Which book cover design do you like best?
Here are the three first round sketches. Which one do you like best? Which one would you pick up in the bookstore? Which one would you assign in your class? Vote below, post comments to the post, or email additional feedback to authors AT digital-foundations DOT net.
If you are really hardcore, we have attached the Illustrator Files in a .zip file here.
Which book cover design do you like best?
- #2 Blocks (33%, 11 Votes)
- #1 lowercase “f” (30%, 10 Votes)
- #3 All Text (21%, 7 Votes)
- #4 Tilted Rectangle (15%, 5 Votes)
Total Voters: 33
Loading …In reverse alphabetical order
#1, lowercase “f”
#2 Blocks
#3, All Text
#4 Tilted Rectangle
Which book cover design do you like best?
- #2 Blocks (33%, 11 Votes)
- #1 lowercase “f” (30%, 10 Votes)
- #3 All Text (21%, 7 Votes)
- #4 Tilted Rectangle (15%, 5 Votes)
Total Voters: 33
Loading …
Evan Moran wrote:
#1 would catch my eye first if i saw it in a book store. It speaks to me the most.
Posted on 20-Feb-08 at 6:50 am | Permalink
Dan wrote:
I was initially torn between numbers 2 and 3.
Posted on 20-Feb-08 at 9:36 am | Permalink
Dan wrote:
(incomplete comment) but if I had to choose one, it’d be 3.
Posted on 20-Feb-08 at 9:38 am | Permalink
Michele Cynowicz wrote:
I toggled between #1 and #2. #1 looks sleek and clean, which I like, but also pulls my brain towards typography specifically, while #2 seems more playful with design.
Posted on 20-Feb-08 at 10:02 am | Permalink
Tara wrote:
I am enticed to say Design #1. I think this one more clearly depicts a “constructivist design” to which your book is essentially focusing on.
Posted on 20-Feb-08 at 10:47 am | Permalink
Lucy Griesbach wrote:
italic F expresses “font” & design best
Posted on 21-Feb-08 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
allen wrote:
I’m torn between lowercase f and blocks, but blocks stands out more so I’d say go with blocks
Posted on 21-Feb-08 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
houda wrote:
I’m instantly drawn to #4, Tiled Rectangle.
Second choice would be #2, Blocks (it reminded me of Bukowski cover)
Question: what type of material would it be printed on? Like will it be glossy or matte? (#4 for matte, #2 for glossy)
Posted on 21-Feb-08 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
Dan Ariely wrote:
V #2 is my favorite, but my taste might be off
(see http://www.predictablyirrational.com)
God luck
Dan
Posted on 22-Feb-08 at 7:40 am | Permalink
Sherry Millner wrote:
blocks works best i think–references the ‘foundations’ of design visually–bauhaus, dada collage…. avoids the corporate logo look! and readable from every angle
Posted on 22-Feb-08 at 8:33 pm | Permalink
Mushon wrote:
Hi guys,
I tend towards block mainly as a conceptual direction. I can see the slight stylistic reference to Saul Bass, and I think it makes sense that you do that in the cover as it is consistent with the approach you’re taking through out the book. I am not sure though that Saul Bass or in general that pure vector style convey the content of the book or what the reader can expect to learn from it. For an art (/design) history reference I would turn to of Rodchenko and his other Russian Constructivist friends and try to achieve a more graphic collage result using photographed images + illustrated images + typography + graphic elements + composition + color to convey a message.
I think you are right for not following the trend of these books to create a technical digital design spectacle with the cover. But I do think the cover needs to convey a distinct design statement (which #1 with its playfulness does a little bit better than #2).
Another thing to remember to look for is to check how does the cover work as a thumbnail, as today people are flipping through book covers more as low-res Jpegs on Amazon (and the likes) than as fullsize 300dpi prints in bookstores. You should ask yourself whether in a stream of thumbnails, users would click your thumbnail to see a bigger image, get more info and ideally order the book.
I hope you’re ok with this, but I do think you can and should do better with the cover as it will be a very important asset in getting your work out there.
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
Michael wrote:
Yeah, we should try to include an image. We were looking at this before…
Also, nice point re: thumbnail. I remember zooming out on all of them to assess them, but I’m not sure I went out far enough.
Posted on 21-Mar-08 at 10:25 am | Permalink
Adam Schwartz wrote:
Malevich! It makes a kind of sense to me to relate fundamental digital design to what has become fundamental to graphic design and art, i.e. early modernist experimentation. So often people try to separate digital work into it’s own sci-fi-ish space, but I think you make a strong argument for digital design just being another innovation in a long history of innovation by referencing a very analog design for your cover.
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 11:22 pm | Permalink