What format do you prefer reference books?

[Kosh]

Originally Posted by john_g

Kosh

A5 might be acceptable for a small publication, but if we are talking major reference works, I would prefer A4 210 x 297 portrait style, the books would be easier to store on a shelf. Air Britain has an excellent range of reference books and they stick to the A4 size and it seems to work a treat

john_g

Personally, I prefer the B5 sized portrait format (about the same size as Osprey books) for references (with at least two columns of text with as narrow margins as possible, not single column readability killer like the Shattered Sword or or less than full width space waster Osprey style) as they are more convenient to handle (especially if you read with the book on your lap vs. table) and definitely easier to store than A4 sized books. If there are no reasons that require larger illustrations, B5 is the best compromise. I.e. I´d rather read a 1000 page B5 sized book than a 500 page A4 book, if the contents were the same. For some reason, some publishers do ridiculously thin books in large format and hardcover (A4, less than 100 pages and in hc), which leads to warped spines.

One reason why the old Profiles packed reasonable amount of text within fewish pages was that they correctly avoided wasted space and had smallish font. E.g. Osprey wastes a lot of space by leaving some 20-30% of the page blank.

[obie]

First off, I'm with Kosh that you should never, ever have to rotate a book to see a landscape picture in a portrait format. That's a usability issue.

For me, I like the format to fit the content... if most of the images are landscape, then the book should be landscape as well, playing to the majority of the content. I don't really care about storage.

As for 'wasted space', there's actually less reading strain if the page is left 20 to 30% blank. That also leaves space for incidental information that can be called out on a sidebar, or notes made in the margin. For Osprey's books, which are pretty story-driven, that makes sense. For pages full of plans and specs, that shouldn't be a concern, and the ideal would be to make the most of the space.

Here's the rub with reference books, for me: they're most usable when they stay OPEN. Perfect binding for larger works requires them to be propped open, which in many cases isn't practical, making for one-hand working while I'm looking something up. So the best binding for info like that is wire-O or spiral binding; however it makes the spine practically useless for the book title, so you can't find the book you're looking for among others that are bound the same.

I'd love to find the middle ground on that - simple, inexpensive binding that stays open and is still usable for typical spine information.

[Kosh]

Obie, everyone who suggests that "notes to be made on the margin" is driving me to the point of explosion. To me any kind of pencil/pen markings on a pages of a book constitutes rape of the book and at the minimum the person responsible should have his hand chopped off

As for stress, blank spaces give me headache as the knowledge that someone is wasting space due to various excuses does exactly that. E.g. with Ospreys I´d revamp the design by going to two column layout with at least one pt smaller font as used now plus go for full gloss paper. I.e. you would have much greater volume of text for the same page count (=production costs). Plus I have tested that I read a e.g. B5 (Osprey) format page composed of two 8 cm wide columns of 9 pt Garamond much faster than a same sized page with one 13 cm wide column with 12 pt Garamond (or 9pt for that matter).

As for binding, for heavily used references the only option is proper cloth binding ensuring long life, tight and square spine for I don´t want a book that has cost me say 80 bucks look like a pile of printing paper after few years of reading. Spiral binding is an insult on the art of book design itself.

[obie]

Kosh, you're walking an odd fence there... books are objects of beauty, yes, but reference books in particular are for use. I also appreciate proper cloth binding &c., but not for a book I need to lay flat and that I constantly refer to. It's unlikely that one of those books would cost you 80 bucks, in any case.

Case in point - I used to have a two copies of 'How To Keep Your Volkswagen Alive' by John Muir - one copy was perfect bound, the other was spiral. The spiral bound copy got use, the perfect bound one did not, simply because of my need for the book to stay on the page I put it at.

Notes in the margin - I don't do it personally, but when facts are laid out in prose rather than in charts, sometimes you've gotta write your own sidebars. If it's a book that you use rather than a book that you worship, it's well within the realm of necessity.

Design is not about using all of the space, it's about using space well. There's a huge difference there. There's been a great deal of work done on the subject of appropriate use of space (dark to light ratios, digestibility and retention, eyestrain, &c.), and to get irritated because someone's 'wasting space' and adding a third more pages to your book seems a little odd. I agree with the two shorter column approach (ragged right, please) as shorter lines are easier to read en masse, however... but I'd still leave sidebar or top margin space.

And gloss paper!?! If you're talking about eyestrain, that's practically guaranteeing it! Agh, the glare!

But as a very wise man once said, only matters of taste are worth disputing...

[Kosh]

RAGGED RIGHT??? Cr**! I absoletely refuse to buy any books that have ragged right columns. Ragged right looks like someone had peed on the run. It looks amateurish, it is hard to read as the eyes try to find a fixed point in vain, it wastes space. You can´t imagine torture painful enough for the fellow responsible for ragged right.

As for glossy pages and reflections, I don´t get that. I read books in various lighting conditions and at no time has reflections been a problem. What is more, glossy paper allows more crisp print reducing eye strain as it can focus on the text at once.

[obie]

Well, Kosh, you've just made it clear that while you're very opinionated about book design, you're not a book designer. I will take your assertions of the 'correct' way to do things with a sprinkling of salt.

In short columns especially, justification changes the visual cadence of the text, making the letter and word spacing variable. Believe it or not, that causes a hit in readability.

Salute...

[Kosh]

No it does not as I have tested it myself. If the line spacing and average length of the line are the same plus the same fonmt is used, I read justified text at least 50% faster. As for cadence changes, you can reduce that by hyphens. I have tested variable layouts for a test report I translated and the best for an A4 page was 3 columns, fully justified with 10 pt Perpetua with hyphenation used extensively. And I don´t find hyphenation any way harmful for the flow. Ragged right does that best. Using ragged right for serious books should carry automatic death penalty.

[obie]

Well then we shall agree to disagree.