Does 'pretty' matter to you in curriculum?

[justamouse]

I will buy a curriculum if it works for me no matter what, but I've learned I take special joy in doing it with the kids if it's beautiful.

 

So, a poll. Does pretty matter to you?

[Snickerdoodle]

I never thought I'd see the language in the poll crossing your lips. :D

 

Of course, pretty is a joy and an added benefit.

[Tohru]

Aesthetics is something we value in our lives.

The nicer it looks, the more pleasant it is to use.

[Gailmegan]

I'm the other. I don't care about pretty for pretty sake - what I care about is that it is eye-catching enough that it interests my kids. My oldest is definitely a visual learner, so how things are displayed makes a difference in how he learns.

[wapiti]

Pretty may be in the eye of the beholder. For us, the more white space, the better. Too much color, too many sidebars or pictures, can be visually nauseating to me and distracting to dd. I'd like it to be "minimalist" and tasteful.

[Barb_]

There is just something so charming about not-pretty to me. I love my Singapore old school, my Rod and Staff Grammar, my Memoria press stuff and my WWE.

[OnTheBrink]

Pretty may be in the eye of the beholder. For us, the more white space, the better. Too much color, too many sidebars or pictures, can be visually nauseating to me and distracting to dd. I'd like it to be "minimalist" and tasteful.

 

Same here. We don't use Usborne for that reason; it's just too visually chaotic for dd.

[Rosie_0801]

Well I'm thinking to use Pictures in Cursive because it is pretty. Usually white space is good for me, but I always found handwriting so dull and I think it must be nicer to be writing about a picture.

 

Rosie

[AuntieM]

I don't really care that it's pretty, but looks do matter. I prefer materials that look...quality. Does that make sense? For instance, I just couldn't handle those Pathway readers because the typesetting was (in my opinion) poorly done. I wouldn't have minded that in a teacher manual, but it seems important in a reader.

 

Perhaps what I really look for is readability. And I like a fair amount of white space on a page.

Edited June 10, 2011 by AuntieM

[WishboneDawn]

I have never considered pretty when buying curriculum or...well, pretty much anything. Attractive yes, but pretty is a sub-category that only appeals to some. Not me though. I honestly can't think of the last time I bought something because it was pretty.

[twoforjoy]

I said other. Aesthetics does matter to me, but I wouldn't say "pretty" is what I'm after; I'm more inclined to prefer things that are simple, uncluttered, and linear.

[DarlaS]

I don't really care that it's pretty, but looks do matter. I prefer materials that look...quality. Does that make sense? For instance, I just couldn't handle those Pathway readers because the typesetting was (in my opinion) poorly done. I wouldn't have minded that in a teacher manual, but it seems important in a reader.

 

Perhaps what I really look for is readability. And I like a fair amount of white space on a page.

 

:iagree:

[Meriwether]

I have never considered pretty when buying curriculum or...well, pretty much anything. Attractive yes, but pretty is a sub-category that only appeals to some. Not me though. I honestly can't think of the last time I bought something because it was pretty.

 

I chose the first answer but "pretty" translated "attractive" in my mind. If I was choosing between two options and one was more attractive, I would choose the more attractive one. If I am set on using something, I will regardless of its appearance.

[twoforjoy]

I prefer stuff that isn't too flashy. The flashiest looking thing we use is Singapore Math US edition (and I don't think that's too flashy). Things like Usborne books drive me insane with the chaos all over the page. I never know which blip to read first.

 

I thought I was the only homeschooler who doesn't like Usborne. It's just not nearly linear enough for me to enjoy.

[Impish]

The one thing I dislike about MCT are the fonts and sizes used. The actual info and how its done is great, but the fonts make me wince. Really disappointed in that, b/c I *do* find it hard to work with as a result.

[SailorMom]

Had to pick other...

While I won't chose a curriculum based on "looks" - if it looks good, I know I'll enjoy that.

However, for my son, simple on white ppaer can usually work the best.

[angela in ohio]

I chose 'Other,' because none of those really fit my opinion.

 

I choose content over appearance. I'm trying to think of curriculum we actually use, and it is such a mix. Like Barb, I appreciate the simplicity of R&S and consider that pretty. OTOH, we use Omnibus and BJU science texts, which are gorgeous books. I suppose I prefer things that are porfessional looking. I don't want typos or handwritten words or bad layout.

 

I do like to think that I can tell the difference between beauty mixed with good content and the products that just slap some pretty on to cover their lack of worth. :001_smile: I think of some of the hidden gems, like WRTR, which isn't glamorous, but has so much in it, as compared to some of the slick looking reading programs which are just bells and whistles, for example.

