Meggs' history of graphic design: Reviewed

For the last couple of months I've been reading

Meggs' history of graphic design (fifth edition). Philip B. Meggs & Alston W. Purvis. 2012 revised (1998 original).

This is a 600-page book, with several thousand individually captioned images (I ran out of library renewals and had to rush, so didn't end up getting many pictures of them). Imagine a heavy encyclopedia crammed full of all kinds of visual design from history.

Structure 

There are so many overlapping movements, eras, styles, schools, and flourishings of (what would come to be called) graphic design. Meggs & Purvis choose to divide history into chunks, and their book into corresponding parts. Each part has a few chapters, each separately covering concurrent developments in different movements or countries.

Each section opens with a summary of the chapters it contains, in the form of a timeline. Useful for a reference book, although I only glanced at them in reading this book cover to cover.

 

Production quality

Let's get a few issues out of the way first because there's a lot of good to say about Meggs' history! This was the longest and densest book I've read in a long time. It is expertly written and edited. The rate of textual errors per word is hundreds of times better than in some books I've read recently. I saw just thirty typos over the course of the entire work.

(Page 12, a full stop for a comma creates sentence fragments. Page 135, accidental line break. Page 136, 'either' in the wrong spot. Pages 224, 398, 482, and 553, "wich" for "which". Page 271, "has been" for "have been". Page 287, 'Figs' for 'Fig'. Page 290, unclosed parentheses. Page 350, redundant "also". Page 357, accidental sentence break. Page 389, "COBAL" for "COBOL". Page 417, "if" for "of". Page 479, "te" for "the". Pages 538 and 539, "florescent" for "fluorescent". Page 554, repeats the figure from the epilogue. Page 556, misapplied boldface.)

Curiously, 13 of these 30 errors occur in Chapter 23 specifically, giving the impression that the whole chapter missed the copyediting step:

Page 485, calls Japan "an island". Page 489, figure 23-16 is captioned as 22-16. Page 506, figures 23-77, -78, and -79 are called 24-77, -78, and -79. Page 508, "potography" for "photography". Pages 513 and 517, missing subheadings. Page 517, figures 23-113 and 23-114 are called 24-113 and 24-114. Page 521, misplaced comma. Page 529, "than that" for "to that".

I took issue with the block quotes, which are indented very similarly to the paragraph indent, use the same font, have no extra vertical space, and indent the following paragraph normally. Altogether this makes them hard to distinguish from the text. Fortunately the book only uses block quotes a few times.

Meggs' history usually prefers its figures to appear after they are discussed in the text. I dislike this because you can't properly understand text that is discussing an image you haven't seen yet.

Sometimes the figures appear in a different order to their textual references, e.g., 5-10 through 5-15, so it's puzzling that some full-page examples weren't just moved and renumbered to appear on the facing page to the textual reference.

I know from experience that laying out figures is extremely difficult. I wouldn't have mentioned the ordering, but it's made so much more of a hassle by the fact that...

The book has broken gutters!

One severe shortcoming made Meggs' history really hard to read.

At 600 pages, the hardback is so thick and heavy that when you open it on a table (unless you open it at the middle) the lighter side is lifted into the air. This makes ~30 mm of the page curve into the inner margin or "gutter". But the text columns continue to a margin of ~10 mm!

This is a huge obstacle to comfortable reading. On every line, at least one word disappears entirely into the gutter, and a couple more are distorted! It's even worse at the start and end of the book, where the curve of the pages is so pronounced that they obscure part of the opposite page!

I had to read this enormous book with two workarounds:

• I can hold the thicker side of the book up vertically, putting my head down sideways to read those pages then sitting up to read pages on the lighter side normally.
• I can press down really hard on a page on the lighter side while trying to read it (the book is so heavy that this requires both hands or the full weight of my arm).

This is completely stupid to begin with, and then the text constantly asks you to refer to a figure on a different page!

This issue affects all but the middle ~150 pages, i.e., this book cannot be read by opening it flat in front of you. The first note I made for this review called this a 'hassle'; now that I'm writing it up I'll upgrade that to 'accessibility nightmare'. It's frankly unacceptable and I can't understand how it happened.

Chock-full of content

Part of the allure of books like this are the graphic design examples. You could delight in it as a picture book, completely devoid of context. For example, there are some striking pieces by A. M. Cassandre (you can see more of his work catalogued here: https://www.moma.org/artists/1015-a-m-cassandre#works):

But of course the book is meant to be about the historical discussion, which is very engaging (sometimes enrapturing) and comprehensive. The history of paper and printing in the first few chapters helped tie together a lot of areas in which I had vaguely known a handful of facts. Meggs' history traces the development of the written word from antiquity of Christian manuscripts, the throughline of Chinese printing to the Italian Renaissance, Celtic influences on Charlemagne's manuscript reforms (through English scholar Alcuin of York), and so on.

Here's an eye-opening fact. As of 1450, there were an estimated 50,000 volumes in European monasteries and libraries in total. In the next 50 years, with the advent of printing, nine million more books (35,000 editions alone) would be created. And that doesn't include printed ephemera (tracts, pamphlets, and broadsides), of which there were a lot. That's what a difference even early printing made in cost and production speed.

Meggs & Purvis give a concise explanation of the Industrial Revolution, discussing how it indirectly led to an explosion of typography and invention of 3D, decorated, and reversed fonts by typefounders in the early 1800s. The return to wood type for large display-sized printing (which metal was ill-suited to) was enabled by the invention of a new router in 1827 for producing the type. 

A few interesting specifics:

• Some very familiar names popping up in discussing the people behind the typefaces: Bodoni, Baskerville, Playfair, Garamond, Caslon, Goudy...
• I felt a certain kindred spirit in the authors' dissatisfaction with the numerous mistakes in the Book of Kells (~800 CE) juxtaposed to the "visual delight" of its "noble design" and "beautiful, carefully lettered half-uncials" (page 50).
• The word "stereotype" originally comes from a printing plate production technique.
• The first sans-serif font was by William Caslon IV, 1816, and called "two lines English Egyptian". These typefaces started spreading a decade later – but what to call them? Caslon used 'Doric' (presumably because a Doric column lacks the base and flourishes of an Ionic or Corinthian). Thorowgood said 'grotesque'. Blake and Stephenson, 'sans-surryphs'. The Boston Type and Stereotype Foundry, 'Gothics'. Vincent Figgins used 'sans serif' in 1832 and it stuck.

I especially enjoyed the chapter on the Art Nouveau movement and its various consequences for the West. I hadn't known about its roots in the ukiyo-e tradition ("pictures of the floating world") of Japan's Tokugawa period.

Art Nouveau disappeared in the ashes of WWI. Those numerous chapters on the early to mid 1900s were grim reading at times, even as all the different art and design movements of the era blossomed.

