You're right, David. The editor is the boss of the entire project. There are a few problems, though. One is that, as you said, too few editors realize they're the boss. The other is that if they do realize they're the boss, they don't do anything to fix the problem -- that is, to improve the process.

When I was editing a corporate publication that was pretty heavy on design (as an important piece of the overall communication), we had a similar problem. We fixed it by involving the pub's designer right up front -- in the very first story meetings where we talked about the line-up for the next issue. Then, at our next story meeting at which the writers reported their progress on the stories (including the anticipated editorial direction the stories would take), the designers came again. Often, the way we told a story was influenced by the designers' suggestions and questions. It was a wonderful collaborative experience.

I have similarly strong feelings these days about the graphics on TV broadcasts. Graphic presentation of information seems to be more about the capabilities of computer-generated animation and graphics than it is about delivering information in a way that's easy to understand. The most recent offense happened during a baseball game, in which a player's stats were almost obliterated by the whirling, moving, flashing graphic elements that added absoutely nothing to my understanding of the information.

The late Ed Arnold, God rest his soul, was my instructor in media graphics in college. He was all about graphic design as a way to enhance communication, not for the sake of design itself. He was a bit old-fashioned, but his principles hold true today perhaps more than ever.

Right on, Robert. The more designers understand about the project, the less "bossy" the editor has to be.

I guess what inspired this blog item is my growing fear that some editors (or their managers) REALLY DON'T THINK editors should have the final say, or that typography and the organization of the layout isn't their province.

Is anyone dealing with that?

David, I deal with the typography and organization of layout. But I have an observation to make about that. It is only those of us who are properly schooled and trained about typography who tackle the issue with designers. I am amazed at how many professional PR practioners and corporate communicators I've met who don't even know what typography means. Some great writers don't know serif from sans-serif, leading, kerning, etc. Too much specialization may have created the designer-as-expert that you write of.

But I've never been too timid as an editor to insist that the designer do it my way. Once, however, I had a designer who was too stubborn to deal with. So I taught myself QuarkXpress and made the changes myself. After we went to press, I showed her my changes and told her next time I expect her to do it. We got along fine after that.

Your P.P.S. reminded me of a similar message I sent through a 25-person staff. "Will whoever borrowed my AP Stylebook please return it ASAP? I use it every day and am lost without it. Those of you who work in media relations can ignore this -- I know from editing your work that none of you have it." That really pissed off the chief of media relations.

Will

Will, I agree--"typography" has gone the way of "proportion wheel." Yet it's the main area where designers and editors need to negotiate.

I don't know that much about typography, but at some point I developed instincts about what things should look like--reasonable proportions for headline sizes, cutline sizes, type in sidebars, how much leading/kerning is too much, etc.

Maybe some communicators simply don't have such instincts--don't know good from bad--and so give all the power over to the designers.

If this is the case, yes, overspecialization--and the terror of being seen as "tactical."

Many years ago, I worked as an assistant editor on a trade magazine for the hardware industry (that's when hardware meant products such as hammers or drills, not external drives or other USB devices).

The graphic designer for the magazine was a decent technician, but he obviously cared for expediency over clear communication. We had many battles when his layouts had to be radically changed for the sake of the reader.

I contrast that experience with time at a Fortune 250 consumer products company. There, we had the joy of working with a graphics designer who had experience on the editorial side of publications. She understood the roles of type, images and other content, and was amazingly adept at combining elements so that each complemented the others and resulted in wonderful communications. She had a gift!

Wow -- I hadn't thought about the proportion wheel in years. We used to call it the "whiz" wheel.

Will

Tom, if all designers were wonderful, this conversation wouldn't be so important. Alas, in my experience, more of 'em in and around our business are like Mr. Expedient than Wonder Woman. (Our organizations, with their generally vulgar taste and thin budgets, attract mediocre designers and drive the spirit out of the good ones.)

So we editors have got to ride herd!

Publication design -- just another place where the tactical and the strategic converge.

David, I couldn't agree more. Thanks for raising the point.

Dave,

The best designers in the world are those who know that good design enhances readability. Unfortunately, they are a rare breed.

Mark