From: Daniel Johnson <johnsond-AT-mail.belmont.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 2009 21:30:25 UTC   (04:30:25 PM in author's locale)
To: The Graphics List <graphics-AT-lists.graphicslist.org>

Hey Michael - You didn't say why or why not you did or didn't factor
in their reason for the smaller than letter-sized or reasons for a
non-standard A size either and that has left me curious. Are there any
issues in their reasoning that needs to be considered? Thanks.

Dan Johnson

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Michael Brady
<bradydesign-AT-embarqmail.com> wrote:
> A book client told me they wanted a book smaller than letter-sized (and they
> weren't thinking of any A-sizes either).
>
> Initially, I suggested 8x10, which after I started working with it just
> seemed to be an 8.5 x 11 put on the Xerox machine and reduced a tad. So I
> started looking at other proporitons. I noticed that a height of 10.5
> inches, which is smaller than 11, is 21/2 (i.e., the numerator is a
> Fibonacci number), so I made the width 6.5 inches, i.e., 13/2. Just a wee
> bit narrow, but it does have that .619 Fibonacci ratio. Also, it's 68.25 sq.
> in, which is close to the same surface as a 7x10 book.
>
> Downside: it's 73% of the area of 8.5 x 11, so the page count will go up by
> roughly 33%, too, which can't be recovered because the excess paper of the
> smaller trim will just be discarded as waste. I'm going to run the cost
> comparison by them again, but I think that will not be a big factor and
> they'll stick with the smaller size.
>
> What do you think of this? Any other ideas?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Michael Brady
> michaelb-AT-michaelbradydesign.com
>
>
> ----
> Message sent by The Graphics List.
> Want to be removed?Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
>
>

----
Message sent by The Graphics List.
Want to be removed?
Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org