What is Visual Literacy?// Magazines

Here is a series of magazines that I have de-constructed to explore type hierarchies. What I expected to find was that the layouts with the least variation in font and a good variation between the weights would come across as a simple but good design. 
 
AVERAGE

This is what I chose to represent an average design, there is no special stuff here but the whole thing works ok and there seems to be a solid grid. Saying that there is a huge block of text covering the right hand side of the page without a break which looks a bit less appetising.

The hierarchy of type when laid out in order of point size is fairly average for a magazine. The title is followed by names, a short introduction paragraph is followed by the main body of text. However for some reason the 'Around Town and Kids' department title is the largest type on the page, I find this quite unusual, but then I do like massive headers, and then again the Magazine is aimed at tourists, probably people who want to know where they are in the Magazine as fast as possible so no time is wasted flicking through endless pages.

When ordered by 'importance' of text the hierarchy looks fairly different suggesting predominance may not have been given justly. With exception of the body copy I would tone down the department header and writers names. I would make sure the title stands out the most, it should drawn in a reader.

BAD (sort of)

Although I consider Focus a decent magazine based on content alone, there is no denying  the front page is a bit confusing for browsing, things aren't much clearer inside. The problem I find is that there are many different fonts all squashed together, colours aren't always the best and images are all over the shop. I think focus could adopt a hardcore clean type and image cover, just a simple list of content and an illustration. Then it would look like a proper science journal.

Anyway, there is a clear hierarchy occurring here. The Title of the publication comes first and is by far the largest point size on the page. This is followed by the main articles title and then an overview of the rest of the content after that. I like the way they have prioritised here, I just think that there is a bit too much variation. Its like everything on the cover is trying to fight for attention, there is no overall foundation.

My hierarchy of importance is fairly similar to the covers hierarchy. I've placed the Title at the top and there content overview just below, this is followed by all of the stories and end with the price and so on. I still feel that too much happens here.

GOOD

Ok so maybe my lines between good and boring have been crossed but I admire The Economist for the same reason I slammed the Focus cover. Here everything is ordered and clean, there is an impressive photo and I can see exactly what the main article is about as well as the others because everything has been made clear. It all follows a grid and its not garish or shouty. 

The cover is so simple there is almost nothing to see here. The Main story comes first in size, with the publication title coming second. This is interesting but I suppose 'China's Military Rise' sounds way more fun than 'The Economist' so the designers put more focus on the good parts.

Just switched around the titles really, the publication name is more important than the article, it will set the tone and style of everything inside. After all if the publication was the Daily Mail and it ran an article named 'China's Military Rise' you would expect an entirely different result. So the publication name comes first, followed but the content.

TERRIBLE

I've revisited Time Out to de-construct the front of this 'Magazine'. In my Opinion this is the worst of the three magazines. Although on the inside its average the cover just mystifies me. How can they still be a popular publication with this? This first Hierarchy shows how the front is just awash with any font they feel like using. I suppose in its own way this layout has developed its own recognition and people are just happy with the familiarity. 

Here I have quickly arranged the text into a Hierarchy of importance. I feel the publication title and the location are the most important here followed by content.