<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Critique our cover!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/</link>
	<description>Before &#38; After&#039;s creative director John McWade&#039;s conversations with subscribers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:50:15 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angela</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1832</link>
		<dc:creator>Angela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1832</guid>
		<description>I like the black. What&#039;s with all the extra white space in between the text and images? It looks arbitrary. I&#039;d nudge images to the left a bit. I don&#039;t mind them falling off the page, though. That&#039;s good. But add a couple more images. They don&#039;t have to go that much closer to the text, but a little bit more would be better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the black. What&#8217;s with all the extra white space in between the text and images? It looks arbitrary. I&#8217;d nudge images to the left a bit. I don&#8217;t mind them falling off the page, though. That&#8217;s good. But add a couple more images. They don&#8217;t have to go that much closer to the text, but a little bit more would be better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1831</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1831</guid>
		<description>Quieter colors are better, but overall, it takes too much effort to read the title.  The eye is drawn to the changes in color, so jumping around from block to block inhibits the viewer from simply reading the cover. In a small size, almost impossible to read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quieter colors are better, but overall, it takes too much effort to read the title.  The eye is drawn to the changes in color, so jumping around from block to block inhibits the viewer from simply reading the cover. In a small size, almost impossible to read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Enikö</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1830</link>
		<dc:creator>Enikö</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1830</guid>
		<description>I would choose the book with the second cover. It&#039;s bold and it draws your attention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would choose the book with the second cover. It&#8217;s bold and it draws your attention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samuel</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1828</link>
		<dc:creator>Samuel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:24:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1828</guid>
		<description>Bold. The pale letters seem faded against the Before &amp; After logo and the bold content on the right. Also goes better with the words.

Go for the punch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bold. The pale letters seem faded against the Before &#038; After logo and the bold content on the right. Also goes better with the words.</p>
<p>Go for the punch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bri</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1827</link>
		<dc:creator>bri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1827</guid>
		<description>Black font vs. beige is really the question.

Black font colour: You notice it, reminded me of cameras for some reason; it&#039;s punchy, slicker, bolder, and you don&#039;t need the exclamation point with the black font. 

Beige font colour: For some reason the name Martha came to mind and reminds me of craft fairs and needlepoint — blah . . . dull . . . underwhelming.

Graphics — less is more I think here. If you&#039;re going huge and bold with the font (black one), I&#039;d rethink the graphics and excerpt. To be honest, it really feels like it goes against everything Before &amp; After teaches.  Too many fonts, too busy, contradictory to everything that&#039;s inside. 

An option might be to take out the graphics, widen the font and use them in the cut-outs of the letters with a thick stroke around them in the bold colour. Reduce the &quot;blurb&quot; to less than 10 words — key here — you can&#039;t read thumbnails, and those words would be too small to read. If you&#039;re selling on Amazon, then you can expand the description, etc. so that it&#039;s more searchable. 

Another option also might be to have a white band at top with the Before &amp; After logo (currently it&#039;s getting lost — and you&#039;re utilizing the reputation of Before &amp; After to sell — so that&#039;s not good), then black the background of the rest of it, then make the black font white, ditch the graphics as is, reduce the blurb, pitch the graphics into a wider title font cut-outs. 

Sorry — just not a fan of the covers.  I get that you&#039;re trying to maximize the title so that it works in multiple resolutions and sizes; however, it&#039;s lost something along the way.

Just my 2¢. 

Again, sorry — I love Before &amp; After!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Black font vs. beige is really the question.</p>
<p>Black font colour: You notice it, reminded me of cameras for some reason; it&#8217;s punchy, slicker, bolder, and you don&#8217;t need the exclamation point with the black font. </p>
<p>Beige font colour: For some reason the name Martha came to mind and reminds me of craft fairs and needlepoint — blah . . . dull . . . underwhelming.</p>
<p>Graphics — less is more I think here. If you&#8217;re going huge and bold with the font (black one), I&#8217;d rethink the graphics and excerpt. To be honest, it really feels like it goes against everything Before &#038; After teaches.  Too many fonts, too busy, contradictory to everything that&#8217;s inside. </p>
<p>An option might be to take out the graphics, widen the font and use them in the cut-outs of the letters with a thick stroke around them in the bold colour. Reduce the &#8220;blurb&#8221; to less than 10 words — key here — you can&#8217;t read thumbnails, and those words would be too small to read. If you&#8217;re selling on Amazon, then you can expand the description, etc. so that it&#8217;s more searchable. </p>
<p>Another option also might be to have a white band at top with the Before &#038; After logo (currently it&#8217;s getting lost — and you&#8217;re utilizing the reputation of Before &#038; After to sell — so that&#8217;s not good), then black the background of the rest of it, then make the black font white, ditch the graphics as is, reduce the blurb, pitch the graphics into a wider title font cut-outs. </p>
<p>Sorry — just not a fan of the covers.  I get that you&#8217;re trying to maximize the title so that it works in multiple resolutions and sizes; however, it&#8217;s lost something along the way.</p>
<p>Just my 2¢. </p>
<p>Again, sorry — I love Before &#038; After!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Diego</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1826</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Diego</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1826</guid>
		<description>The BOLD grabs ahold of your eyeballs and won&#039;t let go. That&#039;s the Before &amp; After way of doing things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The BOLD grabs ahold of your eyeballs and won&#8217;t let go. That&#8217;s the Before &#038; After way of doing things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damian</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1825</link>
		<dc:creator>Damian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:04:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1825</guid>
		<description>The black type version is stronger, works better. But somehow I don&#039;t like it, there is just &quot;something&quot; boring about the headline type that is not in keeping with the wonderful work that you normally produce. The title itself is also less than inspiring… back to the drawing board folks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The black type version is stronger, works better. But somehow I don&#8217;t like it, there is just &#8220;something&#8221; boring about the headline type that is not in keeping with the wonderful work that you normally produce. The title itself is also less than inspiring… back to the drawing board folks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Shand</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-65/#comment-1824</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Shand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1824</guid>
		<description>The bold one certainly looks better at Amazon size, but it&#039;s the other book I&#039;d want in my hands; definitely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bold one certainly looks better at Amazon size, but it&#8217;s the other book I&#8217;d want in my hands; definitely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norma Riehle</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-64/#comment-1823</link>
		<dc:creator>Norma Riehle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:57:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1823</guid>
		<description>OODOOU? These letters jump out but don&#039;t say anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OODOOU? These letters jump out but don&#8217;t say anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Stokes</title>
		<link>http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2009/06/critique-our-cover/comment-page-64/#comment-1822</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Stokes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/?p=2135#comment-1822</guid>
		<description>Like most I feel the bold cover draws my eyes. I am a bit disappointed in the overall look.  I have always believed your site to be edgy while maintaining the best of all basic designs; you seek to find new ways to present design.  Yet, this cover  seems a bit, well, I might say textbook-ish.  While I know from your site that it holds great information, it LOOKS like a lot of other books that are matter-of-fact; might I say even boring. Not what I expect from you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like most I feel the bold cover draws my eyes. I am a bit disappointed in the overall look.  I have always believed your site to be edgy while maintaining the best of all basic designs; you seek to find new ways to present design.  Yet, this cover  seems a bit, well, I might say textbook-ish.  While I know from your site that it holds great information, it LOOKS like a lot of other books that are matter-of-fact; might I say even boring. Not what I expect from you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