But history will remember Lucian Bernhard's adorable trademark and poster made for Hommel Micrometers (1912):

Also I don't care for the futurists, but check out this iconic book bound not with thread but enormous bolts. Fortunato Depero's Depero futurista, 1927:

Tricky history

I was a little bit concerned by some mild whitewashing of history, or at least oversimplification of the kind that feels like a repackaging of high school history. It shows up regarding Charlemagne and the 'feudal system', and the intersection of Christianity with the Celts, areas where I've read a little bit from modern historians; I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot more I didn't notice.

Also, Cadmus of Miletus may have brought the Phoenician alphabet to Greece, and possibly also killed a dragon then planted its teeth to grow an army, sure. The authors' hypothesis that "the power of Cadmus to raise armies from nowhere could have been due to his command of the alphabet" as "[t]roop movements, scouting reports, and orders from the field could be delivered by writing" (page 25) seems completely speculative for this quasi-historical figure.

There's a weird moment on page 434 where Meggs says "the memory of" a historic atrocity "was redeemed by the modern graphic design, architecture, and of course the fraternity of sports presented in the Olympic Games in Beijing". I hope this line is some kind of bizarre typo or fumbling for a word other than 'redeemed' because yeesh.

These are just the flies in the 600-page ointment, of course. Over all, the whole book appears to be extremely well-researched.

Modernity

I'm just barely old enough that I briefly had my hands on an electric typewriter when I was a kid, courtesy of my grandmother, although even then it was really only a curiosity. So I was tickled to see this: 

Hanging punctuation (and hanging T crossbar) in an old IBM advertisement. The letters are tightly-tracked; is that an underscore or a really tightly-tracked ellipsis?

Meggs' history has some neat examples of electronically created collages from the 1980s as the predecessors of the digital graphic design revolution.

Chapter 22 covers postmodernism and the retro. It was neat, in a slightly recursive way, to dissect how designers started deeply examining the history of their art and calling back to famous bits of graphic design. I was tickled to see the book reproduce some of their works and then casually instruct the reader to turn back hundred of pages to see the sources they were inspired by. For some reason this feels fun even in a world of hypertext.

The fifth edition of the book adds a few chapters to take us all the way up to the early 2000s. By this stage I was burning the midnight oil to finish it, so I have few notes, but I enjoyed seeing the transition into the digital world, and a new explosion of graphic design possibilities and affordances on par with either Gutenberg or the Industrial Revolution. 

(Also shout out in passing to Exocet, the instantly-recognisable Diablo font.)

In summary 

I can't easily compare this to the other books on graphic design that I've read in 2026. Most of those have been modern and highly accessible instructional texts, not reference books. I will say, though, that it's refreshing to read a design book without constant textual mistakes.

Compared to the books on specific 20th Century areas of design, Meggs' history is obviously less able to get into all the fine details for a particular creator or movement so systematically, trading breadth for depth. But it still goes into detail for particular case studies, and is very professionally produced.

Meggs' history delivers stellar content but is a damn trial to deal with as a physical object. If I ever come into money, I will buy a copy of this book and have it cut up and expertly rebound in multiple volumes.

Reviewing Graphic Design For Dummies

I've been reading and reviewing (here, here, here, and here) books about graphic design.

For book number fourteen, I picked something different. It's produced for a very different teaching style, and was published just last year.

Graphic design for dummies. 2025. Ben Hannam.

I haven't more than flicked through any of the For Dummies books before. I was curious how simple they could actually make the topic.

I ended up having a lot to say about this book, hence a dedicated review post. Not until we get to Meggs' history of graphic design (spoilers) will we see a book with such a contrast of highs and lows!

Writing style and repetitiveness

Graphic design for dummies is extremely readable, in a way that suggests there's a manual of style for this series. The vocabulary is basic and the sentences themselves are seldom complex.

The author often repeats the same thought twice in a row, sometimes with minimal rewording. On page 154, two paragraphs in a row recommend picking a palette of two to five colours. On page 156, the idea that even subtle textures can reinforce design concepts is written two different ways within a paragraph.

Sometimes author Ben Hannam repeats short phrases within a sentence. On page 71, one paragraph states twice that some creatives may feel "threatened" by generative AI; the same paragraph contains the sentence "There are legitimate concerns about copyright and authorship, the quality and uniqueness of the work, and other legitimate concerns" (emphasis added). Page 177 says: "In Figure 8-9, the concept of position hierarchy has been illustrated to help show the concept of position hierarchy." The pinnacle is page 221:

That one is clearly a mistake, but there are so many instances of repetition that I'm not sure it's all errors or filler. It might be Hannam's personal style, or something required by the For Dummies series. Or it might be an artifact of LLM generation — not a possibility I like to bring up, but this is a recent book and the author is deeply pro-AI, as we shall see.

A lot of the repetitiveness serves to reassure. About half of the book's first eight pages of text is just reiterated reassurances for a novice. This returns several times, e.g., on page 75, and I expect it is a feature of the For Dummies series.

Hannam's writing is accessible and clearly-written, with high explanatory power. However, there are a number of awkward phrasings along the lines of "especially if you're first starting out or at the beginning of your journey" (page 2) which align with both the text's repetitiveness and, yes, its grammatical problems.

Errors

What is the state of modern publishing? Usually I reduce it to a few lines of complaints, but this time I'll list the errors that jumped out at me (and then only when I had my notepad nearby).

• "to communication" for "to communicate" (page 41)
• "you may in interested in sharing" (page 53)
• "creating" for "creative" (page 57)
• A cost is itself described as being "pricy" (page 65)
• Page 72 says 360 KB is 180% of 20 KB
• "likes" for "like" (page 74)
• Stray commas (pages 80, 141, 193)
• Wrong product names (page 86)
• "hone in on" (page 96)
• "This may be the first time the client has worked with a graphic designer before" (page 108)
• "ready to go until needed" (page 116)
• Mistaken insertion of "what" (page 131)
• "place" for "placing" (page 134)
• A sentence that's just a collection of verb phrases (page 138) 
• "holes" for "wholes" (page 144)
• "more [...] rather than" for "more [...] than" (page 147)
• "but it can" for "but can" (page 149)
• "a disconnect between [single thing]" (page 151)
• An unnecessary "for you" (page 151)
• "when done so" for "when done" (page 160)
• "ration" for "ratio" (page 164) 
• "land" for "land on" (page 193)
• "technically be" for "be technically" (page 176) 
• "Repetition movement to move to help move your audience's eyes" (page 172)
• Missing "that of" results in comparing a binding method to a book (page 182)
• it/they confusion (page 184)
• "horizontal likes" for "horizontal lines" (page 186)
• "software [...] has already begun to adapt AI tools into their software" (page 241)
• A list of verbs ends with a noun (page 242)
• "of" for "from" and "make" for "take" (page 244)
• Missing "that" (page 197)
• "not to" for "to not" (page 198)
• Missing capital (page 199)
• "in" for "is" (page 206) 
• "and" for "with" (page 220)
• "Chapter 1" for "Bonus Chapter 1" (page 222) 
• Accidental sentence break (page 236)

This was far from a close reading. I doubt these were even a quarter of the errors in the book. There might be a mistake per page on average.