[justamouse]

I didn't explain well enough-Not Usbourne-not pages of pictures-but something beautiful.

 

Personally, I lean toward detail. I read this to littest hatchling the other

 

day and I ended up having to buy it because it was so gorgeously illustrated. But even for the older children-there's a history curriculum I want because it is just, so amazingly beautiful-Ages of Grace, Simka is using it. Does beauty for beauty's sake have merit, because the minimalism sometimes has a moralistic connotation to it, too. It's just pleasing to my eye and I started to wonder if that was frivolous and what everyone thought and leaned towards themselves.

 

 

[justamouse]

Well, I don't think a curriculum could be that busy-but to think about beauty in it's setting. Like this-

 

Ages of Grace

 

It's simple on the website, and the formatting is clean, but it's set so that it's also visually attractive, with beautiful pictures and it's just absolutely lovely. I want it because it's just so lovely.

 

I really kinda wish that curriculum writers would sometimes not just worry about content, but make their work beautiful, too, and I wondered if I was the only one who thought that way.

[Parrothead]

I won't buy a product just because of how it looks. But it isn't strictly black and white. I think of it as a bonus if what I'm using is visually appealing. Both on the inside and out.

 

I bought Latin Road for English Grammar to use this year. When it came yesterday I was surprised at how ugly the font is on the pages, yet the picture on the cover is lovely. Especially considering how much it cost to purchase. It just looked like someone typed the pages on an old fashioned typewriter and xeroxed them off. :confused:

[Impish]

Oh see I like that. I like that there aren't many words on each page and that the "flare" doesn't make it unreadable (like in Usborne books as a comparison). And there are colors, but not too many colors.

Its the multi fonts that drive me wacky. Pick one and stick with it. Or even two. More than that just gets to me.

 

[Jayne J]

Not to get overly philosophical but I am in the "Beauty is truth, truth beauty..." camp. Especially with literature, I will pay more for a goregeously illustrated book over a plain print version. (I re-ordered Black Ships Before Troy and The Wanderings of Odysseus when I realized they were just the paperbacks and not the illustrated versions.) Beauty matters. And beauty can be absorbed through eyes and ears both.

 

However, a beautifully illustrated grammar book that doesn't teach grammar well is pointless, so it often ends up a balancing act. But for literature it is a no-brainer for me. For subjects like math, grammar, Latin etc. my main concern is effectiveness and clean, simple layout. However if someone gorgeously illustrated a top notch Latin book, it might move to the top of my list...:D

[Mimm]

Pretty does matter. This is something we'll be spending hours with, looking at, reading, holding, turning pages, studying. There's no reason it shouldn't look good and feel good in our hands. It makes it more appealing and people are more willing to spend time with it. I want my kids to view books as their friends. And pretty isn't just about aesthetics either. Something with a good layout and neatly set type is easier to read and extract information from.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Pretty is nice-although perhaps more accurate is graphically appealing. (Pretty has a girly connotation that doesn't work when teaching boys.)

 

However-of far greater importance is content. Without substance I wouldn't want to purchase the curriculum.

 

After content (and sometimes of equal importance) is organization and layout. If a curriculum isn't organized and presented in a way that is easy to understand and use then all that follows is frustration. Sometimes that means including graphics to illustrate a point or organize information. (I'm not saying I need to be spoon fed what I teach my kids but if I can't figure out what to do and when because the organization, layout and graphics are poor or non-existent then we are in time wasting and frustration territory.)

[elegantlion]

Aesthetics do matter to me. It's not always a reason to buy or not buy, but I am drawn to pretty curriculum.

 

I also prefer if the writer has put some thought into the layout.

 

My ds and I also prefer a lot of white space on a page. I know when I'm looking at classic novels, I'll eliminate the ones with tiny fonts crammed together.

[A.Balaban]

I think that how it looks matters, especially for younger kids. Nothing is more dull to a young kid that nothing but black and white.

[Audrey]

I will buy a curriculum if it works for me no matter what, but I've learned I take special joy in doing it with the kids if it's beautiful.

 

So, a poll. Does pretty matter to you?

 

 

I don't care if it's "pretty." I've seen lots of pretty curricula that was rubbish for quality of content.

[Rebecca VA]

I stopped using several BJU curriculum items because of the ugly cartoon-type pictures in them. The content was very worthwhile, but I couldn't get past the pictures.

[Satori]

I didn't know what to vote, so voted "Other". I don't like "pretty" as in flowery. I would get turned off by that, I think I'm more practical. I like things that are easy to read and navigate and follow.

 

On the flipside, if something is ugly, very unprofessional or poorly designed, I'd have a very hard time sticking to that program.

