SP
Or simply that Singapore can independently produce a pre-recorded programme without tying up an NBH studio, so it makes sense for them to do so.
IL
True! Another advantage of the new set up! Although if there is a major story in Asia then WBR could come from Singapore to provide local coverage, with a quick dab into other stories and markets. This is also useful if NBH has to go off air for whatever reason, then Singapore can provide a backup if need be.
How are the overnights covered when they go their separate ways? I thought the gallery was tied up for one channel (or both simulcasted as in the top half hour).
Or simply that Singapore can independently produce a pre-recorded programme without tying up an NBH studio, so it makes sense for them to do so.
True! Another advantage of the new set up! Although if there is a major story in Asia then WBR could come from Singapore to provide local coverage, with a quick dab into other stories and markets. This is also useful if NBH has to go off air for whatever reason, then Singapore can provide a backup if need be.
How are the overnights covered when they go their separate ways? I thought the gallery was tied up for one channel (or both simulcasted as in the top half hour).
SP
Karin G mentioning that World was off air earlier in Europe due to some issues with the satellite distribution. Unrelated to the website outage, apparently.
HB
I've noticed recently these last fews days that overnight bulletins no longer use the 'broadcasting at home and around the globe' at the TOTHs anymore. Whether this is just because of the Christmas period - or not, but it seems to now have been dropped from use. Presenter just calls the programme BBC News like normal, except midnight bulletin which is BBC World News.
JW
.....and Naga Munchetty is back on The World Today at 5am.
Eh??????
Things are getting back to normal now, Newsday is back.
.....and Naga Munchetty is back on The World Today at 5am.
Eh??????
DT
Whatever happened to Gill Sans? Well it might have something to do with them replacing it with Helvetica at the last rebrand due to its superiority for small onscreen graphics. While Gill Sans may be a more aesthetically pleasing it isn't as clear as Helvetica at smaller sizes. Also Helvetica has a much wider range of weights available that actually look decent - Gill Sans on the other hand is pretty much restricted to bold and lighter as some of the Heavier versions are atrocious and the condensed version looks like a different font altogether. Helvetica also has greater language compatibility - and when trying to create a unified look across the BBC, including the World Service, that helps. Gill Sans is pretty much restricted to the major European alphabets - there are, however, Hebrew, Arabic and other versions of Helvetica.
As far as horrendous goes - Helvetica isn't horrendous. Arial is horrendous. Helvetica is one of the greatest fonts given its simplicity, legibility and uniformity. As much as I love Gill Sans, it is in some ways a poor font - there are several inconsistencies within the font, and not just between weights, and it is annoying that the I, l and 1 characters are all identical. Furthermore Helvetica certainly isn't 'un-BBC', in fact it was being used in BBC branding long before Gill Sans. I may be wrong but isn't the first BBC '2' in Helvetica Expanded.
BBC WN should do something about the use of helvetica in its graphics. It's horrendous by any standards. Whatever happened to using Gill Sans?
Whatever happened to Gill Sans? Well it might have something to do with them replacing it with Helvetica at the last rebrand due to its superiority for small onscreen graphics. While Gill Sans may be a more aesthetically pleasing it isn't as clear as Helvetica at smaller sizes. Also Helvetica has a much wider range of weights available that actually look decent - Gill Sans on the other hand is pretty much restricted to bold and lighter as some of the Heavier versions are atrocious and the condensed version looks like a different font altogether. Helvetica also has greater language compatibility - and when trying to create a unified look across the BBC, including the World Service, that helps. Gill Sans is pretty much restricted to the major European alphabets - there are, however, Hebrew, Arabic and other versions of Helvetica.
As far as horrendous goes - Helvetica isn't horrendous. Arial is horrendous. Helvetica is one of the greatest fonts given its simplicity, legibility and uniformity. As much as I love Gill Sans, it is in some ways a poor font - there are several inconsistencies within the font, and not just between weights, and it is annoying that the I, l and 1 characters are all identical. Furthermore Helvetica certainly isn't 'un-BBC', in fact it was being used in BBC branding long before Gill Sans. I may be wrong but isn't the first BBC '2' in Helvetica Expanded.
WH
Whatever happened to Gill Sans? Well it might have something to do with them replacing it with Helvetica at the last rebrand due to its superiority for small onscreen graphics. While Gill Sans may be a more aesthetically pleasing it isn't as clear as Helvetica at smaller sizes. Also Helvetica has a much wider range of weights available that actually look decent - Gill Sans on the other hand is pretty much restricted to bold and lighter as some of the Heavier versions are atrocious and the condensed version looks like a different font altogether. Helvetica also has greater language compatibility - and when trying to create a unified look across the BBC, including the World Service, that helps. Gill Sans is pretty much restricted to the major European alphabets - there are, however, Hebrew, Arabic and other versions of Helvetica.
As far as horrendous goes - Helvetica isn't horrendous. Arial is horrendous. Helvetica is one of the greatest fonts given its simplicity, legibility and uniformity. As much as I love Gill Sans, it is in some ways a poor font - there are several inconsistencies within the font, and not just between weights, and it is annoying that the I, l and 1 characters are all identical. Furthermore Helvetica certainly isn't 'un-BBC', in fact it was being used in BBC branding long before Gill Sans. I may be wrong but isn't the first BBC '2' in Helvetica Expanded.
A bit off topic here, but speaking of 'Gill Sans vs. other fonts', what about the new revision of Gill Sans from Monotype released last year? Also, what about the fonts similar to Gill in style, but more legible?
BBC WN should do something about the use of helvetica in its graphics. It's horrendous by any standards. Whatever happened to using Gill Sans?
Whatever happened to Gill Sans? Well it might have something to do with them replacing it with Helvetica at the last rebrand due to its superiority for small onscreen graphics. While Gill Sans may be a more aesthetically pleasing it isn't as clear as Helvetica at smaller sizes. Also Helvetica has a much wider range of weights available that actually look decent - Gill Sans on the other hand is pretty much restricted to bold and lighter as some of the Heavier versions are atrocious and the condensed version looks like a different font altogether. Helvetica also has greater language compatibility - and when trying to create a unified look across the BBC, including the World Service, that helps. Gill Sans is pretty much restricted to the major European alphabets - there are, however, Hebrew, Arabic and other versions of Helvetica.
As far as horrendous goes - Helvetica isn't horrendous. Arial is horrendous. Helvetica is one of the greatest fonts given its simplicity, legibility and uniformity. As much as I love Gill Sans, it is in some ways a poor font - there are several inconsistencies within the font, and not just between weights, and it is annoying that the I, l and 1 characters are all identical. Furthermore Helvetica certainly isn't 'un-BBC', in fact it was being used in BBC branding long before Gill Sans. I may be wrong but isn't the first BBC '2' in Helvetica Expanded.
A bit off topic here, but speaking of 'Gill Sans vs. other fonts', what about the new revision of Gill Sans from Monotype released last year? Also, what about the fonts similar to Gill in style, but more legible?