5 ms·
Head First book author here -- I wrote Head First C#, Head First PMP, and Head First Agile (and three other, non-Head First O'Reilly books) -- and I wanted to p
by andrewstellman 9y ago
Head First book author here -- I wrote Head First C#, Head First PMP, and Head First Agile (and three other, non-Head First O'Reilly books) -- and I wanted to push back on your first point. We work really, really hard to include quality content. But I understand why people sometimes make the point that you made; I did the same thing myself at first.
It's easy to dismiss one of our Head First books as less-than-serious if you're not used to the format. There are a lot of pictures. There's a LOT of whitespace. There's redundancy; we'll say the same thing more than once. And most of all, when we do our job right they're not boring -- which, to many people, reads as non-serious. But we find that when people approach Head First books with an open mind, they find that it's actually a really effective way to get a lot of information into your brain quickly and easily.
We also know that while a lot of people love the informal and highly visual format, some people just can't stand it. There are some people who just want a dense, concise, terse book that they can absorb all at once. Readers like that just won't like Head First books. That's why every Head First book starts with an introduction that says who the book is for and who it's not for. Coincidentally, my coauthor, Jenny Greene, and I just did an interview on Dave Prior's "Drunken PM" podcast, and the first question he asks us is about this "Who this book isn't for" section: https://www.projectmanagement.com/blog-post/34188/Head-First-Agile-with-Andrew-Stellman-and-Jenny-Greene https://www.projectmanagement.com/blog-post/34188/Head-First...
Short, shameful confession: I had a similar reaction to yours when I first saw Head First Design Patterns; I dismissed it out of hand, ostensibly because there were some less-common design patterns from GoF that it didn't cover, but really because I just didn't "get" the format. A year later, when our editor at O'Reilly floated the idea of writing Head First PMP, I went back to it and really read it, this time with a much more open mind (for example, I actually did all of the code exercises instead of just reading them). I realized why I'd made my earlier mistake in dismissing the book -- and gained a lot of respect for how much work Eric Freeman, Elisabeth Robson, Kathy Sierra, and Burt Bates had put into it. They were really careful about what they chose to cover, and covered those topics really thoroughly. They give you several different chances to "get" each concept, showing it to you from different angles so that you really absorb the full context. They put a lot of care into managing the pace of the book so it's a steady stream of learning and not a flood. They repeated things that needed repeating. And it all works. Really, really well.
I thought I'd understood design patterns pretty well before I really read Head First Design Patterns. afterwards, I was actually better at using them in code in real life. When I'm not writing books or training teams, I'm writing code both professionally with teams and as outside of work. The incredible quality of the content in their book helped me understand design patterns better.
Jenny and I strive to bring the same care to our Head First books. I think we've done a pretty good job of including quality content that's worth our readers' time; I hope they agree.
- PleaseHelpMe 9y agoLong time reader of Head First series here. I have finished : - HF Software Development - HF Design Pattern - HF Java - HF Android Development I have no complaints. Really, thank you for making those books. They helped me a lot. I think you couldn't have every reader to agree that your book is good because each person has their own taste, but to be fair, yours do a good job in delivering quality content in many aspects under a friendly narrative.
- andrewstellman 9y agoThank you! I've spent some time on the phone with several of the authors of those books. They did a great job with them. If you get a chance, go to Amazon.com and leave a five-star review for each of those books. It seems like a small thing, but you'd be surprised about how each additional review with five stars helps, even a one-sentence review. They all definitely deserve it!
- dysoco 9y agoHead First books were a great help back when I was starting with programming. I was a teenager and not as comfortable with English as I am now. Books like Head First Java and Head First Web Design helped me a great deal. I don't know if I would read them as my first option nowadays, but they definitively have their use and are great at what they aim at.
- jasode 9y ago>There are a lot of pictures. [...] highly visual format, Thank you for your response. To clarify, I'm not an elitist that rejects cartoons and informal style. For example, I think the "Calculus for Dummies"[1] with the cartoons is a good math book. I'm also not really not talking about the visual "clutter" that others complain about either. Cartoons are fine but I prefer that the drawings/illustrations really impart knowledge or insight rather than "decorate" a book's page like wallpaper. For example, I looked at "Head First Networking"[2]. Using Amazon's "Look inside" feature to browse some pages: - page 1: the clipart of the man and woman and the thought bubbles do not reward the user with quality knowledge in relation to the space they take up - page 19: the clipart of the tourist with the arrows and thought bubble does not actually teach a networking concept My point is: just because a book has cartoons & unserious style doesn't mean it has good presentation of teaching. It might be a suboptimal book that just happened to use cartoons. Another way to put it: Comics can be a very powerful way to illustrate concepts but their power is underutilized in the Head First books. The cartoons are often "jokes" instead of teaching. >which, to many people, reads as non-serious Similar to cartoons, I have similar complaints about "conversational style" that many authors think helps with pedagogy but it really doesn't. (You can explain things terribly while using a conversational tone, and likewise, explain things clearly with a serious tone.) I'll save that criticism of that for another essay. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Dummies-Lifestyle-Mark-Ryan/dp/1119293499/ https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Dummies-Lifestyle-Mark-Ryan/... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Head-First-Networking-Brain-Friendly-Guide/dp/0596521553/ https://www.amazon.com/Head-First-Networking-Brain-Friendly-...