• by Larry Dobrow , Featured Columnist, March 31, 2005

Popular Science has been around since 1872, plopping it somewhere between Talk and Harper's on the publishing evolutionary timeline. Since the onset of the Internet era, however, the mag has felt somewhat dated and, at times, irrelevant. It's not that Popular Science has dumbed itself down or appreciably changed its focus, just that it pales in comparison to shiny technology tracts like Wired. A telescope isn't the glam accessory it once was, you know.

The April 2005 issue of Popular Science surprises for two reasons: First, that the publication's writing and reporting remains as crisp as ever, with a tone that hits the sweet spot between abstruse and shallow. Second, that it is more in need of a graphic overhaul than anything within 50 yards of it on the newsstand.

Put simply, the design is an affront to the words it houses. Yes, the mag has familiarized itself with the notion of the "sidebar" in recent years, but overall its layout hearkens back to the dark days of 1983. Even when Popular Science attempts to do something a little different - a two-page spread designed to illustrate the massive wingspan of the new Airbus A380 jetliner - the split between the abutting pages drains the imposing image of its power.

Equally wasteful is the obligatory product-plug fiesta, in which the mag crams 20 products onto two pages. Even if the point of the spread is to appeal to would-be advertisers or appease obnoxiously insistent PR pros, it fails miserably. I can't imagine any company wanting its products highlighted in such a cramped environment. And since when are sunglasses worthy of consideration in Popular Science anyway?

Fortunately, most people (check that: most people with a brain) judge magazines on their stories rather than their purty pictures - and in that sense, Popular Science still shines. The "Headlines" section offers a nifty amalgam of items on bone cements, techniques for the disposal of nuclear waste, and robots, both in space and below the sea. There's also a smart item on a Mojave Desert race between unmanned robotic vehicles. There are more unthinking automatons per column inch here than in any publication not named Us Weekly.

As somebody who enjoys loud noises and blowing stuff up, I responded instinctively to the smaller items on the next generation of cordless power tools and remote-controlled vehicles for adults. The cover feature, chronicling a "road test" of several luxe sports cars and their virtual equivalents (courtesy of Microsoft's new Forca Motorsports software), didn't make me feel like I was in the driver's seat as promised. But the story that followed, a look at the structure of the proposed World Trade Center tower, worked much better, offering the issue's single provocative graphic treatment (a four-page centerfold illustrating potential safety concerns).

If there's one area where Popular Science could improve its content, it's in the "Soapbox" collection of columnists. Apparently the mag's personal tech advocate doesn't read his spam - wow, that's sure gonna hit offshore scammers where it hurts. Happily, the "How 2.0" section pulled me right back in, debunking the myth that one can prevent a shaken beer from exploding by rubbing a quarter on the bottom of the can. Hmm, better file that tip away for Monday morning.

All things considered, Popular Science is in better shape than other titles that are supposedly in flux: it has a distinctive voice and mission, as well as a vast reservoir of credibility upon which to draw. But until the mag brings its design into the 2000s - hell, into the 1990s - it risks diluting the impact of its expertise. It's a problem to be addressed sooner rather than later.