A Word to Forget
As a graphic designer there is one word I hear more than any other. This word is so powerful that it can either end the life of a design or usher it into the limelight. Yet it is a word that is so irrelevant to the quality of a design that it should be, at most, a side note. Everyone should forget this word while discussing designs. This word is “like.”
“I like it.” Angels sing. Success!
“I don’t like it.” The design is a failure. Back to the drawing board.
What’s wrong with liking or disliking a design? Pretend we’re not talking about a design. Pretend we’re talking about Bach. Some folks like his music. Some don’t. This has no bearing on whether or not Bach’s music is good. That Bach’s music is good is definsible objectively. Objective evaluations have nothing to do with likes or dislikes. They depend on a set of standards against which the object of evaluation is measured.
Why is design not evaluated by such standards? Why do clients* rely on subjective evaluations to make decisions about design? They wouldn’t use likes and dislikes to make decisions about a business plan or product development. Let’s home in on the reasons for this difference in behavior.
1. Ignorance
Nobody wants to admit that they are ignorant. It sounds so shameful, but it should not be. I drive on bridges every day. I see them every day. I have a lot of interaction with bridges. But I am ignorant of bridge building. I would not offer an opinion on whether or not a bridge design is structurally sound. The consequences would be obvious and most likely catastrophic.
The consequences of bad graphic design decisions are usually not as obvious or catastrophic (with some exceptions), so it is not so natural to learn what design decisions are bad and which are good through casual observation. Clients are put in the position of having to make these decisions, however. Without education in objective standards, it is understandable for decision-makers to follow their gut — what they like or dislike. Graphic designers should, whenever possible, educate decision-makers on the principles of design. This can lead to better decisions.
Yet even in the face of education, clients and executives often go by their likes and dislikes. Why?
2. Stubbornness
This is another negative-sounding word that is ultimately not so negative. Stubbornness often comes in the form of “Nothing that I don’t like is going out;” or, “I don’t like it, and it doesn’t matter what the designer says.” People in decision-making roles are often in that position because their guts have served them well. Their confidence and persistence have gotten them where they are today. They know their business and they are not going to be swayed against their preferences. There is no panacea for this situation. Trust has to be learned by one party and earned by the other, and that is an enormous, separate topic.
3. Fear
Inevitably, clients are more hands-on when their business is not going as well as they’d like. The reason for this is simple — fear. Fear that the tiniest misstep could be costly. Fear that designers are not invested enough and are not creating the best designs. The client fears that they haven’t been involved or concerned enough about small details. Sometimes they’re right. I think every designer understands this. And it’s not just designers who feel the scrutiny during such times.
When fear behavior persists through good times, however, it speaks to a more fundamental problem. If a client does not trust the designer they have hired, then something is very wrong. Maybe it’s communication issues on one or both sides. Maybe the designer isn’t educating the client properly. Maybe the designer is actually not trustworthy. But the knot of persistent fear will resultant in micromanagement and should be unwound and examined so that the client-designer relationship can become healthy again. Fear is contagious, and if a client is fearful that a designer is not going to do a good job, then the designer is going to be fearful as well.
In summary, design decision-making that involves likes and dislikes is indicative of problems and is ultimately harmful. But it is so common to talk about design using such terms of preference that many will not even know how to talk about design without them. That is what I would like to address in my next blog entry.
*”Clients” refers to both clients and business executives, who are the clients of in-house designers.
Though Nexus One Tempted Me, I’m Keeping My Droid
The Motorola Droid has been a fairly contentious piece of equipment to date. Whether you love it or hate it, there’s no doubt that it’s done a lot to bring the Android operating system to the forefront of the world of smart phones. There were other Android-based phones in 2009, but none made as big a splash, in part, due to the lack of publicity. But now there’s another Android phone pushing it’s way to the front of the fray. The Google-branded Nexus One. Like the Droid Eris, it’s manufactured by HTC, so I know it’s going to have strong industrial & UX design. I love the design and functionality of my wife’s HTC Droid Eris. But I chose the Motorola Droid, and, despite a number of flaws, I’m not going to return it. But before I explain why, let me tell you why I considered kicking it to the curb.