...But no typos that a spellchecker would have picked up. That's the best I can say about it. Anyway, my heart goes out to the book's credited proofreader Debbye, who must have either been under an impossible time crunch or been given a truly nightmarish manuscript if this many errors made it into the final work!

Maybe this is just the new normal. I've gone on about the textual problems in other teaching design books. I've seen elementary typos on official communications from my bank. And at the meta level, even some of the real-world design examples shown in Graphic design for dummies are full of errors, e.g., you can see typos in the barely-visible text in the Raskal packaging and brand guidelines infographic (page 136).

The book's style

Graphic design for dummies spends less ink on real-world examples than the first dozen design books I read. At the same time, it's more pedagogical, and it has a good number of simple illustrative examples. There's a greater focus on presenting and then applying its lessons.

Also unlike those other books, Graphic design for dummies is clearly not laid out spread by spread. Over and over again it breaks examples across spreads, has explanations begin on the spread before the diagrams they refer to, asks you to compare two figures requiring a page turn, and so on. This is more irritating than it sounds, and really drives home the value of designing spreads instead of just flowing the text.

Other parts of the design are good, and it's all teaching-oriented. I like the simple structure, the chapter summaries, and the consistency of chapter layout.

The book's content

Graphic design for dummies covers all the topics I've been reading about for months, and then some. If this was the first text I'd picked up, I think I would have been completely riveted. Even so, I found it engaging and useful.

Ben Hannam has an interesting view of creativity as an additive, expansive process, to be followed (iteratively) by what he calls logical thinking as a process of evaluation and narrowing down. I think 'logic' is the wrong word but see what he's gesturing at. "The goal of logical thinking is to identify the best or right solution. Often, logical thinking is a selective process where constraints dictate certain outcomes". I reflected a lot on how this opening-up / narrowing-down process might relate to game design.

Graphic design for dummies also lays out a seven-part design process which is cyclical and iterative:

1. Project brief and goals

2. Research and planning

3. Brainstorm concepts

4. Sketching and refining ideas

5. Design development

6. Feedback and revision

7. Finalisation and execution

This is reinforced by some incredibly actionable advice given for each phase. This is exactly what I've wanted more of from the design books. For example, phase 4 is about sketching ideas, combining and refining them, and has a really thorough worked example. The book's downloadable bonus chapters (more on them later) continue in this vein.

This is the high point of the book, and it's really strong. I wrote down a lot of notes. Hannam talks about iterating ideas early and often, and brainstorming widely, and I was struck by the sheer extent he recommends. For example, he has his design students make 150 thumbnail sketches for a project, and says he's observed a sketch ratio of 100 likely dead ends : 45 not particularly inspired/exciting/unique : 5 with great potential. I'd really like to take this and run with it as an exercise for both visual design and other creative activities.

Hannam gives solid advice on actually making decisions during the design process. He discusses ways of actually establishing hierarchy in Chapter 9 on layouts, and ways to actually pick a palette (with useful guidance on accessibility) in Chapter 10 on colour. Along the way he scatters in links to online tools, and the book is published recently enough that they work.

If only that was all. 

Design-by-numbers

Generative AI is mentioned throughout, beginning on page 26. Hannam makes his position clear: it is "impressive", "powerful", "extremely easy", etc, and tasks like "editing images [...] can be automated with powerful AI tools."

He uses Adobe Illustrator text-to-vector once for demonstrative purposes (page 71), but then wouldn't you know it, a couple more slip through unlabelled. For example, specimens on page 174 are likely made with the same text-to-vector, because they're grotesque. Graphic design for dummies features characters wearing skin-tone belts and one-and-a-half hats, with misshapen hands, ankles that extend behind instead of into their (mismatched) shoes, and so on.

The book closes with a brief tacked-on chapter on generative AI. Here, Hannam sets out to annoy me with:

• Relentless enthusiasm tempered with a tiny dash of mealy-mouthed both-sides-ing
• Referring to generative AI just as "AI", an acronym he defines then neglects to use
• Remarks about [generative] AI being able to "understand" things

This chapter makes a lot of claims that are, frankly, false.

• "AI can help deliver the content that users need more quickly and accurately than you could by using a set of static variables [in a traditional web storefront]."
• AI will "increase accuracy" and "can analyse data [...] more accurately than humans".
• AI can be used to reduce bias in things like "broad representation of different groups".
• AI can be used to "simulate" user interactions and A/B testing, i.e., fake data instead of gathering it.

This is nonsense, of course. Generative AI increases accuracy? It reduces bias? It's faster than serving static content? Anyone who understands the technology is shaking their head. Hannam loses the last of his credibility in this area by urging you to use [presumably generative] AI to track file changes, do file management, organise assets, and manage versioning. I would uhhhh. Advise against it.

Finally, there's a ton of pandering "will be able to" and "one might imagine" and "are likely to become" which I'm just sick of by now. There's a whole subsection on "AI-Powered Design Assistants" which the author admits is essentially fanfiction! Why on earth did the book get implausible, depressing, futurist fanfiction when a bunch of actual content got delegated to downloadable bonus chapters?

It's a good thing I'm not in the habit of giving numeric scores in reviews, because this chapter completely depleted my goodwill. It's hard to imagine a sourer note to end on... except wait, we're not done. Let's quickly download those bonus chapters.

Oh wait oh no

You thought the AI chapter was a bad look? Check this out.

This book was published less than a year ago. It promises in multiple places, including boldly on the back cover, that you can get six bonus chapters online at dummies.com. Nope! Actually you can't. You can go there and (a) buy this book, or (b) "engage with this book", i.e., type text into a chatbot. There is no way to (c) get the bonus chapters it promised.

Now, Graphic design for dummies provides two publisher links, so I checked those just in case. The first one is for support, booksupport.wiley.com, and it's a dead link! Again, this book was published last year! The other link also doesn't have the bonus chapters. You can send the publishers a message there... but only if you subscribe to them. WTF.

So I looked up author Ben Hannam's website to ask him about it. He has a message box, which formats your message in all caps like you're shouting. Then the Send Message button just throws an error.

 

At this point you just have to laugh. 

I was all set to compare this book to the Ambrose-Harris Vortex, in terms of the density of mistakes and parts of it being fundamentally broken. But ended up going back to the publisher's website on a whim and after some more digging I did find the bonus chapters. Notably not at the dummies.com domain which is where they're meant to be, and where several other For Dummies books have bonus chapters.

The bonus chapters, finally 

There's six bonus chapters, all very consistent with the rest of the book, full of grammatical errors but with some pretty useful content.

