Geekipedia
Every so often you come across something that conveys a point so well, you have to stop what you are doing and take note. So when we received this months WIRED and supplemental Geekipedia, I was very excited.
So what’s wrong with this picture?
I wouldn’t say one way or the other, if this was poor editing on the part of the WIRED editors or clever designing on the part of the designer. Maybe just a case in point, for me to exploit.
The imagery is very striking. It effectively communicates what the title declares. But wait, something is not quite right. Sloppy Photoshopping?
Offsetting as that might be, that wasn’t it. After all, we’re not looking for perfection, only the conveying of a concept. Then it hit me. That’s not an encyclopedia!
Why use a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia? Laziness? There happened to be one right there, next to the digital camera? I highly doubt it. The reason is obvious to a visual communicator. An encyclopedia has no distinguishable markings when it’s open, as a dictionary does with the in-cut tabs. Sure a plain book with no markings, you see the title, you get it. But with the dictionary, you see the image and make that association without even realizing you’ve taken the title of the magazine in.
This is a great example of effective communication that isn’t altogether, technically correct. The difference between the designer and the editor, perhaps.