- It’s bulky. The slide-out keyboard speaks to the design-by-committee quality of the phone. Somewhere is an executive who insisted that a physical keyboard would give the Droid an edge over the iPhone. In theory, that’s true, but the Droid’s physical keyboard is very hard to use. I feel like it was created by an exasperated engineer who was ordered to fit it into too small a space, so it’s flat and much more difficult to use than the on-screen soft keyboard. So I don’t use it. The only aspect that is beneficial to me is the cursor control, which brings me to my next point.
- Navigating text while you’re typing is a huge pain. I have an iPod Touch, and Apple’s solution is okay; while it’s tedious, it works. Droid has almost no solution. You can either keep tapping at the screen until the cursor blessedly jumps where you want it to, or you can slide open the keyboard and use the rectangle to the right of the keys to move the cursor where you want it. Somebody tell me why it’s so difficult to put cursor controls in the soft keyboards. You can type just about any character needed by switching between keyboard layouts. Where are the cursor keys — am I the only one who misses them horribly? Apple, Google, help me understand. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. And what about a forward delete key? Okay, rant over.
- The permanent soft keys below the screen are way too sensitive. I am constantly accidentally hitting the search button, particularly while using the camera. Why is the search button even active while the camera is being used? Who decides they’re going to do a search while they’re taking photos? And going from the camera, to the search, and then back again takes forever. So the shot is missed.
- The battery door falls off. This is probably the Achilles heel of the Droid. Such a costly device should not have a battery door that falls off. Not only is it inconvenient, it makes the Droid seem cheap.
- Android doesn’t have multi-touch out of the box. Apple is the Microsoft of smart phones, with huge market share and tons of patents, and Google is a bit afraid of them for that reason. But the Droid has the capability for multi-touch. I have two apps that use it, and I look forward to more.
Though there are other flaws, these are the reasons I considered returning the Motorola Droid in favor of the upcoming Google Nexus One. It’s technically similar to the Droid, with much superior design. Edit: This isn’t actually right. The Google Nexus One uses the Snapdragon 1GHz processor, whereas the Droid uses the Arm A8 — the same as the iPhone 3GS — at 550MHz. But I’m sticking with the Droid. Here’s why.
- It’s a great device. The screen is superb, the processor is strong, there are a lot of awesome apps for it, and it’s a really good phone.
- I don’t know exactly when the Nexus One will become available for Verizon subscribers. It’s supposed to be available in Spring, but that could be June. So I could be without a smart phone for almost 6 months. Blech.
- I don’t know how much the Nexus One will cost. With my 2-year plan, I got my Droid for $150 with rebates, etc. But I could end up paying $300+ for the Nexus One. There’s no way to know at this point.
- The case I ordered yesterday will obviate the battery door issue.
- I believe that a lot of the Droid’s issues can and will be resolved with software. The accidental searches can be fixed if certain apps would disable the search button. Android 2.1 will be available for the Droid sometime this year. I still hold out hope for the missing text-navigation feature. The Droid has been rooted, so there are and will be custom software releases.
- By the time the Nexus One is available for Verizon subscribers, it will be old news. There will be something better on the way, I have no doubt. I could hold out indefinitely for the perfect smart phone, but it’s not worth it to me.
- Most importantly, I like the Droid. No, it’s not sleek and magical like the iPhone was when it first appeared. Droid is rough around the edges (figuratively speaking) and it feels like technology rather than magic. But it’s still pretty cool, and I’m glad it’s mine.
So for all of you Verizon subscribers who are holding out for the Nexus One, good for you. I’m sure it’s an awesome phone and it will be worth the wait. But while you’re waiting, I’m going to be enjoying my Motorola Droid.
Update: I’ve installed a custom ROM that allows adjusting the processor speed up to 1.2GHz, as well as providing a multi-touch gallery and a few other cool features. I’ve had it installed for about a month, and it’s at least as stable as it was with the stock software. I generally run it at 1GHz. I’m loving my Droid now more than ever. Check out http://www.droidmod.org.
Five reasons to post direct links on Twitter
Link shorteners are part of life. I don’t mind them, and I use them. But how many times have you clicked on a link in a tweet and, instead of taking you to the advertised page, you are taken to a page with another link? What about a link that takes you to a page with a little, extra bar at the top? I find these pretty annoying, and here’s why you should eradicate such practices from your Twitter repertoire.