Chapter one: Walking through the process of designing a logo and a business card. I really liked these hands-on, in-depth examples. There's a funny typo in the quote on Hannam's mocked-up business card (Figure 9) but it does get fixed in the final result in Figure 10.

And it is so on the nose that it beggars belief that the personal logo Hannam ends up with at the end of his design process appears to read more like the acronym "AI" in lowercase than it does his initials "BH" which it's meant to be:

Chapter two: Strategies for success. Hannam repeats at length the old canard about "Roman war chariots" having led to railway track gauge and thence constrained the design of the Space Shuttle. This is false. Repeating it undermines his point about design constraints and makes the reader wonder what else he's got wrong.

Aside: Ten minutes of proper research puts the myth to rest. But maybe not if you "fact check" it with generative AI. I looked at Google's "search" "results" out of morbid curiosity, and the chatbot both-sides'ed it.

This chapter also has a section called "Escape the pitfall of repeating yourself", which is hilarious in the context of a book which repeats itself so often.

Chapter three: About avoiding common mistakes. It covers aspect ratios, working with images, file management, compression, colours, rich black, and going to press. Nothing new for me personally, but all good simple solid advice.

Chapter four: Exercises to test a new design student's skills. Also really good! I think the intended audience would find it exceptionally useful. I wish it had been included in the physical book instead of hidden away where most readers will never see it.

Chapters five and six: On receiving and giving critique. Mostly in the vein of career advice for a university student.

Hannam wraps up the bonus chapters with a protectiveness about graphic design students being exploited. It helped get me back in his corner a bit after the AI rubbish.

In summary 

What a rollercoaster. Graphic design for dummies has some of the most high-quality practical and focused advice, given in plain language and without talking down to the reader. It's probably the best graphic design teaching text I've read so far, and also stands up okay as an illustrative text. It doesn't really set out to be an inspirational text. And then of course it's error-riddled and full of AI slopaganda, and trying to find the bonus chapters was deeply frustrating.

Despite such deep flaws, I have to say that on the whole, I can recommend this book. But I'm still hoping to find something better.

Twentieth Century art and design: Three book reviews

Let's take a trip back in time. 

This year on the blog I've been reviewing books about graphic design (here, here) and books of graphic design (here). Today I have a few more in that category, exploring the graphic design of the twentieth century.

Read on for 'art through precision' by M. C. Escher, vintage typography reclaimed, and a hundred years of science fiction illustrations.

Book 1

 

The graphic work of M C Escher. 1975. Maurits Escher. Translator John E. Brigham.

I was interested in M. C. Escher's work as a child, but haven't thought much about it (beyond one Escher print on my wall) between then and reading this book now. This is a reprint of his 1961 book.

Escher selected and arranged the contents, and wrote the book's introduction (the entirety of its text). In translation, Escher sounds like an old-timey wizard. This isn't helped by him name-dropping his dark arts:

 

Extract from book. "This was in 1946 when I first made the acquaintance of the old and highly respectable black art technique of the mezzotint".

(Copy Editor Brain never turns off; even in five scant pages of text I noticed the weird paragraph breaks, 'lightening' for 'lightning', etc.)

A remarkable commentary 

I want to start with Escher's own explanation of this book.

"Apart from prints 1 to 7 inclusive, all the numbered reproductions in this book were made with a view to communicating a specific line of thought. The ideas that are basic to them often bear witness to my amazement and wonder at the laws of nature which operate in the world around us."

Escher makes it very clear that his artworks are deliberate visual expressions of specific ideas (these come across as mathematical ideas to the modern viewer/reader, but he shies away from the word). He takes pains to describe how and why each piece develops the idea. So when, for example, he talks about infinity, it's not in a vacuous or emotive way, but in very specific and grounded terms, of nadir and horizon and reduction and proportion and geometry and limits. I've actually never seen art explained so clearly before, and I found it very endearing.

The process of artistry

Escher says he finds as a mature artist that an artwork comes about in two phases. First there is a lengthy, difficult visualisation and numerous attempts to get a detailed concept sketch right. "After this, to my great relief, there dawns the second phase, that is the making of the graphic print; for now the spirit can take its rest while the work is taken over by the hands."

Manual skill has been sublimated and the toughest work that remains is deciding on its application. 

It's slightly melancholy to read Escher casually mentioning the secrets of what might as well be lost arts for most people – specifics of woodcut printing, hand-etching mezzoprints, etc – in a way he clearly expects his reader will be familiar with.

 

 

So yes this book is absolutely fascinating, for reading as much as viewing.

The commentary also achieved its goal, in helping me understand some Escher works I've seen before but not comprehended (or perhaps only appreciated the artistry without realising there was something to comprehend). For example:

This print explores the use of 2D artworks to denote 3D objects and the fact that there's no true way to experience 2D in our 3D world. Escher depicts three shapes. The first is a sphere. It rests atop the second, a reinterpretation as a 2D form giving the illusion of a sphere, made paper-thin and folded in half to reveal the deception. One of its edges rests (as if it really were the lower half of a sphere) atop the third, another reinterpretation as a 2D image shown in perspective resting on a flat surface.

In summary

A really enjoyable book. I got far more out of it than I expected to.

Also there's a vein of TTRPG inspirations here, e.g.:

 

When Escher's work enters the public domain in ~2043, it's going to be a huge boon to indie RPG and art zine scenes.

 

Book 2

 

 

Vintage typography & signage. 2018. Frank H. Atkinson, Charles J. Strong, & L. S. Strong.

I've used these reviews to vent about textual errors before. Finally, an exception: this book is completely without typo. How does it accomplish this? It has only a single paragraph of text.

The remaining 120 pages are all dedicated to recreations of various signs, illustrations, and typefaces from the early 1900s.

The original sources are two books, Frank H. Atkinson's Sign Painting (1900) and Strong's Book of Designs (1917). I don't understand why this information isn't given up front in the aforementioned single paragraph of text. The book just says "two rare, early-twentieth-century sources" and relegates the titles to the tiny legal text in the front matter. It feels faintly distasteful. On the other hand, only the three twentieth-century artists are credited (L. S. [Lawrence Stuart] Strong is Charles Strong's son; their Book of Designs is a collaboration).

Most of the examples are in black and white, with a few decorative initials and full page illustrations rendered in colour. Stylistically, the examples are all either 19th-century traditional signwriting or distinctly Art Nouveau.

It was pretty easy to chase down the source texts for comparison: Sign Painting and Strong's Book of Designs are both archived.

In summary

I wonder what the process of cleaning up the originals for republication was like. On the one hand, they certainly appear to be in a smooth modern format. Are they vectorised, manually or with an automatic tool? Or is the publisher having access to the original printing plates sufficient to produce nice crisp copies that you can't get from archives of old original print copies?

