Apparently, this is the first of many “I’m so lazy I’m not even going to bother squishing the horizontal part of the aspect ratio to give this so-called cover a portrait orientation” covers.
RK@HM
1 month ago
Y’know, the more I see of these landscape-oriented covers, the more I suspect these authors/cover designers were expecting people to be reading the electronic editions on their phones, and to turn them sideways to do so. While that’s actually a pretty good reason to use images wider than they are tall, that’s no excuse for choosing such boring and irrelevant imagery. Also, if they’re going to publish physical editions, the designers either ought to produce a different cover altogether or at least wrap the (preferably high-definition and well-chosen) landscape-oriented image for the electronic edition around the physical edition’s front and back covers and relocate the titles/bylines/other text to appropriate areas of the front cover and spine.
Apparently, this is the first of many “I’m so lazy I’m not even going to bother squishing the horizontal part of the aspect ratio to give this so-called cover a portrait orientation” covers.
Y’know, the more I see of these landscape-oriented covers, the more I suspect these authors/cover designers were expecting people to be reading the electronic editions on their phones, and to turn them sideways to do so. While that’s actually a pretty good reason to use images wider than they are tall, that’s no excuse for choosing such boring and irrelevant imagery. Also, if they’re going to publish physical editions, the designers either ought to produce a different cover altogether or at least wrap the (preferably high-definition and well-chosen) landscape-oriented image for the electronic edition around the physical edition’s front and back covers and relocate the titles/bylines/other text to appropriate areas of the front cover and spine.