Photoshop Assignment
Before:
Mid (this is the one where I was replacing heads, so this one has four replaced heads, but the most obvious are the two boys in red--one in each corner--from other pictures (totally different pictures). I learned a LOT and it took forever. So before I started on the girl in brown on the left hand side with the stretched head, I decided to poke around and see if I could find a magic button...see below):
After (so this one has the tool that allows you to change the lens, but then I also replaced two heads--the little boy standing in the front left in purple with yellow writing and his dad toward the right in purple with glasses):
Illustrator Assignment
Typography Assignment
Before:
Scheme: Complementary (lime green and violet)
InDesign Assignment
Before:
After (I know you wouldn't normally have the colored bar on the outside page AND the page number in the gutter. BUT, I wanted to include it so that it showed that I had thought of it. It'd probably be on the next page and just not on this page at all perhaps....I'd have to see for sure when I actually typeset a book. :) ):
After (I know you wouldn't normally have the colored bar on the outside page AND the page number in the gutter. BUT, I wanted to include it so that it showed that I had thought of it. It'd probably be on the next page and just not on this page at all perhaps....I'd have to see for sure when I actually typeset a book. :) ):
Design Critique Assignment
"Academic Writing for Graduate Students" by Swales and Feak (I decided to critique this book because it is just so tragic. It’s a textbook about academic writing and, yet, it’s nearly illegible.):
PROXIMITY:
There's no use of proximity in a good way. Instead of separating items that are not necessarily related to each other, it seems as though they're all thrown on the page. There's no varied spaces between items to show relationships either. White space is trapped everywhere! Perhaps it's due to the size of the page and the amount of information, but it's still extremely dysfunctional.
ALIGNMENT:
It seems as though there is no use of alignments other than left aligned. Random things are "tabbed in", but they're either so random or so sporadic that it does not contribute to clarity in any way. Not that center or right are incredibly appropriate for a text book, but something should be used to display some kind of definition. In addition to the plethora of issues in the other areas of design, the #'s on the sentences (dark circles around numbers) are too low on the baseline. It distracts the eye from being able to read without being interrupted. Indented paragraphs are also so sparse that it doesn't make sense to have one paragraph every two or three pages. The only alignment that looks vaguely intentional is the task title with the (maybe) 2 pt line right under it. However, it's not enough contrast to really even be noticeable.
REPETITION:
There is a complete lack of repetition as consistency in the way we learned. If the reader forces themselves through enough of the book, it turns out there is something that could be perceived as consistency or repetition as a non-designer, but it's not effective at all. It's there, but we've learned all semester that if you're going to apply these principles, apply them well: go big, or go home! This book doesn't do that at all, which is what makes it fail. There's also nothing concordant about the typography, but I'll address that later.
CONTRAST:
I think this is the most glaring problem with this book, but probably because all of these principles interplay with each other. The biggest issue I see is the lack of color on the page. Yes, if it were me, I would certainly include a CMYK color scheme somehow, but there's also no attention to the "color" on the page. Probably related results of that error are the nearly undefined/non-discriminate section breaks. For example, the section font is a sans serif, normal font, maybe 13 pt. The same font (or perhaps just a similar one) is also used for other items that should be represented in a different way. It's all just SIMILAR which equates to a book full of conflict instead of contrast. Without the contrast, the fonts become competitive and confusing. Go big or go home. The designers of this book did not.
Just to reiterate the point (see the picture below), the typography of this book is awful. In this one spread, there are eight or nine different fonts including one or two serif fonts, at least 6 different sans serif fonts, and one sans serif that has a slight thick/thin transition but is used completely ineffectively. There are no decorative fonts at all. Again, not that decorative fonts are exactly appropriate for textbooks, but I'm certain a less drastic one could be employed for distinction of items. Lastly, what in the world are all the boxes/lines/rules?? Perhaps the plan was to use lines as a replacement for proximity and contrast, but this is a classic case of using too many boxes/rules to help. Can you tell I don't like this book? :)
"Academic Writing for Graduate Students" by Swales and Feak (I decided to critique this book because it is just so tragic. It’s a textbook about academic writing and, yet, it’s nearly illegible.):
There's no use of proximity in a good way. Instead of separating items that are not necessarily related to each other, it seems as though they're all thrown on the page. There's no varied spaces between items to show relationships either. White space is trapped everywhere! Perhaps it's due to the size of the page and the amount of information, but it's still extremely dysfunctional.
ALIGNMENT:
It seems as though there is no use of alignments other than left aligned. Random things are "tabbed in", but they're either so random or so sporadic that it does not contribute to clarity in any way. Not that center or right are incredibly appropriate for a text book, but something should be used to display some kind of definition. In addition to the plethora of issues in the other areas of design, the #'s on the sentences (dark circles around numbers) are too low on the baseline. It distracts the eye from being able to read without being interrupted. Indented paragraphs are also so sparse that it doesn't make sense to have one paragraph every two or three pages. The only alignment that looks vaguely intentional is the task title with the (maybe) 2 pt line right under it. However, it's not enough contrast to really even be noticeable.
REPETITION:
There is a complete lack of repetition as consistency in the way we learned. If the reader forces themselves through enough of the book, it turns out there is something that could be perceived as consistency or repetition as a non-designer, but it's not effective at all. It's there, but we've learned all semester that if you're going to apply these principles, apply them well: go big, or go home! This book doesn't do that at all, which is what makes it fail. There's also nothing concordant about the typography, but I'll address that later.
CONTRAST:
I think this is the most glaring problem with this book, but probably because all of these principles interplay with each other. The biggest issue I see is the lack of color on the page. Yes, if it were me, I would certainly include a CMYK color scheme somehow, but there's also no attention to the "color" on the page. Probably related results of that error are the nearly undefined/non-discriminate section breaks. For example, the section font is a sans serif, normal font, maybe 13 pt. The same font (or perhaps just a similar one) is also used for other items that should be represented in a different way. It's all just SIMILAR which equates to a book full of conflict instead of contrast. Without the contrast, the fonts become competitive and confusing. Go big or go home. The designers of this book did not.
Just to reiterate the point (see the picture below), the typography of this book is awful. In this one spread, there are eight or nine different fonts including one or two serif fonts, at least 6 different sans serif fonts, and one sans serif that has a slight thick/thin transition but is used completely ineffectively. There are no decorative fonts at all. Again, not that decorative fonts are exactly appropriate for textbooks, but I'm certain a less drastic one could be employed for distinction of items. Lastly, what in the world are all the boxes/lines/rules?? Perhaps the plan was to use lines as a replacement for proximity and contrast, but this is a classic case of using too many boxes/rules to help. Can you tell I don't like this book? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment