Paul Bruski
“Information Design in Context”
I hate to say it, but information graphics is one of the least interesting fields of graphic design that I could ever hope NOT to work in. Don’t get me wrong. I think that a wealth of knowledge needs to be supplied to the world, and the ability to do so in a timely manner that in contextual and makes sense to the viewer is jackpot. I just think of information designers as people who design forms. And that, actually, is exactly what Paul Bruski talked to us about.
Paul is an associate professor at Iowa State University, and is very experienced and has a wealth of knowledge, and I am very grateful for him to have come all the way out to AZS to talk to us about info design. I just didn’t find the example he showed to be very exciting or interesting. He used the ISU’s health center’s immunization form as his working example. It is all fine and good and I see where he was going with it, but I think of information design as exciting prospects like the design of the London Underground signage, or way finding signs in Grand Central Station. This was a far cry from either of those, but it was interesting in it’s own right.
Paul talked about the Lipton 3 layer form model, which is:
1. Look
2. Content
3. Task structure.
He claims that these are the three most important elements that a designer should consider when designing for info design. It is important that the design is aesthetically pleasing without being overbearing. It needs to have flow and fluidity in the design as well as you are usually designing something that will only be looked at briefly, or will contain a ton of text boxes for information to be organized in. People hate filling stuff out, so if you can make it as painless as possible; the better. Also, make sure that the content is organized well, and makes sense to the user. And finally, make sure that it WORKS! Use visual hierarchy to ensure that the message is being conveyed and that it’s doing so effectively. Get rid of the garbage, keep what’s needed and stick with your instincts.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Journal Entry #6: Debra Satterfield, "Design For Behavioral Change and Social Inclusion"
“Design for Behavioral Change and Social Inclusion”
Debra Satterfield
Debra Satterfield in not like most designers. She does not simply specialize in type or layout, or get excited over web apps, she transcends all of these elements. Debra Satterfield, who is a professor of Graphic Design at Iowa State University, is interested more instead to the cognitive understanding and impact that design can have on disabled children. While putting her lecture into this context, I found it very interesting to listen to what she had to say on the matter of designing for behavioral change. I have a large background in retail environments, and have always been in love with the idea of being able to change a person’s perspective about a certain matter simply by the way that that information is being presented to them. This is a main reason why I have chosen to stay in my field of visual merchandising and hope to interweave my experience with design to be as effectual as possible. I digress.
Debra had some really interesting pointers about designing for behavioral change and they are as follows. She said, “design is both a narrative and a dialogue.” And I think that she is so right with saying this. Every time we touch the keyboard, or fiddle with the mouse, or contemplate adding another stroke or feature, it is important to remember that everything we put into a design is an element. One that must be absorbed and digested at it’s own speed and frame of reference. We have to look at the visual language we use and ask ourselves if it is fitting with what is being communicated.
She also said that we must “design physically and emotionally support us” which in her own words can mean that, “we don’t always need to design to happy or wealthy people.” I really liked that she touched on the subject that so, so, so much advertising is spent selling to that archetype. Which is absurd considering how few people actually fit into that sub-culture. For the most of us working stiffs, we aren’t fulfilled, we aren’t rich, and most of the time, we aren’t jubilant. We are real. We have feelings, and what we lack in gross income, we make up for in emotional wealth. We want to be heard, to be understood, and more than that, we want some one to “get” us. It is important to try our hardest as designers to accomplish this task. Listen to our audience, and design to their needs, not to what you THINK their needs are.
Finally, Debra talked about the “Optimal Solution Zone” and what that means. The Optional Solution Zone is that euphoric place in design where it is possible as a designer to cater to the a) physical constraints of a client, b) what is emotionally appropriate, and c) what is socially appropriate. She says that when all three have been accomplished successfully, then the Optimal Solution Zone has been found. This is important especially when designing for children with disabilities. It is important that we give these children apps that they can use to enter into society and get up to speed with other children in their same age bracket. For instance, don’t give an autistic 10 year old a baby toy to play with and just think that because of his disability that he wouldn’t rather grasp the concept behind a computer game tailored to his needs. It is important that we believe in our clients to the best of their ability. We cannot degrade them or think that we know what’s best for them. As designers we must listen, communicate questions, and dream that they will benefit from our direction.
