Results: Previous edition audit

Here are your findings from the previous issues. In general, you all seemed to feel that a small book was better than the larger versions.


2017—Fermin and Sam

  • PRO: Has table appeal and stands up
  • PRO: Variety on the pages
  • PRO: Strong construction
  • PRO: Purple paper (bright random color)
  • CON: Confusing at first glance
  • CON: Distressing on cover is unconvincing
  • CON: Scale of the booklet
  • CON: Static in presentation
  • CON: Index is confusing
  • CON: Outlines

2016—Chris and Jessie

  • PRO: Hand stitching, numbering, and signing—feels very custom
  • PRO: Personal touch portraits of design team
  • PRO: Good writing
  • PRO: Clean design that lacks bleeds
  • PRO: Consistent scale for artwork
  • PRO: Color coding on the index is a nice touch
  • CON: Lacks labeling for the design team photos
  • CON: Some small inconsistencies

2015—Rachel and Layne

  • PRO: Background pattern executed well
  • PRO: Section descriptions are good
  • CON: Bad weird
  • CON: Carrier is strange
  • CON: Color usage feels random
  • CON: Strange category choices
  • CON: Haphazard layout
  • CON: Fussy captions

2014—Justin and Marcel

  • PRO: Good size—easy to hold
  • PRO: Hand-drawn typography is interesting
  • PRO: Consistent placement for captions
  • PRO: Enjoyed the inspirational quotes
  • CON: Lacks table of contents
  • CON: Coated paper creates glare
  • CON: Lacks personalized section for the design team

2013—Alexis and Kerry

  • PRO: Strong cover—the book has a spine
  • PRO: Size is nice
  • PRO: Simplicity in design
  • PRO: Fly sheets
  • PRO: Organized and the pacing is good
  • PRO: Strong typography
  • PRO: Image sizes are good
  • PRO: Consistent section intros
  • CON: Confusing # on the cover

2012—Fermin and Sam

  • PRO: Appealing booklets
  • PRO: Bright surprising red
  • PRO: Artwork bleeds
  • PRO: Variation in scale of images creates interest
  • CON: No table appeal
  • CON: Single booklets isolate the disciplines
  • CON: Inconsistency in page design
  • CON: Confusing hierarchy
  • CON: Doesn’t stay together

2011—Chris and Jessie

  • PRO: Design team section
  • PRO: Strong section intros
  • CON: School life shots are crowded
  • CON: Have to turn the book to read the intro
  • CON: Chaotic page layout
  • CON: Coated sheets create glare

2010—Rachel and Layne

  • PRO: Die cut is fun
  • PRO: Color scheme is strong
  • PRO: Grid is consistent
  • CON: Graphic design section lacks focal point
  • CON: Die cut is not functional
  • CON: Inconsistent type and color
  • CON: Odd transitions
  • CON: Too many variables in the design
  • CON: Lacks writing about the departments
  • CON: Weird outlines

2009—Justin and Marcel

  • PRO: Matte coated sheet hides glare
  • PRO: Good use of quotes throughout the design
  • CON: Size of booklet is too big
  • CON: Design is dated
  • CON: Awkward whitespace
  • CON: Lacks contrast and looks washed out in some cases

2008—Alexis and Kerry

  • PRO: Simplicity
  • PRO: Good image sizes
  • PRO: Strong image groups
  • CON: Clumsy size
  • CON: Front matter is not handled well
  • CON: Coated paper looks cheap
  • CON: Some awkward layouts
  • CON: Cut type feels like it is trying too hard
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