I find it notable that no additional artist or author involved in publishing this modern edition is credited. I'd hesitate to call it a cash grab, but this isn't a high-effort book. It's a good resource for works from the specific era. Some of the examples were interesting enough that I've downloaded copies of the original sources from archive.org for inspiration or use.

Book 3

 

100 years of science fiction illustration. 1975. Anthony Frewin.

The photo above is my battered old copy of this book, often flicked through but never read cover-to-cover. It covers the 1840-1940 period. The writing is quite editorial in tone, with a Britishness that occasionally comes through when cross-examining twentieth century American writings about the state of the art in science fiction.

 

Amazing Stories

 

Tracing the origination of science fiction

There's no hard line to be drawn at the start of the SF era, and author Anthony Frewin's choice to begin with the work of Grandville in the 1840s is in a sense arbitrary, especially since the book follows it with a 40-year gap before including the works of Robida.

When tracing the genre's roots and trying to establish when it really became an entire new category, Frewin credits John W. Campbell as having "moulded" all of SF to come. Magazine editor Hugo Gernsback takes some knocks in the process:

"Gernsback (1884-1967) may not have been the 'Father of Science Fiction' as so often has been claimed, but that he made a substantial contribution to the development of the genre no one could deny. To say that he gave SF an almost universal popularity at the cost of castrating its literacy is not far from the truth."

Frewin calls Gernsback's prose "bereft of sensitivity, devoid of humour, pedestrian in the extreme, and evincing enthusiasm for nothing more than the most abject of gadgets".

From the sample included I have to agree Gernsback's writing was unimpressive. It also taught me that in the 1920s we almost settled on the term "scientifiction" instead of "science fiction":

 

Regarding science fiction artistry specifically, Frewin notes that the work of Frank R. Paul as a magazine cover artist would come to characterise all SF work for "forty years" [1927-1946].

Trends, critiques, and content

Frewin traces the rise of science fiction chronologically, era by era and artist by artist, with an understandable focus on the magazine industry where most of it was happening. He generally doesn't withhold criticism – "The turtle-men are ill-executed and of little consequence" is a great line, doubly so out of context.

He has a number of other bangers, such as referring to 1938 as the year SF technology stops looking like "the inside of a radio set". And on changes in SF and publishing trends: "Today's format is tomorrow's doormat".

For my purposes though, the text was a bit judgey without always having strong explanatory power; I would have preferred more focus on why Frewin thinks some work or other is "insipid". 

100 years of science fiction illustration was published in 1975, of course. The editorial tone could have been a lot worse. Instead, Frewin comports himself well, calling out xenophobia, the depredations of war, and narrowness of writers' assumptions.

The book reproduces tons of neat images. There's lot of technical proficiency on display, all with that instantly recognisable twentieth century science fiction feel.

Errors

100 years of science fiction illustration feels a little amateurish in production, perhaps appropriately given so much of its subject matter is about grasping blindly at new concepts. The book layout is odd. The paragraphs have neither indents nor spaces, making it hard to tell where they start. Many paragraphs end in ellipses, for all that the text lightly mocks this practise several times.

The choice of a typeface with fine lines means that when printed white-on-black, commas turn into full stops. For example:

And there are lots of outright mistakes in the copy. Entire repeated lines. Misspellings, often consistent ("canon" and "apocolyptic" throughout). Missing spaces. An arbitrary mixture of italics and quotes for titles, and at least one mis-titled story.

In summary

 

This book delivers just what you would expect from the premise. I'm not at all well-versed in science fiction history, so it's possible it has omissions, but the text felt comprehensive and thoughtful and the illustrations were very engaging.

 

Relevance to my 'learn about graphic design' goals

I'm enjoying expanding my art analysis palette. It's good to take a closer, deeper, and more systematic look at types of artwork that feel familiar but only from having seen instances in passing.

Tune in next time for a study in highs and lows when I look at Graphic Design for Dummies!

The Ambrose-Harris Vortex: Four design book reviews

It's Febreviewary! I'm reviewing four graphic design books in this post. They're all written by Gavin Ambrose and Paul Harris, sometimes with a third author.

Enter the Ambrose-Harris Vortex 

The design books I've read so far in 2026 have been tied by an unexpected thread: Their remarkable number of typos and textual errors, despite in some sense being "text objects about making good text objects".

So far we've had the book that misspells its own title and the book with the broken index. Today we'll be looking at, amongst other things, a book with a remarkably wrong colour wheel.

I should note first off that the errors aren't a deal-breaker. These books are informative, visually delightful, and full of great examples of graphic design work. That they're very good books on the whole really just highlights how shockingly un-proofread they are. If they also had mediocre content, poor writing style, dull layout, etc, then I would have written them off and moved on, instead of bothering to note down the details for these reviews. Unfair? C'est la vie.

 

Book 1:

 

The fundamentals of typography (third edition). 2020. Gavin Ambrose, Paul Harris & Sallyanne Theodosiou.

This is a comprehensive primer. Between Practical typography and Typography essentials, I was already familiar with a lot of the basic instructional information that's given in The fundamentals of typography, but it was a comfortable familiarity. I think it would be a good introduction for a beginner or would serve in some respects as a reference work.

I found some of the visuals quite inspiring, and made some notes about things to try. Check out this neat bit of graphic typography, for example:

The book is pretty good about identifying its lettering examples, only occasionally mentioning a typeface without a visual example or giving an example without naming the typeface.

Problems 

The fundamentals of typography contains lots of basic typos (e.g., a repeated "the the", page 41). Beyond that, some poor wordings are compounded by a surprising number of outright textual errors in the examples constructed by the authors.

The first example of leading on a baselines grid on page 51, for instance, is incorrectly described as having "an effective leading of 24pt" and then is discussed in several contradictory ways.

An example of text justification causing too broad word spacing in spots somehow manages to place the highlight boxes over random parts of the paragraph, not over the spaces in question. This kind of error left me with the overall impression that some systematic reformatting done for an edition update broke some of the examples, and the creators never bothered to find and fix them.

In summary 

A solid introductory text let down by frankly amateurish errors. The book reproduces tons of nice pieces of typography from various designers, and is quite enjoyable to page through just to look at.

Book 2:

The fundamentals of creative design (second edition). 2011. Gavin Ambrose & Paul Harris.

This is a great design book. It's wide-ranging and comprehensive. Some of the material is shared with the other Ambrose & Harris books I'm reading, but most is new. The examples of graphic design work are numerous and on-point, and occasionally exquisite. I particularly enjoyed reading the chapter on layout and grids, and I also found the discussion of semiotics useful.

The book's visual design is just as nice as you'd expect. It's subtly colour-coded. Various varnishes, page treatments, and spot colours are used illustratively, to great effect.

Andy Potts design (page 105)

This is, I suppose, a fairly old book now. 2011 still feels recent to me, but 15 years on it really jumps out when the book mentions Youtube and Flash Player ('the format of choice for embedding video on the web') in the same breath. The whole 'for screen' section was a miss for me, but the only one.

