I know the following is entirely superficial and shouldn’t really matter. However, I suspect that I’m not the only person who feels this way.
I love FI - I mean, I love the *content* of FI. The graphics are horrible. I’m sorry. They are beyond horrible. I put off subscribing to this magazine for 2 years because of the graphics. "Graphics", you may ask? What kind of shallow idiot are you?
1) Kill the drop shadows. They make it look like a kiddo zine from 1997. Very cheesy.
2) Drop the headshots of the authors (or make them tiny). I love the articles - the content is superb. However, I really don’t care to associate this great content with a smiling face. I also find it hard to show this magazine to my superstitious/religious friends (and even skeptics) because the format is so embarrassing. Despite the genious of most of the contributors, most of them look a bit odd. I mean, if you want to appeal to the masses, then it would be beneficial (in my opinion) to either:
a) have no author photos, so the reader can imagine that the author looks like himself or his neighbors.
b) try to show a small author photo that looks more "normal" or acceptable. The freakshow photos (I mean that in a respecatable way) guarantee that critical thinkers will be met with skepticism when getting someone to read this magazine.
Maybe I’m wrong on so many levels here, I should just suck it up. Maybe FI is not intended to be read by non-critical thinkers. Maybe this is preaching to the choir, and maybe the choir can look past the odd headshots and retro graphical layout.
It also leaves me with a strange feeling. I feel like opening FI is like walking into a UU church. A UU church looks like a church, it smells like a church, people are dressing up like it’s a church. However, the fact that the content can be the most un-church like, I’m left with the question, "why the whole ‘church’ thing at all?" The same thing with FI - it looks and feels like a mystical, religious rag. Yet, the contents are so far from it, I’m left with the question, "why go through the trouble of making this look anti-intellectual, and ‘religious’?"
Am I alone here?
(I suspect I will be skewered for this post. Apologies in advance.)