28 Jun 2004 | Keith said...

I like those quite a bit myself. I just "discovered" DWR yesterday. A friend of mine had a catalogue. There's some really, really cool stuff in there.

28 Jun 2004 | Steve Yen said...

Pretty cool. Unless you have young children visitors. You'll get the same mess as when they topple those tower CD holders.

28 Jun 2004 | Ian Firth said...

That wouldn't stay upright more than a few minutes with our pit bull, or our 4 cats.

28 Jun 2004 | shawn said...

It does solve the readability problem of vertical bookshelves. If you've ever spent hours in a bookstore or library looking for one specific title, you'll know what I mean.

28 Jun 2004 | pb said...

DWR is great but hardly "within". Cool "bookcase", tho.

Anyone considering an investment in DWR which recently filed for an IPO?

28 Jun 2004 | said...

You mean you don't stack books that way in a regular bookshelf?

28 Jun 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I like it except that, for all but the topmost book on each shelf, pulling out a book now becomes a two-handed operation.

28 Jun 2004 | Jamie said...

One flaw of the design is once you have your books organized (just like they have in the picture--so perfectly formed from smallest to largest) and you buy more books, you have to resort the entire stack to make it look just as good--sorting from smallest to largest.

The good thing about the conventional bookcase is when you're viewing spines vertically, they all seem uniform because of the uniform heights of the shelving the books are contained in.

Also, since the books are presented in such an attractive way, you have to make sure the books you put in there are equally attractive/intellectual bragging/etc.

28 Jun 2004 | Dr_God said...

Good for viewing and showcasing your books, but bad for usability.

As Jamie says, keeping it "balanced" when you buy new books is a minor nuisance, but even harder would be to keep your books organized in any sort of linear order (e.g. alphabetical). If you buy a new book that belongs on the 2nd shelf, and the shelf is already full, you then have to shift all the books on the others shelves down to make room for the new book.

And this bookshelf requires that you use two hands to take a book off the shelf if it's under a pile of other books. (Unless you do the really quick snatch technique ala the "tablecloth yank" magic trick.)

I think this shelf is a lot cooler for displaying non-book items.

28 Jun 2004 | mindful_learner said...

I don't think this design has any space advantages over a conventional bookcase. To stack the same number of books as you'd get in a conventional bookcase, you'd need a few of these placed side by side. In which case, I think you'd end up using a similar amount of wall space (perhaps there would be some minor advantage). Of course, the aesthetic and novelty of the design brings its own pleasure/value.

Purely relating to saving space, I suspect a more stylish version of the carousels you get in conventional bookstores would be a step in the right direction. Alternatively, how about something off-the-wall...how about a system where your books are layed out on the ceiling (like ceiling tiles, perhas in some type of transparent container) and a required book can somehow be delivered to a wall for collection (some type of flat chute). Or how about something arty....how about a selection of your most attractive books being placed in a transparent container with the covers facing you (like a picture, with each book in a 'cell'). The books can be shuffled around until the one you want is available in an opening in the container (like those puzzles where you have to rearrange squares to make a picture and there is always one space free so you can move the squares). Bit whymsical that....

sorry for rambling.....

Mindful :0)

28 Jun 2004 | Matthew Oliphant said...

How about a design solution that supports search and browse tasks?

Say, redesigning the spine of a book to better display information necessary to the user for findability and to the business for sales.

Instead of building a tool to turn the book in such a way as to allow easier reading (both from a cognitive and ergonomic perspective I would guess), why not just make the text vertical (marquee)?

It seems as though marquee text is read slower, but in this case I am not sure of the need to increase the task speed of the user.

Hm, can there be a geekier way to say I don't like that bookshelf?

28 Jun 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Jamie and Dr God hit on one of the big problems that popped into my head right away. But there's an even more basic problem: Grabbing just one book. You have to either balance the books well and set them back down on the shelf, or pull off a stack, pull out the book you want, and put the stack back.

Of course, my bookcases are a mish-mash of vertical and horizontal storage ever since I ran out of room and haven't bought new bookcases. So I get the best (or worst) of both worlds.

I do like the "vanishing" look of the case, though, even if it's not a very practical solution.

28 Jun 2004 | Rob said...

One of the few items in the DWR catalog that is reasonably priced.

