The Generation thing was amazing! The little pig that fell through the floor!
As for ratings, well, I hope it gives them a well deserved kick up the backside. I maintain that in terms of how watchable and interesting the channel is, it remains leagues ahead of News 24, but compared to any of the American networks it looks third rate.
I also hope they invest in some decent map software; Viz Map being a good example.
You look at the sort of thing CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS come up with and compare it to the the flat, untextured rubbish that the British networks produce and it's shameful really.
I have to disagree on this - the untextured maps a la Sky, ITV, BBC look much clearer, less tacky and generally, well, better, than the maps used on CBS News (for example).
However, for truly awful maps you ought to experience Anglia Tonight (West) <shudder>
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I find it very, very, very hard to understand how you can describe the plain, totally lacking in physical features, maps of the UK networks as ''generally, well, better'' than a flyover 3D surface representation.
If a plane crashed in a mountain range, Sky would show you a flat map of the area. ABC would be able to zoom in and illustrate just how high the mountain was in relation to other land in the area... I know which I'd prefer.
In this instance I'd agree - but most of the time all you need the map for is to show viewers where something has happened, and I think purely diagrammatic maps are better for this.
For example, fancy 3D flyover maps would be overcomplicated to show the proposed M6 Toll extension, for example.
I also hope they invest in some decent map software; Viz Map being a good example.
You look at the sort of thing CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS come up with and compare it to the the flat, untextured rubbish that the British networks produce and it's shameful really.
I have to disagree on this - the untextured maps a la Sky, ITV, BBC look much clearer, less tacky and generally, well, better, than the maps used on CBS News (for example).
However, for truly awful maps you ought to experience Anglia Tonight (West) <shudder>
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I find it very, very, very hard to understand how you can describe the plain, totally lacking in physical features, maps of the UK networks as ''generally, well, better'' than a flyover 3D surface representation.
If a plane crashed in a mountain range, Sky would show you a flat map of the area. ABC would be able to zoom in and illustrate just how high the mountain was in relation to other land in the area... I know which I'd prefer.
I think you have to chose the right graphic to tell the story best. For quick geographical references, the flat UK maps, and global map spins used by the UK networks work well, as people are familiar with standard map shapes and the globe projection. They tell the story quickly and are highly recognisable.
By keeping extraneous detail, like surface topography, to a minimum you can also use them more quickly for the same level of information to be conveyed. (Relief detail can often be distracting if it is irrelevant) It also allows more creative use of colour to be used.
However, if you are trying to tell a story where topography, or other features such as building / road layout is important, then fly throughs, 3-D renders, relief mapping with movement can be a really powerful tool. The trick is to use it when it is relevant, rather than throwing it at stories where it adds nothing.
Viz do make some great graphics kit - but you also have to be careful with some of their stuff - it is often oversold, and technically less than great in the quality stakes. (A lot of their stuff really struggles with 16:9 non-square pixel stuff, and has real problems generating decent keys. Some of their stuff can look quite poor on-screen technically when compared with some of their rivals. Viz may look flashier - but the whizz bang does often only slightly distract from the greater flaws)
I take your point, Noggin, but personally I don't find topography distracting at all. Useful, if anything. The BBC will be doing it as a regular thing in 10 years time, no doubt.
I've always said that about News 24's current graphics - the colours and plain font ARE a throwback from 20, 30 years ago. Other than that though, a map's a map. The "usual" BBC style of map is enough for me.
I just think the whole British thinking with regards to graphic design is "simple is better", and I'd agree with that. We've gone through a period of really basic designs that still look great. Basic has had the fasionable edge over fancy, while American networks have still favoured the flash, bangs and swooshes.
In recent months though I reckon a change is happening. In the UK, more fancy graphics are becoming fashionable (those News 24 animations one example) whereas people like CNN have become a bit more sedate with their offerings.
The BBC maps for Iraq, Afganistand and Isreal are very snazzy and have topography on them without being too distracting. Shame they don't use that style for everyhwere really. Or at least Britain.