Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Asgard #5: Layout Controversy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DMaple" data-source="post: 88126" data-attributes="member: 947"><p>A little review of the first three versions to appear.</p><p></p><p><strong>Covers</strong></p><p>Version 1 & Version 2's covers are very similar using the maximum area for the illustration and working the contents around that. Version 2 is a little more interesting with its use of colour and fonts to draw the readers eye to features inside, although I don't like the font used for the magazine title. Version 3's cover is terrible, you have a postage stamp for the illustration and in a sea of blue space that provides no information.</p><p></p><p><strong>Borders</strong></p><p>I don't like the edge border on version 2 and 3 the way it jumps from side to side. That's only worth while if you can do double-sided printing, since most people are unlikely to have a duplex printer or even print out a full copy it is just distracting. Version 1, has a simple red border at the top which I prefer although obviously its going to use up the red ink on my printer if I want to print a page. Also the page number jumps from left to right, I think it would be better at the centre since you don't know how a person is going to print it and information that jumps from left to right when reading on the screen it is a pain.</p><p></p><p><strong>Content Page</strong></p><p>Version 1 has a 'hyperlinked' contents page which is very handy. Something missing from both the other magazines. Version 3's content page is much more interesting, illustrations highlight topic and the reviews section is listed by item, unfortunately this takes up more page space and increases the file size.</p><p></p><p><strong>Size</strong></p><p>Version 3 is 42 pages probably due to its use of fonts and illustrations. Version 2 is supprisingly the shortest at 34 page and version 1 comes in at 38 page right in the middle. Since people are generally only going to print out the sections they need this small difference in number of pages isn't really too much of a problem. </p><p></p><p>What be of interest to some is the file size. The smallest at just 632 kb is Version 1 a very compact document. Version 3 comes in two flavours a low-res screen version at 1.3 Mb, still resonably compact and a high-res print version at 6.5 Mb its nice to have the choice. Version 2 is the largest (excluding the 3b) at nearly 3 Mb, which can take a while to download if your on a dial-up connection. Still all of them are significantly smaller than the last issue of Asgard which was 7.5 Mb.</p><p></p><p><strong>Use of Technology</strong></p><p>Version 1 is the only one with a clickable content page that takes to straight to the article in question, very handy. Version 2 make up for not hyperlinking its contents page by actually making use of Acrobats bookmarks, something neither of the other documents do. In the reviews section of Version 1 and 2 you can click on a link to take you to the company's website a very good idea. This is a clickable address in verision 1, or the image of the product in version 2 a while this is nice presentation wise it does mean you don't have a record of the web address if you print page out. Version 3 seems to make no use of the features of Acrobat files with no bookmarks or hyperlinks as far as I can see.</p><p></p><p>It would be nice to see the feature list on the front page hyperlinked in any later versions.</p><p></p><p><strong>Presentation</strong></p><p>Apart from the poor front page version 3 does very well inside it uses a clear easy to read font for the body text but interesting and eye catching headings. Version 2 makes good use of fonts although perhaps not as well as version 3 and unforunately its choice of font for the body text makes it horrible to read on screen. Version 1 uses a very limited selection of fonts which althought clear makes it a little dull and gives it a text-book feel, although at least it is easy on the eye. </p><p></p><p>The boxed out sections in version 2 and 3 are useful and helping break up the page and provide information clearly via clever use of colour. Version 1 uses box outs rarely and they all have black borders and plain backgrounds making it look a bit amatuer at times.</p><p></p><p><strong>Conclusions</strong></p><p>Version 1's simple style has obviously lead to a smaller file size which is to be desired for any on-line publication. Version 3 although presented nicely on the inside, has a horrible cover and make no use of the features available in an on-line publication. I my opinion Version 2 is probably the best compromise and it also makes the best use of the technology, it still has room for improvement particularly with its body text font and file size.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DMaple, post: 88126, member: 947"] A little review of the first three versions to appear. [b]Covers[/b] Version 1 & Version 2's covers are very similar using the maximum area for the illustration and working the contents around that. Version 2 is a little more interesting with its use of colour and fonts to draw the readers eye to features inside, although I don't like the font used for the magazine title. Version 3's cover is terrible, you have a postage stamp for the illustration and in a sea of blue space that provides no information. [b]Borders[/b] I don't like the edge border on version 2 and 3 the way it jumps from side to side. That's only worth while if you can do double-sided printing, since most people are unlikely to have a duplex printer or even print out a full copy it is just distracting. Version 1, has a simple red border at the top which I prefer although obviously its going to use up the red ink on my printer if I want to print a page. Also the page number jumps from left to right, I think it would be better at the centre since you don't know how a person is going to print it and information that jumps from left to right when reading on the screen it is a pain. [b]Content Page[/b] Version 1 has a 'hyperlinked' contents page which is very handy. Something missing from both the other magazines. Version 3's content page is much more interesting, illustrations highlight topic and the reviews section is listed by item, unfortunately this takes up more page space and increases the file size. [b]Size[/b] Version 3 is 42 pages probably due to its use of fonts and illustrations. Version 2 is supprisingly the shortest at 34 page and version 1 comes in at 38 page right in the middle. Since people are generally only going to print out the sections they need this small difference in number of pages isn't really too much of a problem. What be of interest to some is the file size. The smallest at just 632 kb is Version 1 a very compact document. Version 3 comes in two flavours a low-res screen version at 1.3 Mb, still resonably compact and a high-res print version at 6.5 Mb its nice to have the choice. Version 2 is the largest (excluding the 3b) at nearly 3 Mb, which can take a while to download if your on a dial-up connection. Still all of them are significantly smaller than the last issue of Asgard which was 7.5 Mb. [b]Use of Technology[/b] Version 1 is the only one with a clickable content page that takes to straight to the article in question, very handy. Version 2 make up for not hyperlinking its contents page by actually making use of Acrobats bookmarks, something neither of the other documents do. In the reviews section of Version 1 and 2 you can click on a link to take you to the company's website a very good idea. This is a clickable address in verision 1, or the image of the product in version 2 a while this is nice presentation wise it does mean you don't have a record of the web address if you print page out. Version 3 seems to make no use of the features of Acrobat files with no bookmarks or hyperlinks as far as I can see. It would be nice to see the feature list on the front page hyperlinked in any later versions. [b]Presentation[/b] Apart from the poor front page version 3 does very well inside it uses a clear easy to read font for the body text but interesting and eye catching headings. Version 2 makes good use of fonts although perhaps not as well as version 3 and unforunately its choice of font for the body text makes it horrible to read on screen. Version 1 uses a very limited selection of fonts which althought clear makes it a little dull and gives it a text-book feel, although at least it is easy on the eye. The boxed out sections in version 2 and 3 are useful and helping break up the page and provide information clearly via clever use of colour. Version 1 uses box outs rarely and they all have black borders and plain backgrounds making it look a bit amatuer at times. [b]Conclusions[/b] Version 1's simple style has obviously lead to a smaller file size which is to be desired for any on-line publication. Version 3 although presented nicely on the inside, has a horrible cover and make no use of the features available in an on-line publication. I my opinion Version 2 is probably the best compromise and it also makes the best use of the technology, it still has room for improvement particularly with its body text font and file size. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Asgard #5: Layout Controversy
Top