Previous Edition Audit

Here are your findings from the previous issues.

2011 Edition

  • PRO: Line element for captions
  • PRO: Metallic ink on red cover is nice
  • PRO: Random placement
  • CON: Random images taken too far
  • CON: Bleeding images
  • CON: Needs bolder background for white images
  • CON: Uninteresting student photos

2012 Edition

  • PRO: Nod to Sagmeister
  • PRO: Cover art is well done
  • PRO: The book is unique
  • PRO: Student photos
  • PRO: Captions are handled well
  • CON: Pages are very busy
  • CON: Bleeding images against whitespace
  • CON: Confusing index

2013 Edition

  • PRO: Pattern is nice
  • PRO: Tone on tone printing on cover
  • PRO: Perfect bind
  • PRO: Uncoated paper
  • PRO: Mysterious cover design
  • CON: Potentially confusing cover design
  • CON: No table of contents (though this was debated in class)
  • CON: Size is awkward (though this was debated in class)
  • CON: Type is too small and hard to read in captions

2014 Edition

  • PRO: Color organization
  • PRO: Lettering is nice
  • PRO: Perfect bind and spine
  • PRO: Organized and legible captions
  • PRO: Image size and count per page
  • PRO: Quotes are a nice touch
  • CON: Lettering doesn’t tie back into design
  • CON: Faux craft paper cover
  • CON: No sections
  • CON: Cover weight paper could be heavier
  • CON: Non-distressed stamp design on cover
  • CON: Unorganized
  • CON: Awkward page size
  • CON: Bad paper

2015 Edition

  • PRO: Consistent aesthetic
  • PRO: Carrier (folder) is nice
  • CON: Caption numbers and folios are at odds
  • CON: Too shiny
  • CON: Calendar bind doesn’t make functional sense
  • CON: Organizational method doesn’t make much sense
  • CON: Color scheme
  • CON: Black background is sometimes harsh on images
  • CON: Colors seem arbitrary

2016 Edition

  • PRO: Layout is nice
  • PRO: Paper quality
  • PRO: Hand-bindery
  • PRO: Color palette
  • PRO: Captions are handled well
  • PRO: Student section is nice
  • PRO: Color coding on index
  • PRO: Color system works well
  • PRO: Section intros (layout and french-fold) are strong
  • PRO: Uncoated paper
  • CON: Page size could be wider
  • CON: Borders on images could be more consistent
  • CON: Maze pattern doesn’t match the aesthetic of the rest of the publication

Some things that seemed very important to the class in general are:

  • Uncoated paper
  • Sections and organization

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s