Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Source for theguardian.com

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#71

Post by kaelig »

oliwarner wrote: post #11
JorgeGT wrote: post #7

IANAL, but this seems to collide with their EULA with Commercial Type [1], since third party hosting of the font files is "strictly prohibited" and the font files are in fact all available in the repo, which certainly doesn't sound like "reasonable effort to prevent access/use by unlicensed parties". [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c...

Though I'll not make any judgement towards "prevent access", the main license file[0] does state: > All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type ( https://commercialtype.com/ ), and may not be reproduced without permission. As a side tangent, it constantly surprises me how deep the creative industries manage to sink their claws into IP and licensing. I don't understand how artistic commissions…

I used to work at the Guardian. My understanding is that the font was commissioned specifically for the Guardian, and they had exclusive usage rights for a few years only.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#75

Post by notavalleyman »

matt4077 wrote: post #21
oliwarner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I'll not make any judgement towards "prevent access", the main license file[0] does state: > All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type ( https://commercialtype.com/ ), and may not be reproduced without permission. As a side tangent, it constantly surprises me how deep the creative industries manage to sink their claws into IP and licensing. I don't understand how artistic commissions…

A font family with the weights and other options a newspaper needs is a major undertaking. It's maybe 5 to 10 person-years of rather specialised work. For a publication constantly fighting to even break even, the costs aren't trivial. So, the answer obviously is: the Guardian got the font far cheaper by allowing it to be sold to other customers, and (relevant here) not paying for a license that allows sub-licensing (…

> A font family with the weights and other options a newspaper needs is a major undertaking. It's maybe 5 to 10 person-years of rather specialised work

I'd love to hear more about this and why it's such an undertaking. Is it the "Font family" aspect that takes so long, because the designers are expected to produce a never ending line of similar fonts and symbols? Do the font designers have to consider printing costs ("if we make that exclamation mark one degree thicker, it'll use fifteen incremental litres of black ink per year")?

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#76

Post by cmplxconjugate »

mtarnovan wrote: post #60
dnomad wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is one of the most balanced news providers out there and you'd be hard pressed to find a more balanced English-speaking organization. A recent, concrete example of this is all the breathless reporting about Chinese camps containing a "million" Muslims. The story was complete hogwash [1] that was breathlessly hyped by every American news organization. The Guardian provided the most restrained and actually…

I used to trust The Guardian, but those days are long gone. A glaring example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/10/romanias-corru... This is not journalism. The whole article quotes a paper published by a neocon think tank with ties to lobby groups payed by wealthy corrupt under investigation by the (Romanian) DNA. The article even hilariously uses references to recentnews.ro, long proven a fake news site,…

I’m in the same situation. I used the Guardian as one of my main new sources but it’s become painfully bias towards the left.

I long for a source that gives solid middle ground information and analysis.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#77

Post by shubb »

maze-le wrote: post #54
toyg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the newspaper quality, it's about signaling that the speaker is not a card-carrying supporter of the political faction the newspaper is traditionally associated with. So for the Guardian it translates to "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian". With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russi…

>> "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian" So, its essentially an apology for being an open minded conservative... Sounds pretty much like a premature capitulation to the bigots. But at least I know where its coming from. I've been questioned: "What? you are reading FAZ?!?!?"[0] (with undertones of "how dare you" and "what kind of leftist are you?"). Its a shitty state of a…

many Guardian opinion articles are designed to provoke the sort of people that read that guardian. To get them angry, or riled up, or uncomfortable.

As a result, in the same way that some right wing newspaper editorials (e.g. katie hopkins) are much more extreme than normal readers of those papers, Guardian editorials often make fairly left wing people uncomfortable. This is to encourage sharing and try to create viral articles that people will tweet about.

At the same time, the British left is in a phase where different factions are tearing eachother apart (which is why the current government is able to survive). For example the current debate around antisemistism. Or the anti-transexual feminist group that invaded the london gay pride march. Both sides of these debaes are reflected in the newspapers editorials, and few people would want to be assosiated with both sides at the same time.

In short Guardian oppinion articles are devisive, both for buisness reasons and reflecting social issues. People might distance themselves from them for reasons other than what you suggest.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#79

Post by 52-6F-62 »

toyg wrote: post #58
52-6F-62 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure that’s it. I think that might be the perception, but users often speak out about the desire for higher quality content. Particularly content that is more interactive and engaging. But many media groups see it as a means to an end, like I’ve noted. Throw up WordPress with a CDN for images and host every brand you own on one to five instances and that’s it. They understand those words: WordPress, CMS, CDN,…

> they cannot see the benefits to investing in a more refined digital publishing platform Isn't that "our" fault, in a way, as technologists? Ever since the internet appeared, we've told them that the only thing that matters is speed: a fast but pixelated jpeg is better than a heavy one; a fast and simple homepage is better than a detailed one; and this in an industry that already valued "scooping" over everything el…

That's definitely an arguable point. I'm sure it has weight in a lot of ways. We definitely advertise simplicity over comprehensivity because it sells a little more easily.

Alternatively, my experience in publishing has been there's a lot of focus on the quality of photography and images. Compression is attempted, but usually not at the cost of quality. They'll happily serve a 10MB photo, if photography is the purpose of the content.

I guess I'm speaking more to data-based features—mainly content delivery pipelines, general system architecture, and down to integrated interactive featurettes. In my experience there hasn't been a lot of pursuit after trendy tech. Quite the opposite. They're more willing to go for external contracts with "enterprise-grade" companies that offer "we do it all" services that under deliver and are host to poor archival practices for a medium that is traditionally archived.

Your latter point is spot on up until the advertising remark. Editorial and journalistic staff take their stuff very seriously and are often at odds with corporate and other managerial staff and are typically more into innovating (I rather like working with them and art teams... outside of lifestyle brands, anyway). Managing editors tend to want expediency and quality and don't mind one way or the other. The corporate and business management end are certainly consumed with sales, advertising, and analytics.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#80

Post by stochastic_monk »

SargeZT wrote: post #78
agluszak wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

The first one is fine, it's humorous and relevant to the topic. The reply is pointless though, it's only talking about moderation of the topic.

Guidelines say that talking about votes is pointless and therefore against the rules.

“Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.”

Post reply on HN