Didn’t we all get into this profession because we were starry-eyed dreamers, after all? Thought so.
Debra Satterfield
Debra Satterfield in not like most designers. She does not simply specialize in type or layout, or get excited over web apps, she transcends all of these elements. Debra Satterfield, who is a professor of Graphic Design at Iowa State University, is interested more instead to the cognitive understanding and impact that design can have on disabled children. While putting her lecture into this context, I found it very interesting to listen to what she had to say on the matter of designing for behavioral change. I have a large background in retail environments, and have always been in love with the idea of being able to change a person’s perspective about a certain matter simply by the way that that information is being presented to them. This is a main reason why I have chosen to stay in my field of visual merchandising and hope to interweave my experience with design to be as effectual as possible. I digress.
Debra had some really interesting pointers about designing for behavioral change and they are as follows. She said, “design is both a narrative and a dialogue.” And I think that she is so right with saying this. Every time we touch the keyboard, or fiddle with the mouse, or contemplate adding another stroke or feature, it is important to remember that everything we put into a design is an element. One that must be absorbed and digested at it’s own speed and frame of reference. We have to look at the visual language we use and ask ourselves if it is fitting with what is being communicated.
She also said that we must “design physically and emotionally support us” which in her own words can mean that, “we don’t always need to design to happy or wealthy people.” I really liked that she touched on the subject that so, so, so much advertising is spent selling to that archetype. Which is absurd considering how few people actually fit into that sub-culture. For the most of us working stiffs, we aren’t fulfilled, we aren’t rich, and most of the time, we aren’t jubilant. We are real. We have feelings, and what we lack in gross income, we make up for in emotional wealth. We want to be heard, to be understood, and more than that, we want some one to “get” us. It is important to try our hardest as designers to accomplish this task. Listen to our audience, and design to their needs, not to what you THINK their needs are.
Finally, Debra talked about the “Optimal Solution Zone” and what that means. The Optional Solution Zone is that euphoric place in design where it is possible as a designer to cater to the a) physical constraints of a client, b) what is emotionally appropriate, and c) what is socially appropriate. She says that when all three have been accomplished successfully, then the Optimal Solution Zone has been found. This is important especially when designing for children with disabilities. It is important that we give these children apps that they can use to enter into society and get up to speed with other children in their same age bracket. For instance, don’t give an autistic 10 year old a baby toy to play with and just think that because of his disability that he wouldn’t rather grasp the concept behind a computer game tailored to his needs. It is important that we believe in our clients to the best of their ability. We cannot degrade them or think that we know what’s best for them. As designers we must listen, communicate questions, and dream that they will benefit from our direction.
Didn’t we all get into this profession because we were starry-eyed dreamers, after all? Thought so.
Journal Entry#5: Robert Hoekman, "Essential Elements of Great Web App Design"
I really enjoyed what Robert had to say about web apps. It was an eye opener, though I have to admit. I think he thought that he would walk into a lecture hall full of kids with IPhones, brand new 17” MacBook Pros, and wide-eyed wonder. I have to say that I didn’t really know what qualified as a web app before he started talking. I am one of those people that he was talking about. Where they “use standard operations” and never find it necessary to personalize their Google dashboard. Call me crazy, apathetic, or just plain busy, but I never really saw the point of it. The reason for this, I really must admit, is that just until recently, I was so damn scared of computers that I was dead sure that I would break something that would be unfixable. I couldn’t have been more wrong, and if the app is designed properly (fingers crossed) the ability to easily navigate and customize any web app should be rather intuitive and should, as he put it, “make a beginner intermediate, almost immediately.” I like that idea.
With his amazing laundry list of publications, teaching, and consulting work behind him, Robert was able to bring a lot of information our way. For starters, he rattled off the seven most essential things to remember when designing web apps for the general computer user. They were as follows:
1. Understand users, and then ignore them.
What he was saying here is that most users out there aren’t really sure what they want and are even more out of touch with what they actually need. He advised us all to take advice users give us with a grain of salt, and try to listen more intensely on what it is they’re ACTUALLY saying. What features are they complaining about? What would they want to see? But more importantly…why?
