Every summer, Coudal Partners posts a set of reviews called “Field-Tested Books.” The reviews “take place” somehere significant to the books, so for example, you get a review of Confederacy of Dunces in New Orleans, or of Cheever stories in Grand Central station here in New York (to choose one of the more specific locations). They’re short, and end up as more of a vignette tying the book to the reviewer’s own experience than a regular review.

A couple I know arranges their books by color. I thought of them, and of the weirdly hostile response their classification scheme receives, when I read this article on color classification in the Design Observer blog. The reason to arrage books this way is simple–you remember what the book looks like, and look to the area on the shelf of the same color. I think that’s the reason for the hostility, too–it doesn’t seem serious and bookish enough to go looking for “that red book” rather than “that philosophy book.” There are some interesting implications for designers and content folks. Via Kottke.

Slate’s Jack Shafer recently posted a review of the New York Times, as delivered electronically through Microsoft Reader. I have never heard of this software, now in beta release for Windows only. Shafer says that it offers better, more readable, type rendering than is feasible on the Web, and that makes the paper easier to navigate and search. I can’t imagine this will take off–Microsoft isn’t exactly known for its loving care for type. And Shafer’s tablet computer love seems a little over the top to me.