Flipping through the Washington Post in the morning, your eyes might be too sleepy to fully comprehend just how much the paper has changed. But chug some coffee and suddenly you’ll notice how the weather page is smaller and that the Reliable Source isn’t in its usual place. Aided by the caffeine boost to the brain, the larger changes, like the different body font, content spacing and random, unnecessary graphics, soon come into sharp focus.

In a feeble attempt to increase readership as well as keep current subscribers, the Washington Post recently implemented several design changes. News design director Justin Ferrell said it was important to redesign the paper to update some inconsistencies, like section organization. Ferrell adds that the Post made the changes in order to reflect current communication and media habits.

As anyone who reads the Post can say, it’s not the most “hip” newspaper. The changes to the Post do nothing to increase its readability, and instead detract from the otherwise high-quality content by making the paper overly spaced out and difficult to navigate.

In 2002, the Post also refined the paper’s layout. Most changes were mechanical, like a new font and content placement, and went largely unnoticed by the public.

But this time, the Post has unwisely done a complete turnaround, redesigning not only their print edition, but also their website and magazine.

The new layout of the magazine reads like a booklet of catchy graphics and advertisements, and does no justice to the Post’s reputation of high-profile reporting and top-notch photography. Though editor Debra Leithauser and art director Janet Michaud tried to put a positive spin on the layout changes in a recent online chat, the majority of readers offered negative feedback.

Following the complaints about the magazine, Ferrell says that the Post has gotten mixed reviews on the redesigned paper. Feedback, though, has been a great help to the Post staffers. The Post listened to its readers numerous complaints and even reinstated some old standbys. The beloved weather page has now been returned to its old sizing.

The Post’s other changes still fail to impress readers new and old.

The change in body font makes the text difficult to read. Brauchli, in a recent Q & A with freelance journalist Charles Apple, who blogs about graphic design, explained that the Post tested several fonts for readability before choosing the new font. He did note, however, that not all readers think the new typeface is easier to read. Not only does reading the paper prove to be a battle, but deciphering its funky new graphics is a new challenge altogether.

The addition of face sketches of the writers above their columns is distracting and wastes space. In some cases, head shots can add visual interest to an otherwise bland page, like in the Wall Street Journal. The Post’s attempt to use them falls short, as the drawings are awkwardly positioned and divert attention from the text.

The reformatting of the Washington Post proves to be a major letdown. The Post would be better off restoring the paper to the old layout and saving the style changes for another time, since the new one only disappoints and confuses readers. Nowadays, with papers doing everything they can to grab the reader’s attention, sometimes being traditional is the key to standing out from the rest.