28 Jun 2004 | DaveMo said...

Well, as others have pointed out, problems accessing a volume from the middle of the stack was the first thing that occurred to me when I thought about it. Otherwise, why couldn't you just stack your books in your regular bookshelf that way? As a purely esthetically functional design alternative it works fine. But I don't think it's "new thinking" just different execution. I've seen this idea many times before, but as a catalyst for thinking in a new way about something we use and see everyday the concept does it's job. The design's biggest advantage is the effect of openess it creates in a space and it's relative mobility. You don't have to worry about putting holes in a wall to hang shelves and you don't have a big box dominating the space either.

I found that I had a similar problem when I was trying to find inexpensive book shelves that were horizontal instead of vertical, as most of them are these days. The manufactures apparently assume their customers don't need to display other things on their walls, like art, so all that were available were bookcases that were about 30 inches wide by 6 feet high. I needed pretty much the same dimensions just tipped on it's side. I had to make my own in the end using prefab storage units with shelving in between. Works great. Still don't see that kind of shelving offered anywhere commercially.

When it comes to concepts like this, for pure functionality, the solution that has existed for hundreds of years is still the best. Otherwise, libraries would have adopted it a long time ago! And who knows more about storing and accessing books than your friendly librarian?

29 Jun 2004 | jENG said...

The thing about bookcases... cases in general... as they everyone is stuck on this vertical system. Probably because it's easier to make something, and make it tall so it automatically occupies a space with minimal footprint. Gravity is an issue as well.

But what I'd like to see is less attention to footprint and more attention to WALL print. Start making stuff that arches ACROSS space. Like cupboards. But more elegant.

I mean, we should very tall people be forced to scrunch down to the bottom of a book case. And why should short people be forced to stand on their tippee toes just to get to the top of a tall bookcase.

Design systems that spawn an entire wall, but only occupy an area 4 ft. from the ground to 6 feet from the ground. Everyone can access this stuff with minium bending over and tippee toeing.

IKEA actually has a system called DIRIGENT that I find highly impressive. It's in the book cases or storage areas. I forget. I've been thinking of using it to create a span of CD shelves to house my 800 CDs. I'm sick and tired of neglecting S thru Z because they're on the floor. ;)

29 Jun 2004 | jENG said...

Why the heck is DWR going public? Don't they already make enough money from their $400 work chairs, $600 lamps and $3000 sofas?

29 Jun 2004 | tim said...

In addition to the usability flaws pointed out by others, this seems like a really bad way to store paperback books anywhere but the driest climates. Even in the relatively low humidity we've had in Chicago this year so far the covers of my paperback books still curl if I lay them on a table overnight. I can only imagine how much those covers would curl if I stored them that way permanently.

Although, maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps having the covers curl up would make it easier to find the book I was looking for.

29 Jun 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

Some of the stuff within the pages of Design Within Reach is utter garbage for people who simply want to buy something 'designed' or beyond Pier One or Pottery Barn, and frankly this bookshelf is one of those items. It looks cheap, and when it's full it looks like you have no shelves. Books weren't mean to levitate in midair, so it looks weird. It's modern, and essentially does what a por college student can do for free. Atleast it's cheaper than the awful looking, slightly better than plastic, furniture.

01 Jul 2004 | anonymous said...

...the nice thing is that it looks like a classic stack of books, but only 4 maximum have to be displaced @ a time to get to the one you want. also, easier to dusk than rows and rows of traditionally-shelved books, which collect dust all along the top of each shelf. the hovering bit is a nice design detail...its what seperates it one more degree frm just stacking- the case disappears, but the gap between the floor and the bottom book reveals that the stack is part of the design, that its intentional.
on another note, mindful learner wrote a few days ago about a bookshelf that acts like a display case for attractive books. i just built this one that is like a plexiglass rectangle, shallow and it bolts to the wall, and the top is open. the books all just slip in and out, like a bookrack, but since they're all small paperbacks, relatively the same size, it looks like they are framed. each one is accessible at any moment, no shuffling, which is good, but then you have to stick with the strip shape of the case....anyway....that's my nickel.

05 Jul 2004 | Mark Frisk said...

The book collector in me needs to point out that it's not good to store books flat, stacked on top of one another.