After trimming down the publication I thought if I was to bind it as it is it would look quite bare and look unrefined therefore I decided to experiment with my previous idea of making a front cover for my publication (with black paper/card). I was going to make the cover, cover the spine of the publication as well however after getting suggestions and opinions from my the peers on my table about my idea, they said it would be better if I don't cover the spine at all to show the binding method and make the publication have more character and style. I decided to follow their advice and I', actually glad I did as I think it the black cover creates a nice contrast to the pages inside.
In addition there were also aspects which I said I was adding to the publication as said form my previous blog e.g. coloured pages, different paper stock and turn in. However, after I've evaluated my publication and putting in the content, I thought that these ideas would be a bit too much. It also felt like I was just trying to put lots of ideas into it that reinforces my idea that in the end it just makes it look like I'm trying hard to relay the idea instead of subtly and unconsciously make the readers realised as they read through. I thought that they would just dilute the whole idea therefore I decided to not sue them in the end.
Upon examining if all the pages were the same width and height before actually binding, I found that some of them were a bit shorter (a), this may be because when I was cropping them I must've cropped form the bleed marks and not the crop marks. As I've included both marks on the print out, sometimes I got a bit confused of which mark was meant for what. For my actual publication, I think it's just best for me to remember which one is which.
a)
Finally for binding the book, I used white waxed book thread from the print room. Thought it was a default thread that was given to use from the print room I thought that it actually suited my publication really well. Though, I may check out what kind of other thread they have that I think will be more appropriate for my publication. As I've mentioned in my previous blog, I've decided to use kettle stitch binding as the binding technique sued for my publication. Some of my peers did say that maybe I could use coptic stitch bind instead as it may be easier? However, I've found with coptic stitch binding that because the binding starts from the inside of the signatures the thread loops and ends are inside making the inside of the publication look kind of messy with all the ends sticking out; I thought that readers may find it annoying and distracting as well. With kettle stitch on the other hand, the stitches are outside, though the ends do get a tad bit messy, if I use longer pieces of thread I may decrease this problem.
I found when I finished binding the whole book that some of the pages were a bit misaligned and stuck out a bit, which may cause the other pages to move a bit and make the whole publication look messy and aesthetically will not look as appealing to readers at first as it's misaligned and not bounded accurately. In addition, I also found that even with the 170 gsm thickness of the paper that I've got the publication kind of still flops around and is just not as balanced as I'd like especially when put down, the right side would just flop down compared to the bounded side. This can also be seen wit the first page where the laser cut box flops and looks really fragile which I do not intend to happen at all. This may mean that I probably need a heavier paper stock in order to retain it's 'bulky' aesthetic', whilst still be able to be bounded easily and be sturdy at the same time. In terms of the front and back covers I do like the black but would probably go for a heavier gsm as well.
I also tried the laser cut 'mouth' and 'eye' idea that I had before however, I did not look good at all and what I had expected, therefore I think it will be best if I just leave them as icons on the page. This way the page won't look misplaced in the publication and would go together with the consistent icons and symbols presented in the book overall.
I also got some feedback from my peers upon finishing the mock up publication which were:
- Use thicker paper as the pages feel quite 'catridgey' and the images may look faint and tacky on the paper- As I looked through the finished publication and even before I made my peers evaluate the publication I actually thought the same and I think this just confirms and validates my choice. At first I thought it would be fine to use the paper stock as I thought that it would be study enough and print good quality text and images, however, after having the full physical experience of reading the publication, I think it just looks a bit cheap now. I think I should use paper with a much better finish quality for the content as well as provides a good function for the reader experience. Another peer, also pointed out that the pages on the next page show through when the pages are held against the light, which may ruin reader experience therefore I should use thicker paper as well. I never thought about this detail however, after receiving this suggestion I think my choice of paper stock will be much more considered. Though, i did also think that will the readers pay this much attention to this detail? Will they be interested in this idea? Will they be more focused on the content?
- Adjust the kerning on some text - In some of the pages, I've used a 'square' 'cube' motif with the icons and also justified the text to make mimic this idea, however my peers spotted that some of them aren't as justified, they suggested that maybe just adjusting the kerning will suffice to make them accurate and look more optically aligned.
- Do not use hypenation - Some of the text also had hypenations which my peers didn't like. One of them even said, "I hate it!". They said it can be quite distracting and it may be that the whole text can look disjointed and untidy.
- 'WAIT' pages is confusing - When the flipped to the paged where 'WA' and 'IT" are on a DPS they got a bit confused as they thought it was read separately. I had to explain to them that it was meant to be 'WAIT' to make the readers do the act of waiting without realising it connecting it to my idea of how words can be read by readers. Only after I explained it that they got the idea - but this isn't how I intended this page to be taken in as. They then suggested that maybe I should put the single letter pages of 'W', 'A', 'I', and 'T' first to make the idea more effective and prolong the action from the readers and by having the DPS at the end it gives the readers clarity and confirmation of the word.
*For the three suggestions, I think I will definitely take them into account and put them to action as they were details that I've forgotten to look at and having these details pointed out to me will help me create a more refined and thought out publication not only production wise but also content wise as well.
Thoughts & Reflection:
I think that now I have made a proper mock up of my publication I'm not really satisfied of how it turned out. I want to improve it even more as there were aspects which I thought would have looked really good however they didn't pass my expectation. There were also considerations which i thought would be final however after examining and evaluating the publication by myself and with my peers I think that there's still some considerations that need to be changed and refined even more. I really want to create a good publication which I can be confident in showing were it looks professional and a publication in which people are willing to read and take home with them. Therefore, I think receiving these constructive criticism from my peers and evaluating the whole production myself will help me with creating the publication that I want.
No comments:
Post a Comment