More sloppiness 

I spotted the first typo on page 10 ("In turn, became were the basis for") and these proved to be omnipresent. The authors also have a problem with occasional poor sentence structures leading to ambiguous meanings.

More importantly, just as in The fundamentals of typography, the examples of real world graphic design soar, but the examples constructed by the authors are a joke. This book is riddled with diagrams which embarrassingly don't work. e.g.:

• Page 57 says "Although the bottom part of the letters in this subheading have [sic] been removed, it can still be read easily." The bottom part has not been removed.
• Page 124 mixes up left and right.
• Pages 137 and 169 have example images that don't match their descriptions (a greyscale image is meant to be magenta, and spot varnish is not applied as the authors describe).
• The colour wheel on page 126 is preposterously mislabelled:

Sorry for the poor photo. The two colours you can't see are labelled as yellow (correctly) and yellow-green (arguably correctly).

It's hard to even count the colour wheel errors because it's so mangled. I think it's meant to be a cyan-magenta-yellow colour wheel, because yellow and magenta (the latter mislabelled as 'red-orange') are labelled as primary, and cyan is included (albeit mislabelled as a secondary colour). The twelve hues are what you'd expect: it includes the tertiary rose hue between magenta and red, and it has three hues for red through yellow where a red-blue-yellow wheel would have five.

...But the tertiary hue labels are for a red-blue-yellow colour wheel: yellow-orange, red-orange, red-purple, blue-purple, yellow-green, and blue-green. And these aren't even a 'best effort' to try to apply the R-B-Y labels to a C-M-Y wheel! They only have the word 'primary' on there twice! Yellow-orange is between yellow and red! There are two red-oranges!

I assumed at first this got broken during an edition update, but nope: I managed to find the original (2003) edition and it doesn't include a colour wheel at all. What happened?

In summary

I like this book as an instructional text, and the examples of people's graphic design work are so good. A real shame about the errors. I've been thinking about that colour wheel for weeks.

 

Book 3:

 

The layout book (second edition). 2015. Gavin Ambrose & Paul Harris.

I like the opening quote, which articulates my reason for wanting to learn more graphic design:

Design is a plan for arranging elements in such a way as best to accomplish a particular purpose. 

– Charles Eames

I want to have a more purposeful approach to every page I make, and have the skills and tools at hand for doing so.

It's unfortunate

I am still deep in the Ambrose-Harris Vortex. The layout book gets sloppy immediately.

• There's a 38-word run on sentence in the first paragraph of the first chapter.
• Page 12 is missing a sentence subject.
• There are missing commas every few pages, plus a few unnecessary extra commas (e.g. pages 17, 149, 164).
• Page 19 alone has a missing space, a missing comma, a missing word, and begins two sentences in a row with "Here, the".
• Page 86 has a section on creep (a technical term) without ever saying what it is. Other times it was unclear whether an out-of-place word was an undefined graphical design term which the reader should go look up, or simply the result of a botched sentence. See e.g. "reveals" on page 150.
• Some sentences have a singular/plural mismatch (e.g. pages 144, 150).
• There are tons of basic typos that should be picked up by automatic spellchecking (e.g. page 145, "mutliple"; page 114, "0dominate"; page 176, "challanges"; page 179, "picutred").
• The instructions on page 73 for dividing a golden rectangle end with "multiply by 1" for some reason.
• The page 184 caption is a run-on sentence of more than a dozen phrases.
• Page 99 changes horses in midstream with "Notice how use of a grid to create balanced areas of intervention, where text blocks mirror adjacent images or white space."

There are awkward phrasings or grammatical errors on almost every spread. I just don't understand how everything else about the book is so nice but they couldn't be bothered to fix the text-level stuff. Speaking as a former semiprofessional copy editor, you don't even need to hire one to pick up most of this stuff! The authors could have just taken a day to read their text aloud and noticed 95% of it!

Take the phrase-salad on page 92. Incorrect comma usage and subject/object mismatch, plural/singular mismatch, all in one paragraph. You can tell there's a text problem from the most casual read. It really comes across as text that was drafted but at most got a single edit at the paragraph level.

On the bright side, there were fewer author-made examples in this book. The systematic botching of them seen in the previous two books wasn't present; I only noticed a couple of very minor mistakes. In fact, a part of the book I liked the most included this straightforward author-constructed example of layout elements (and the accompanying discussion):

 

Size

This is a 22×30 cm book. It's really nice to have a larger space with so much allocated to visual examples. The authors also break up the text by switching to a large point size for introductory paragraphs, which I don't consciously care about but which I have to presume is a considered, psychologically effective choice (given that this is The layout book).

Structure

The book's six chapters cover historical context, basic layout principles, grids, page objects, interviews with designers, and reader exercises. The last two make The layout book stand out from the other primers I've read.

This book helped me understand hierarchy and orientation in particular and was worth it for that alone. Generally the content is very good. At its worst, there are a few cases where the authors fall into the trap of saying that a thing can be done but not properly explaining how it can be done, relying too heavily on the book's (again, just excellent) real-world-design visual examples. This happens e.g. in the analogy of depth-of-field to hierarchy and layering on page 150.

In summary

I liked The layout book. It's a visual extravaganza. I think I'd have enjoyed it more if I wasn't coming from two other books by the same authors, covering some overlapping ground, with the same boatload of sloppy errors.

 

Book 4:

 

The fundamentals of graphic design (second edition). 2020. Gavin Ambrose, Paul Harris, & Nigel Ball.

I'll admit, I picked this one up weeks after reading the others, just out of a perverse sense of curiosity. Would it continue the pattern?

Visual design

Each chapter page has a footnote looking ahead to the chapter contents in short-form, with page references, a bit like an old-fashioned novel summarising the chapter's contents ahead of time.

Odd book design choices I wish I knew the creators' reason for:

• They use a large-sized display font for the opening body text in each spread.
• There's a text adornment gimmick: a long underline at the start of each introductory paragraph for a new section. A hundred instances of that meant at least fifty times that I instinctively tried for a moment to 'solve' the text like a crossword clue. Probably not what they intended!
• Subsection headings are set in green boxes, subsubsection headings in white boxes, but the text is flush with the bottom of the box (so that letters with descenders dangle out of it) for some reason.

The callout boxes at the bottom of the page used to define terms of art are a nice touch, although I was amused on page 62 when the definition of 'values' relied on four-dollar words like 'acrimonious'.

The book's accompanying glossary is very comprehensive (seven pages)!

Content and writing

This book's take on the classic what is graphic design? opener includes (page 8):

Graphic design takes ideas, concepts, text and images and presents them in a visually engaging form through print, digital, or other media. It imposes an order and structure to the content in order to facilitate and ease the communication process, while optimizing the likelihood that the message will be received and understood by the target audience. A designer achieves this goal through the conscious manipulation of elements [...]

