9
Jun
2010
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.
27
Sep
2009
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.
15
Jul
2009
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?
5
Apr
2009
First post brought to you by Twitter and the Standby Symbol
I owe the fact that I have a blog now to Twitter. If I hadn’t joined twitter and started following interesting people, I would not have been inspired to create a forum for my own thoughts. It’s fun to be able to share ideas and links through Twitter, but it’s impossible to develop thoughts through that medium. I could post links to other people’s sites and comment on other people’s sites, but this felt a bit hollow. Wouldn’t it be better to put my thoughts on my site rather than other people’s sites, where I have no cohesive presence?