- It’s dishonest. If you clipped out a coupon for a free sundae and brought it to the restaurant listed on the coupon, only to be given another coupon for the same thing at another restaurant, wouldn’t you feel a little cheated? Why do this with links? If you want people to visit your website, put original content on it. If there’s another website you want them to visit, give them a direct link to that website.
- It makes more work. You click a link and, instead of being taken where you expect to be taken, you are taken to a page with a link. And when you click the new link, it opens the page in a new tab/window, so you have to close the first one. This is not endearing in the least.
- Bookmarking becomes problematic. If you click on a link and are taken to a page with an ow.ly bar at the top, for example, and you try to bookmark it, you’re not bookmarking the page you think you are. You’re bookmarking the ow.ly URL.
- Navigating becomes a pain. You click on a link that takes you to a page with the ow.ly bar at the top. You click around the site a bit, and arrive at a page you find interesting. You know you want to bookmark the page, but you can’t with that bar there. So you close the bar. Suddenly, you’re no longer at the page you navigated to. You’re back at the original page, with the urge to kill growing inside your heart.
- There are better ways to do it. URL shorteners like bit.ly can track link clicks without ruining the experience. If you want people to visit your site, and you’re not going to post original content, then at least put up a discussion or some information about the content you’re going to link them to. People will respect you more.
Graphic design: the ultimate sellout?
As a graphic designer, I have often felt that I am a sellout. In part because the things that I create are used solely for commercial purposes; in part because I am often forced to compromise design principles in order to please clients (and make my paycheck). I think that almost every graphic designer has to do this to some degree in their career. It would seem that the occupation of graphic design is intrinsically a sellout, whereas fine art is the only way to go if a visual artist is to avoid selling out.
Then I saw this post at ilovegraphics.net. I have nothing critical to say about the website or post. What struck me as off-kilter is the amount of money being exchanged for this artist’s work. Millions of dollars for one piece. No graphic designer makes that type of money for one piece of work, so what does it really mean to sell out?
A graphic designer creates a logo for a couple thousand dollars. An artist creates an installation for a few million dollars. I would argue that the former is being more true to their nature than the latter. Designers acknowledge that what they are making is commercial. They know they are going to get paid; the company who uses their work is using it in the process of making money. But what of the fine artist?
Fine art is supposed to be “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture.” (Dictionary.com definition) When an artist creates a work that they consent to have sold for an arguably exorbitant sum, they are selling out in grand scale. I am not criticizing Yayoi Kusama in particular here; she lives in a mental institution, not a mansion. I am speaking in general terms about fine art that becomes valued by its enormous price tag.
Yes, I know you could argue that the artist might not be motivated by money. I would say that if that were true, then the artist would donate the lion’s share of moneys made to charity. And some do. You cannot keep money without believing that you deserve it. The least sellout thing to do would be to legally cap the sale price of your works of art. Otherwise, you are allowing the same type of forces that drive the sale of pop music endorsements to drive the sales of your artwork.
I’m not saying that it is immoral for a fine artist to make a lot of money. But it is selling out. It is commercial. It is capitalistic. There is no moral high ground in fine art vs. graphic design if money is made in both arenas. Graphic design is generally a modest sellout; fine art is a potential sellout of enormous magnitude.
At the heart of it, I think that fanatics are responsible for sellout in any field. It’s like rubbernecking on the highway: once a few people look, everyone wants to see. Next thing you know, it’s a spectacle drawing a crowd. Much art, visual or otherwise, is valued by mob mentality. Is a painting worth tens of millions of dollars – more than many graphic designers will make in their whole career? It is if a big enough mob thinks it is. In my book it’s just another reason to look inside for affirmation of the value of your work rather than looking (solely) to the opinions of others.
These are my thoughts at 9:00 on a Monday morning. Please discuss. I welcome differing viewpoints.
Stock logos and the demise of customization
This past summer, my wife and I discovered homemade ice cream. Sounds nice, right? No, it’s not nice. It’s flippin’ awesome. You don’t know until you’ve tried it. And, like the ice cream, there are many things in our world that we just buy off of the shelf. Donuts, cereal, shoes, clothing, bikes… all of these things are made in stock varieties that everyone just passively lives with. I often imagine how wonderful it would be to have custom-made shoes — shoes made just for my peculiar feet. I have a sense it should be that way; I feel that something has been lost by quantizing the options I have to choose from. But there aren’t any cobblers in the yellow pages.