...which I rather like. It sets expectations that the book is going to be slightly more pragmatic than the others; these were borne out. The authors describe the expected commercial/studio graphic design process, walking through the steps, and go into some detail on the practicalities of paper, ink, production, packaging, etc.

By necessity, there's a fair amount of overlap with the other Ambrose-Harris books, but refreshingly few repeated examples of real-world design (I'd guess 98%+ were new).

The authors impressed me by covering all the bases and then finding room throughout for some really thoughtful discourse. There are short essays on social responsibility, consumerism, anti-consumerism, "subvertisements", greenwashing, design as a non-neutral process, and the "misery of choice".

Aside: I find that as I get old and set in my ways I'm caring far more about the serial comma. The authors refuse to include it, but are at least consistent about it. Still, it really is conspicuous in its absence, creating a visual hiccup every time you miss it and have to re-parse the word 'and'. Why choose to make your text harder to read?

Are there text-level problems?

No prizes for guessing yes. I noticed all sorts of basic errors:

• Agency accidentally assigned to an immersive experience (page 7).
• Misuse of words and phrases like "despite" (page 11), "impact on" (pages 14, 42), "comprising of" (page 58), and "resided" (for "resized", page 159).
• Several missing spaces on page 57 and missing words like "the" on page 89.
• Faulty pluralisation in a few places, like "is"/"are" confusion on page 68, and "access to a mobile devices" on page 152.
• Grammar mistakes that smack of hastily rewritten sentences. On page 108: "[...] a wide range of flexibility in the finish, which can be obtained in the final product and the print run possible."

(The authors also use "his or her", a phrase I'd consider deprecated by this point.)

There are only about 15 author-created examples in this book, and perhaps due to that relative paucity, none of them were outright broken. The "communication flow between agencies and clients" diagram on page 143 does approach that status. It ought to serve as an aid to comprehending the text, but this one is so abstract that a reader who hasn't already understood the main text won't be able to puzzle out the meaning of the diagram.

In summary

The fundamentals of graphic design didn't wow me quite as much with its real-world graphic design examples as the other Ambrose & Harris books. But it covered a lot of ground in quite practical ways, and the interspersed high-level ethical and philosophical treatments of graphic design considerations were a pleasant surprise.

 —

Closing thoughts

All books have flaws. It was a weird experience to read books so deeply flawed in one aspect and almost impeccable in all the others.

Reflecting, I think all four books were very good at 'describing the process' but fell slightly short on 'teaching the process'. I would have been interested in an extra chapter in each for the authors to go through one or two examples in meticulous detail. The fundamentals of typography could have picked fonts or modified typography for particular situations, The layout book could have worked through the actual process of deciding and applying a layout, and the two design books could have gone from a brief to completed design. A missed opportunity.

I should emphasise in closing that I'd still recommend these books.

Okay, fling me free of the Ambrose-Harris Vortex. I have a few more graphic design books to read and review this month and I think they're going to be a change of pace.

Modern graphic design: Three book reviews

It's febreviewary! During my 2026 design / layout / typography challenge, I picked up a bunch of books around the subject. I've previously read Butterick's Practical Typography and Spieker's Stop Stealing Sheep, both of which are stalwarts. I've also been reading It's Nice That articles. That's the limit of my knowledge. Now I've read a dozen or books on or adjacent to graphic design, and I'm reviewing three here!

• Typography essentials: 100 design principles for working with type. 2019. Ina Saltz.
• The complete color harmony: Deluxe edition. 2024. Tina Sutton.
• Web and digital for graphic designers. 2020. Neil Leonard, Andrew Way, & Frédérique Santune.

 

Preamble (rant)

First I have to vent steam about ebook software. Feel free to skip ahead to the actual reviews.

I had to read the first sections of Ina Saltz's book with the 'overdrive dot com' ebook viewer my library system partners with.

Technically you can use this software to read. It displays pages and you can move between them.

But... You can't see how far through the book you are (this is way more disorienting than I would have guessed). The navigation bar is inscrutable and sometimes has a delay. Nothing is made for mouse clicks. The shortcut for 'chapter back' doesn't work on the first page of a chapter although 'chapter forward' does, so you can skip forward but not back. There's a bunch of stuff you'll seldom use (bookmarks! notes! highlights! word search! previews!) yet the core functionality is awful.

The pages are split for the smallest possible screen size and so none of the examples are on the same page as the corresponding discussion. You have to flip pages constantly. The clincher, then, is that the viewer has baked-in headache-inducing animated 'page turning' visual transitions. These are visually truly unpleasant, and there is no way to turn them off in the accessibility settings.

I tried the 'Libby' app-ified version of the software, which has a setting to "reduce animations". This setting doesn't do anything.

So anyway, the book.

Book 1 

 

 

Typography essentials: 100 design principles for working with type. 2019. Ina Saltz.

This visually delightful book manages to misspell its own title in the opening paragraphs.

(Spoiler: That kind of thing is going to be a recurring theme in my book reviews this month.)

The content

Typography essentials contains 100 design principles, divided equally into four sections (the letter, the word, the paragraph, and the page). This structure works okay, although frankly the divisions are a bit improvised. Half of the principles in "the word" would fit better in "the letter" (typeface stuff) or "the page" (hierarchy stuff).

This book demonstrates its value through a superb collated collection of visual examples, which I found tremendously useful. The accompanying explanations are usually on point. I wrote lots of notes!

Principle #95 is about tables, charts and infographics, calling that kind of design work "a specialty all its own", and indeed, I'm hoping to find a book about this.

Vagueness

Some of the introductory and bridging text uses vague, emotive, positive language which these days feels chatbot-coded (although note this book predates that).

There's quite a lot of "you can do this thing, or this other thing that is the opposite" without saying what might inform that choice. I kept coming across lines like "Again, everything is relative, so optimum line length may vary based on typestyle, leading, tracking, and even the texture and tone of the printed surface." It's worth stating once, but the author keeps repeating it without discussing how and when such things might vary.

Entry points

A page having "entry points" for the reader is a design concept I'd been struggling to really get. Typography essentials helped a lot! I just wish Saltz had gone into more detail on how to achieve things. Hierarchy cues relative importance and relation of content to the whole, sure. Shifting typographic style will "provide entry points", okay. You should maintain "overall balance [...] simultaneously", got it. But please, more details and examples.

The visuals

It should go without saying that Typography essentials is visually delightful. It's full of examples that are fit to purpose and in most cases just nice to look at. This is a big success.

Typos

The book's generally high production values didn't extend to proof-reading. Just a few examples at random: as well as getting its own title wrong it misspells "cacophony", "typographic", and "flourishes" (repeatedly); uses "it's" for "its"; mispluralises "Lego"; and has a number of systematic grammatical mistakes. That said, its pervasive sloppiness is far from the highest in the design books I've been reading.

