Feedback on OTexts covers please

We are cur­rently select­ing the cover design for OTexts books. The first one to go into print will be Fore­cast­ing: prin­ci­ples and prac­tice. We have nar­rowed the choice to the two designs below, although changes are still pos­si­ble. I thought it would be use­ful to get some feed­back on these designs from read­ers of this blog (and from peo­ple who sub­scribe to my twit­ter feed).

If you have any com­ments or sug­ges­tions, please add them below.

Related Posts:

  • Phillip Burger

    I think choice 2 is too much circa the 1990’s. I think it will make your book look dated at release.

    voted for choice 1. I don’t like this option but feel it is the bet­ter
    of the two choices. I don’t like it because it shows a pen on graph
    paper. Analy­sis now uses software.

    I think the use of a plot,
    chart, or graph is a good idea. Use a graphic that you imple­ment in your
    con­tent, a graphic that is pub­lished in your book. The book imple­ments
    using R. Use a graphic on the cover that is pro­duced out of R.

    I think it’d be really rich. Using graph­ics on cov­ers from the con­tent is another way to con­nect with the read­ers. I love to make the con­nec­tion when read­ing of rec­og­niz­ing a graphic on the page that is also the cover of the book.

  • Warning: Illegal string offset 'tagName' in /home/robjhynd/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-typography/php-typography/php-typography.php on line 1990

    I don’t like either. One seems almost Excel-​​like and two seems kinda triv­ial com­pared to the com­plex­ity of fore­cast­ing. Any chance of get­ting a new choice? :-)

  • Tao Hong

    I don’t like option 2.
    For option 1, is it pos­si­ble to replace the back­ground pic­ture by one that is more rep­re­sen­ta­tive to fore­cast­ing?
    On the title, do you have to put a “:” after “fore­cast­ing”? I think the small font of “prin­ci­ples and prac­tice” already tell peo­ple it’s a sub-​​title.
    On the author line, how about remov­ing “and”? I guess peo­ple should be able to tell that there are two authors even with­out the “and”.

  • Robert

    The book is out­stand­ing as opposed to cov­ers that I would say are old-​​fashioned. I know that a pack­ag­ing is mean­ing­less and con­tents count but if you ask you care. Any­way, your name attracts many peo­ple but not cov­ers. I’ve reck­oned that 1st edi­tion is the most impor­tant fore­cast­ing book for peo­ple (espe­cially for stu­dents) with eco­nomic back­ground and should be the first choice. Many thanks for your great and hard work and will­ing­ness to share your knowl­edge and experiences.

  • dksamuel

    Sir, please also make avail­able a pdf, as from India I can down­load and print (at far cheaper than even the mail­ing charges)

  • Wood­stock

    I’m look­ing for­ward to this…

    Re: my choice, I voted for #1, but wasn’t com­pletely happy with either. I liked the back­ground graphic of #1, but pre­ferred the title lay­out and design of #2, FWIW.

  • hk

    I pre­fer “choice 2″, but I think the authors’ names and also the text under the title should have more weight to be more read­able. Pre­serv­ing read­abil­ity in typog­ra­phy is a must.