Perhaps logo design is going the way of cobblers. Only the wealthiest buy custom-made shoes — they have become a luxury. What’s mass-manufactured is good enough for the, um, masses. Maybe only the wealthiest will contract custom logos. As for everybody else, consider this list of prefab-logo mongers that I put together in 1 minute with a google search:
- Iconshock.com
- Shutterstock.com
- Pixellogo.com
- Logosinabox.com
- And now, the potential coup de grâce: Istockphoto.com
Maybe logo design is going that direction, but I don’t think so. I think that there will always be savvy businesspeople who know that their brand identity needs a logo that is part of the uniqueness and differentiation of their product or service. How can an off-the-shelf logo do that? Does a savvy businessperson buy a stock business plan and a stock marketing plan, or do they craft them to suit their vision? Do they use stock product designs or do they engage in the process of creating a unique product? Similarly, a savvy businessperson will participate with a design professional in the crafting of a custom logo suited to their vision and the brand that will arise.
And yet stock logos abound, soon more so than ever with the popular istockphoto.com weighing into the fray. It’s no surprise that I hear a lot of negativity about this new development. I think most of the concerns can be boiled down to these three points:
- A generic logo speaks to a generic identity. Pretty obvious.
- Stock logos undercut the value of professional design. This the biggest concern for smart designers. If potential clients can just go to an online warehouse and buy a logo off the shelf for a fixed rate, why would they consult a professional and pay (generally) more for a custom logo?
- The proliferation of stock logos perpetuates the perception that logos are a commodity, and you can get one anywhere.
These are all valid concerns. Some businesspeople will always look for ways to cut corners. The growth of stock logos makes this easier than ever. But there will also always be savvy businesspeople who will make the better choice and work with identity design professionals to create unique logos for their unique visions. So it’s not the end of the world. I actually think there are some benefits to istockphoto.com jumping on the already existing stock logo bandwagon.
- The istockphoto.com logos will, arguably, be better than MS Word clipart, or Art Bombardment 8 Billion Clip Art Files collecions. They will be created by graphic designers and will be editable and scalable at the very least.
- They will also be better than “logos” created in MS Paint. You’ve never seen such a thing? Really? If you haven’t seen a homemade MS Paint (MS Word) logo, then you haven’t really lived. It’s quite an enriching and affirming experience for a graphic designer.
- Since the istockphoto logos will be made by designers, designers will be paid for them. And since it will be designers all over the place contributing (not just from one company), there will be some diversity.
- Istockphoto.com’s pricing structure seems better than some of the others. $35 for a logo? Really? Would you contract a lawyer to draw up your corporate charter for $35? If you would pay $35 for either of these things, you’ll surely get what you pay for. Istockphoto’s logos will range from over $100 to almost $1000. That’s a little bit better. Stop yelling at your monitor. I said it’s better, not good.
- Istockphoto.com will offer exclusivity on the logo designs. That means that, unlike istockphoto’s stock photos, if you buy a logo, you won’t have to worry about your competitor down the street, or someone completely unrelated, using the same graphic. That’s absolutely brilliant — it’s sound common sense.
- As always, the existence of off-the-shelf logos will highlight the value of custom logo design. A lot of inexperienced businesspeople are looking for a little widget to put next to their company name on their business cards. That’s what they’ll get with a stock logo design. But good logo design isn’t a space-filler. It’s magic. The logo mark goes with the company name and vision like it was born there.
So don’t worry. Because there is intrinsic value in custom, professional logo design, there will always be a need for custom, professional logo design. But as designers, we must be more certain than ever that we provide that value. Don’t give clients logos they could have bought off a virtual shelf somewhere. Give them the power of custom identity.
