

12.Special Features:

2007&2008: Both ugly and unprofessional in my opinion. We should have a standardised layout which I have a few students working on.

* This page should be abolished reason being, this is not the special features of our school. They have totally forgotten the meaning of special features! The pictures should go along with the event reports to become something like the pages in the DJ magazine which means less pictures

Both years have very very messy layouts 2008 being worse because apparently the printers cut out majority of the pictures there. This year we should do it like BU (I know because my brother is the ed team there). Their pictures are well organized and are very nice. There is also space for captions and that sort of stuff. Elaborations concering the event can be done there beacause some don't know what the pictures are about. And then again: STANDARDIZED FONT! Different layouts are alright as long as they are neat but there is a big nono for messy and unpredictable fonts.

13. Reports.

2007: Ok. Just need to standardise the font size. And if that is not enough, put pictures in there. 2007's magazine is nice in a sense that there was a balance of pictures and words which is what i want the apparent ' special features page to be.

2008: A background with pictures is again a nono. And they are so 'PRO MAN!' They can put 3 different fonts with 3 different font sizes in one page. I think they think we are still in primary school and we are still amused at small petty pictures and different designs. I don't know what goes in their heads...

14. Senior pages.

Cant comment this one.

15. Arts and literary

Firstly 2008's art page is located IN FRONT OF THE MAGAZINE. Why is it there?

2007: This is professional just the font size and spacing that needs to be standardised. The titles for the articles should be standardised and not flying around. There is one where they mixed the words and put an explosion as the background (pg121) nono. They don't match Don't try that at home this year

2008: I seriously slapped myself in the face when I saw this. The fonts are not standardies along with all their properties. Pictures come flying of nowhere causing a mess. Big mess. Horrible.

16. Autographs: * Jason Lim is designing the page this year.

MISC

17. Content page

2007: neat and professional

2008: the font's just flying everywhere and the BG appears too white. Not too organized. The printers should take note that the fonts should be sans serif not some funky font that kindergarten children will be amused with.

18. Back page: A back page filled makes a magazine look more complete. Which magazine on the market today leaves an empty page? The school song was a good choice for 2007

19. Dividers:

Overall 2007's designs are better than 2008. They look more full. 2008's designs (I CAN'T BELIEVE I DID THEM) are too plain and are very empty.

20. Page size:

Try to get all page sizes in A4. Therefore downsizing would be easier. I know many want a smaller mag this year but if you do the page smaller, The mag will look distorted as the resolution might not be high enough. Set all resolutions at 300 px/inch.

* If you do it at a smaller size, look at 2008's mag. The pages are sometimes smaller and the printers used a background.

21. Pengetua's picture:

Haha, haha, ahahahaha, please don't put a border this year. 2007 is ok.

BOTTOM LINE

Standardise the mag. Designers for dividers, make your page look full. Not too saturated with colours.