On November 20, The Times launched a new compact typeface and introduced a number of design changes, continuing its tradition of setting the visual and typographical agenda for newspapers.



Neville Brody (above), formerly art director of The Face, and lead designer on Actuel, City Limits and Arena magazines, played a key role the project and also worked on the redesign of Times2 in 2005.

David Driver is Head if Design at The Times

Neville/David, congratulations on a splendid new typeface and subtle and airy feel to the page layout. The new typeface is beautifully designed. The kerning is precise, eliminates unnecessary inter-character spacing and allows greater legibility. Can you let me know what sans typeface you have used and what the point size and leading of the body type is? Also, what were the top five layout/design changes, excluding typography? Michael Crozier, London

The sans typeface is Gotham designed by Hoefler & Frere Jones in New York. The body copy is Times Classic 8.5/9pt.

The top five design changes:

1. Clarity: expression of different content types (reporting, comment, facts etc); 2. Navigation: clear signposting to guide the reader through what can be a large newspaper with many sections: 3. Consistency: use of the same design devices throughout the entire paper to create a coherent package; 4. Energy: use of large scaled images, impactful graphics and hard hitting facts to deliver the news of the day in an original and direct manner; 5. Evolution: to incorporate devices that are becoming familiar in the way readers now receive news; news pointers and summaries for example, reflecting the increasing use of the web, mobile and television to digest news.

I understand that The Times uses bespoke fonts rather than shop bought fonts. As someone who is interested in design but lacks technical knowledge, could you explain what this means? And who designs the fonts? Diana Carpenter, Middlesex

A bespoke font is one that is designed with a very specific end user in mind, and is commissioned for a client's exclusive use. Shop-bought fonts, are pre-existing commercially available products that anyone may purchase. The parallel is with having a suit made for you rather than buy one off the peg. Fonts are designed by type designers - people who specialise in the drawing of letters, the spacing between them, and finally the software that allows us to use and see them.

The new masthead includes a really bad idea. The article specifically states that the masthead does not include the Royal Arms, but a new crest designed by an engraver. The word "crest" is used to mean "Achievement" or "Coat of Arms". The crest is the "bit on top of the helmet"; the new device does not include one. But it does include the Garter, the Royal supporters and motto, an apparently Royal crown, and four quarters from current or former Royal arms. They certainly appear to the uninitiated to be the Royal arms. An engraver has no business designing Coats of Arms. That is the prerogative of the College of Arms. What on earth were you thinking? Gordon Finlay, Christchurch, New Zealand

Thank you for your inquiry relating to my article on the new Times Masthead. The "royal coat of arms", "coat of arms", "arms" and "device", are the usual phrases used, when referring to the arms alone. 'Title' when referring to The Times alone and "masthead" for the combination. In the 1932 pamphlet Printing The Times, by Stanley Morison, in connection with the introduction of Times New Roman, he uses "title-piece", "title" or "heading" rather than "masthead". I am sorry that the word "crest" was inaccurately used, but the engraver of this new coat of arms has utilised all the elements of the former version. Throughout the history of The Times, it has been the tradition to commission this work as an informal but much-loved part of our identity. DD.

I know things move on, and designers' ideas themselves move on even quicker, but looking at The Times mastheads from the 1700s to 2006, don't you think that Stanley Morrison's 1930s design stands out as being light years ahead of its time, appearing modern and strong even today? Niche Merket, Peebles

It clearly was ahead of its time, and Morrisons's masthead still certainly has a presence about it, but we feel the new one captures more accurately The Times of today, being sharper in feel and more robust.

I'd like to know why the clock above the editorial articles, between "past" and "future" marks half-past four (I think that's the right time). Thank you very much. Tony Fraga, A Corunna, Spain

Half-past four, relates to "publication time". It is an historic reference established in 1911, when papers competed to show who went to press the latest. The oak leaves signify permanence... past; the clock... present; misteloe... future. This device was re-engraved in 1949 by Reynolds Stone, and established as the "Leader page" heading. You can see a full background to this subject here. DD.

Why did The Times reject the idea of a return to New Roman or Europa? David Rhodes, Leeds

Europa was a particularly robust design that suited the peculiar printing conditions of the day, and to a much lesser degree than it would now. Due to these utilitarian idiosyncrasies it lacked a certain elegance of shape on the page. The original Times New Roman, while beautiful has dated, and in the spirit of modernity and of functional necessity the new fonts counter these issues. The new font is of high contrast, sharp edges and crisp lines, and is designed from the ground up with an economy of width to allow greater numbers of characters in a headline, suiting more appropriately the tabloid page size.

I hope you're going to do something aesthetically pleasing with that dreadfully-designed Saturday Comment page which contains the Matthew Parris column. I think it's been like that ever since The Times went "compact". It always reminds me of one of those awfully designed pages one regularly finds in free newspapers. Anthony Green, Leeds

Matthew Parris's Saturday column will indeed be included in this process (see this Saturday's paper). He now also has a regular slot on Thursday's called "My Week".

For many years now the period and the comma have been difficult to tell apart, particularly when reading on a moving train. Times Modern appears to address that problem splendidly, for which much thanks. Derek Bevan, Ingatestone

We thank you for your comment, although rarely do we have such detailed observation!

I'm sorry, the redesign simply looks half finished. A jumble of type faces which to me fails to give The Times its own identity. The Guardian looks the market leader in design and its use of full color. Let's go all the way in a redesign, although I suppose you would never please the more conservative reader. Philip Hudson, Blackpool

The Times has plans to become a full-colour paper in the not too distant future. Meanwhile, we will continue to work with what we have; a mix of colour and monochrome pages. As far as the "jumble of type faces" we hope that as you grow familiar with the evolved look you will discover that the change in typeface signals a change in content, and ultimately articulates differing forms of content more immediately, producing an easier-to-read newspaper.

I really like the redesign and found the differences subtle yet strong. I think the new typeface appears more feminine, does anybody agree? Was this deliberate? Phillipa Warden, Wilmslow, Cheshire

The overall design was certainly intended to be more appealing to women readers, and that is reflected in the more elegant, crisper design for the headline font. We have also introduced other elements that support this, like a greatly-reduced use of all-capitalised words, and the choice of a more open, lighter sans-serif font headline for opinion pieces.