Being a wizard
When I was a kid, every day had a subconscious undercurrent of excitement that I was going to discover something magic. I believed that there was magic waiting to be found in unused places, just beyond the edge of my vision, waiting to be discovered. I’m not entirely sure why I believed in magic; maybe it was the books, TV and movies. Maybe it was something innate that hungered for the inexplicable. Of course, I eventually became disillusioned with magic and succumbed to the what-you-see-is-what-you-get mentality that seems to be the barricade against disappointment in adult life. Read the rest of this entry »
Real Design Collaboration
Have you ever been working with a designer, standing or sitting by them as they work on a document? They asked for your help, so you suggested they try one thing, move another thing, rotate something, add something, etc? Or maybe you’re the one in front of the computer listening to someone else give suggestions. Wouldn’t it be easier if you both could actually work on the document at the same time? Instead of saying, “Try rotating this 3°. Try five. Okay, take it back a half of a degree,” you could just do it and see if it works.
Here’s my idea: What if designers could collaborate on a layout in real time? I don’t mean that one designer takes care of one aspect of a job, and another takes care of another aspect, then they put them together. I think it would be fantastic if I were working on a layout that was giving me trouble, and I could say to one of the other designers, “Would you jump in here with me and give me a hand?”
Here’s what I’m thinking. In a given application, for the document on which some designers want to collaborate:
- Each designer could stay at their own computer.
- Each would get a cursor, and everyone would see it. Maybe the cursors could be color coded to keep them distinct.
- Each designer would have full editing capabilities.
- When one designer selects an object or layer, that object would be locked to the other designers and specially tagged to indicate someone else is working on it.
- Each designer could be working on different objects, layers, etc. at the same time.
- A voice/video chat option would be included in case the designers are not right next to each other.
I have a feeling that this sounds like hell to some of you: There will be arguments and differences of opinion. It will get confusing with multiple people editing the same document. It would be annoying to wait while someone applis a big filter. Sure, it could be awful. But I’m not suggesting this as a regular workflow. It’s only for special projects or situations that would benefit from multiple inputs at the same time. And it would not have to be a free-for-all; designers could be civilized and take turns.
I don’t think there are any technical barriers to this type of application workflow. What are your thoughts — is it a horrible idea or a fantastic idea? What other uses for such technology can you think of?
Oh, and Adobe, are you listening?
Dear Comedy: It’s not funny anymore
First, this is a real quick post. I don’t have much time today, but I wanted to get this out while it’s on my mind.
I go through phases with movies. For a while I’ll be into cerebral stuff — independent films, long, atmospheric pieces, epic dramas. Then I’ll be into horror films — people getting into ridiculous situations and doing stupid things while experiencing really horrible things. Then comedy — people getting into ridiculous situations and doing stupid things while experiencing really horrible things (wait, what?). Then action, sci-fi, etc.
Each genre of film has its own sort of standard structure. I’ve been noticing some really repetitive structures in comedies. They recall the classic Greek comedy structure of well-woe-well. And it’s becoming tedious to the point that I don’t want want to watch comedies anymore.
- We join the protagonist in situ, just going through their comfortable, idiosyncratic life.
- The protagonist encounters something that breaks them out of their comfort zone.
- He or she resists, then gives in.
- Loves the new situation, does really well.
- But the old, comfortable life, or some personality trait from that life, catches up and causes problems.
- It looks like things are going to end badly for our protagonist.
- Through a ridiculous series of events, happenstance or uncharacteristic resolve, the protagonist overcomes.
- Happy ending.
I’m really tired of this. It makes movies so predictable that it’s like 80-110 minutes of deja vu. Last night I watched Ghost Town with Merry. It was nice, there was humor. But I was able to predict the exact course of events at each turning point. Please, can we have some new structures in comedies? Maybe lately comedies just haven’t been disguising the underlying structure very well. Not enough effort has been put into development.
Or maybe it’s time to go back to the cerebral films. A little randomness might be nice.
It’s a poster, it’s a t-shirt, it’s…
Someone once told me that if I put this on a t-shirt, they would wear it. So I’m thinking of submitting this to Threadless.com (slightly altered for the medium, of course). Click for larger image.
Create a kaleidoscope image in Illustrator CS3
I recently needed a kaleidoscope-style image for a project. I did some searches and found a few photos of what you would see if you looked through a kaleidoscope. They seemed pretty weak, though, so I set out to create my own artwork. The whole project ended up being scrapped, but I think the kaleidoscope-style artwork is pretty cool, and the process is fairly straightforward. Here’s how I did it, using Illustrator CS3: Read the rest of this entry »