[nukeswife]

I posted other because it depends on my child. My oldest is a "Just the facts mad'am " kind of kid. My dd likes color, but too much is distracting for her. My youngest needs it to be as bright and shiny as possible in order to love doing it. It could be the most dreaded subject out there but if it's colorful enough then he'll think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

[4wildberrys]

Yes!

[Ginevra]

I didn't explain well enough-Not Usbourne-not pages of pictures-but something beautiful.

 

Personally, I lean toward detail. I read this to littest hatchling the other

 

day and I ended up having to buy it because it was so gorgeously illustrated. But even for the older children-there's a history curriculum I want because it is just, so amazingly beautiful-Ages of Grace, Simka is using it. Does beauty for beauty's sake have merit, because the minimalism sometimes has a moralistic connotation to it, too. It's just pleasing to my eye and I started to wonder if that was frivolous and what everyone thought and leaned towards themselves.

 

 

 

See, I would want to buy that, too.

 

For me, "beauty" rests a great deal in how the materials are bound and typeset. I despise curriculum that is presented in a three-ring binder and looks like they xeroxed it next to the dinner table. :glare: I think Math-U-See has been drastically improved with their new "perfect bound" books, though I have used MUS for 8 years. I despised Sonlight's Science sheets (years ago; I don't know if they are still the same) that had crudely-drawn pictures on ugly yellow paper. It's not that I necessarily have to have something first-class published, I can like "down home" materials, too, but they still have to look like they did a fantastic job with what they had. I bought a "timeline book" once and it was the cheesiest, spiral-bound, flimsiest piece of carp I ever saw in my life. I was angry that something like that could even be sold anywhere, let alone to me! I also bought a nicely-bound, professional-looking phonics program that was riddled with errors, so it can go either way.

 

And I love Usborne books, but I have seen older ones that are too overwhelming to look at. The Usborne books I've bought recently were gorgeous and not overly busy. I love them!

[WishboneDawn]

I didn't explain well enough-Not Usbourne-not pages of pictures-but something beautiful.

 

Personally, I lean toward detail. I read this to littest hatchling the other

 

day and I ended up having to buy it because it was so gorgeously illustrated. But even for the older children-there's a history curriculum I want because it is just, so amazingly beautiful-Ages of Grace, Simka is using it. Does beauty for beauty's sake have merit, because the minimalism sometimes has a moralistic connotation to it, too. It's just pleasing to my eye and I started to wonder if that was frivolous and what everyone thought and leaned towards themselves.

 

 

[/url]

 

I'm sucker for beautiful books. I know my favourite cover artists by name and spent a stupid amount of money for this edition edition of LOTR (The picture doesn't do it justice. The yellow swirls are gold! :D My daughter is reading the first book now with dire warnings to take great care with it).

 

But it's not consideration when I'm looking for an english or science program. Most of that may simply be because I buy almost everything online.

[Mynyel]

I voted other, sometimes I like it to look good, sometimes I don't.

 

For instance, we use MUS... It is plain and straight forward. We also use Lively Latin which (if you print in color :D) is nice looking.

[nrg]

Plain or beautifully done does add selling power to me. Ugly, bad art will cause me to reject an otherwise solid product. I just don't want to see it, and it reduces the author's credibility.

[desertmum]

I don't care if it's "pretty." I've seen lots of pretty curricula that was rubbish for quality of content.

 

:iagree:

[Word Nerd]

Pretty doesn't matter to me per se, but I appreciate well-done graphic design.

[The Girls' Mom]

I voted pretty, but for me it's more if it's visually appealing in some way. BUT I'm a very visual person. If it looks dull and ugly, I'm less likely to pick it up in the first place. If the typeset is horrible, it won't get far either. My kids are similarly inclined.

[stripe]

Clear and legible > pretty.

[Ester Maria]

The plainer the better, as we dislike distractions, but my ultimate arbiter is the quality of the text, not its visual aspect.

 

FWIW, I greatly enjoy art. But there is a time and a place for everything and sometimes "artistic tendencies" of a text which is supposed to teach science just go too far and become a distraction.

[MicheleinMN]

Function over form, but I still love beautiful books and will spend extra to buy them for myself and my children.

 

I voted other. ;)

[Sparkle]

Pretty is a bonus. If something is attractively designed, or has nice illustrations in addition to content, that is well and good.

 

I'm more of an avoider of ugly. I've rejected curriculum that I thought was hard to read or uses annoying fonts or is too cluttered. I kept looking at Mystery of History but I just couldn't get over the fonts in that book. I knew I'd end up hating it. But I do get extra enjoyment out of a book that is nicely done, and you feel like the author put a little extra work into it to make it appealing.