In summary

Typography essentials is a great book in most regards. But save yourself a headache if your only option is an e-reader.

 

Book 2 

 

 

The complete color harmony: Deluxe edition. 2024. Tina Sutton.

Of a dozen or so books I'm reviewing this month, this might be the nicest-looking. The colours are certainly on point. There's a few layout choices I'm curious about:

• The first paragraph of each section is indented, which always looks odd to me.
• The text columns have a ragged right edge instead of justification, and yet the layout uses both lots of hyphenation and sometimes (e.g. p 34) greatly reduced letter spacing. If you're going that far to crunch the text, why not get the visual benefits of right-justifying?

Tone 

The book's introduction contains a semi-endorsement of chromatherapy which is a major blow to the author's credibility. In the lengthy later section on the psychology of colour she again talks about chromatherapy uncritically (e.g., p 161).

Instead of wording something like "Blue hues are associated with calm, order, trust, and loyalty", Sutton writes "Blue: You like a sense of calm and order in your life. Trustworthy, you also value loyalty in others." This sort of thing is pretty frequent. What does the sentence "Mother Nature knows a good thing when she sees it." actually mean? What does it add to the discussion of the colour green?

Both tone and content are a bit 'airy fairy'. Green is "thought to have great healing powers" (p 162), etc.

The verbosity is just a tiny bit higher than necessary. For example, the discussion of "Special effects for color" (pp. 32–34) could easily have been reduced to two pages. It conveys valuable and interesting information, but the extravagant linking sentences and extra adjectives felt like filler. Likewise, the examples are sometimes weak or unnecessary (e.g. listing things that are both gold-coloured and valuable), which is a major contrast to the rest of the design books I've been reading.

Typos 

After you work as a copy editor for a while you develop an eye that is  so I was glad to only notice three: missing spaces on pages 22 and 180, and a double space on page 94.

Content

Half of the book (pp 50–153) is on "Moods and color". In this section, a page gives a mood, like "Powerful", "Refreshing", or "Nostalgic", with accompanying image and discussion. This page is followed by three pages of two- and three-colour palettes that work for that mood.

This is an interesting tool. I can certainly see it being useful, although I found myself craving some geometric form to have the colours applied to instead of just two or three vertical bars. Consulted as a reference tool, this might not have been a problem.

The discussions of each mood are a mixed bag. Parts are straightforward: particular colours connote things, here's how they are used in advertisements, here's what they are used to symbolise. Other parts are written in annoying ad copy, with phrases like "red can never be ignored" or "pink evokes memories of dreamy June days".

Most of this book could have been presented as a three-column table: <colour; emotion or quality evoked; real-world example>. That would have been much more usable if it's primarily intended as a reference to consult. Writing <colour, evocation, example> tuple in sentence form a thousand different ways only makes sense for reading cover-to-cover (although even then, readers like me might prefer the table).

Focus 

The greatest limitation of The complete color harmony is a subtle one. Overall the book is extremely focused on advertising (plus fashion and branding). There's nothing about using colour to e.g. connote threats or danger, evoke grief or disgust, emphasise horror or the macabre, explore alienation and dissociation, etc.

The strictly commercial focus means the things you'd want to know about colour for art aren't covered.

In summary

The complete colour harmony is a fine work. It just wasn't the book I hoped it would be based on the title.

Book 3

Web and digital for graphic designers. 2020. Neil Leonard, Andrew Way, & Frédérique Santune.

This book is a primer for web design. It covers most of the tech stack with a focus on the user-facing design aspects.

The "for graphic designers" part of the title is interesting: I'm not sure whether the authors mean it. Parts of the book assume knowledge about approaches to layout, etc, and describe how to apply them to web formats. But other parts e.g. describe widely-used functions of Adobe Photoshop and give very basic information about file types.  

I found the book easy to read, and well-presented. Sections are nicely tied to colour coding. Page numbers are at the outside edges instead of the lower margin; I'm curious what the thinking was there.

Content

Leonard et al. give very wide-ranging, and quite grounded, advice. They cover tools, platforms, SEO, prototyping, content management, the semantic web, etc. There's quite a lot of pragmatic advice (like a hefty subsection on working with clients) which other books have tended to elide.

There are interstitial interviews with ten designers divided into bite-sized Q&A throughout. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and approaches, but otherwise I didn't think these add much.

Web and digital for graphic designers also has a number of "critical discussions", such as a remarkable subsection on "Marxism and the information economy". Others include technological determinism, feminism and intersectionality, dark UX. I found these very thoughtful, and the authors include a hefty list of further reading for each side topic.

Bits like this, with now-quaint discussions on whether crowdsourcing digital labour leads to homogenising and lower-quality information dissemination on the Internet, make it particularly fascinating to read a book on digital technologies that was published just before the spread of GPT.

Overall the textual content is high-quality and comprehensive, only somewhat undermined by its pervasive...

Errors

The time-to-typo is four paragraphs ("Through, the 1980s,"). From there, Web and digital for graphic designers continually pleads to the cold heavens for a copyedit but its prayers go unanswered.

The typos continued, e.g., "browser rations" for "browser ratios" (p 16); "a huge a stockpile" (p 62); "make sure if it is" (p 132); the phrase "standard characters" copy-pasted mistakenly (p 46);

There are grammar mistakes, awkward phrasings, and unevenness of tone throughout. A mixture of tenses on p 94. "firstly" for "first" on p 134. A stray comma on p 192. A mangled definition on p 93.

Page 34 gives a bullet list of browsers and their percentage market shares. The authors omit the stat from the last browser, then accidentally stylise the closing paragraph as another bullet.

There are outright falsehoods, e.g., "The internet has existed in some form since the Second World War, when it was used as a communication tool" (p 6). Merely ten pages later, the book says "the idea of the Internet was conceived [...] during the Cold War".

All the index entries for entries from page 167 onwards are broken, giving page numbers that are too high by 1–2. It only took a moment's checking to realise the layout was changed without updating the index. Specifically, the culprit is page 166 (examples of hotel bookings design), whose multiplicity of small images indicates that three pages were compressed down to one.

The errors themselves are less frustrating than how fixable they are. I mean, what are we doing here? I read the book casually, noticed the index problem just by browsing, identified the nature of the issue in three minutes, and it would take another three minutes in layout software to fix it. An hour tops if they made the index manually.

Has it been lost, The Deep Knowledge? — By which I mean that an author who can't afford to pay a copy editor for a couple of days can just read the text aloud and pick up most of the problems. Does having multiple authors make editing the text Somebody Else's Problem? Was the text absolutely riddled with errors and they did manage to fix a large percentage of them? I'm really puzzled.

In Summary

Leonard et al. have written a very good book. I wish they had also edited a very good book.

Pick this up if you have an amateur interest in the subject; it's probably recent enough that it hasn't become dated by the fast pace of technological change.