2. Build only what’s absolutely necessary.
He put it best when he said that every feature you add will get in the way of something else, and it’s ability to work properly. This sort of harps back to #1, and says that people will more times than not, want to add more tricks and features when they think that a web app isn’t performing up to speed. This will just complicate the matter and make it harder to zero in on what people are looking for in the app, how they are using it, and what they think of it. Less junk!
3. Support the user’s mental model.
Robert said that to build great web apps, we must design the way that the user’s mind works. There may be behaviors that they aren’t even aware of, but a great designer will notice these and cater to them.
4. Turn beginners into intermediates immediately.
Like I mentioned above, it is important to make web apps as intuitive as possible. You really have such a brief time to interact with your user and impress them and cater to their egos and mental model before they shut off, and are unwilling to use your app; as great as it may be.
5. Handle errors.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. It is important to put out any fires as soon as possible so that people will not lose faith on your app, and will feel like they are being heard if they report something broken or missing, or difficult to navigate.
6. Design for uniformity, consistency, and meaning.
Once you have a firm grasp of WHO you are designing for, and their mental model, it is important to keep catering to that in all elements of the design. Don’t stray and add things to be showy or unnecessary. Just add what’s needed and what will be appreciated. And for God’s sake, make it all tie in together.
7. Reduce and refine.
Keep it simple and functional. Keep what works and trash what doesn’t, and quickly!
All in all, I found that Robert had a lot to say and an amazing wealth of experience to back it up. I don’t believe I will be designing any web apps in my future, but I appreciated the information.
With his amazing laundry list of publications, teaching, and consulting work behind him, Robert was able to bring a lot of information our way. For starters, he rattled off the seven most essential things to remember when designing web apps for the general computer user. They were as follows:
1. Understand users, and then ignore them.
What he was saying here is that most users out there aren’t really sure what they want and are even more out of touch with what they actually need. He advised us all to take advice users give us with a grain of salt, and try to listen more intensely on what it is they’re ACTUALLY saying. What features are they complaining about? What would they want to see? But more importantly…why?
2. Build only what’s absolutely necessary.
He put it best when he said that every feature you add will get in the way of something else, and it’s ability to work properly. This sort of harps back to #1, and says that people will more times than not, want to add more tricks and features when they think that a web app isn’t performing up to speed. This will just complicate the matter and make it harder to zero in on what people are looking for in the app, how they are using it, and what they think of it. Less junk!
3. Support the user’s mental model.
Robert said that to build great web apps, we must design the way that the user’s mind works. There may be behaviors that they aren’t even aware of, but a great designer will notice these and cater to them.
4. Turn beginners into intermediates immediately.
Like I mentioned above, it is important to make web apps as intuitive as possible. You really have such a brief time to interact with your user and impress them and cater to their egos and mental model before they shut off, and are unwilling to use your app; as great as it may be.
5. Handle errors.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. It is important to put out any fires as soon as possible so that people will not lose faith on your app, and will feel like they are being heard if they report something broken or missing, or difficult to navigate.
6. Design for uniformity, consistency, and meaning.
Once you have a firm grasp of WHO you are designing for, and their mental model, it is important to keep catering to that in all elements of the design. Don’t stray and add things to be showy or unnecessary. Just add what’s needed and what will be appreciated. And for God’s sake, make it all tie in together.
7. Reduce and refine.
Keep it simple and functional. Keep what works and trash what doesn’t, and quickly!
All in all, I found that Robert had a lot to say and an amazing wealth of experience to back it up. I don’t believe I will be designing any web apps in my future, but I appreciated the information.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Journal Entry #4: Great songs, awful covers.
OK, so in regards to the last post, as many wonderful album covers that there may be, there are just as many horrible ones. Here are some examples.
Alright you crazy Aussies aka Men at Work, what the hell is this? It's an offensive color (except that it DOES stand out in your stack if you happen to be looking for it quickly in the midst of a dj set), it's ugly type that is just thrown on the top of the cover. I appreciate the designer trying to make the title type work with the illustrated amp and stuff, i get it, but then the top just blows the whole design. I feel like the placement of the name of the band could have been executed much better.
Secondly, and another canary yellow (???) is Sam Cooke. I LOVE Sam Cooke. His music is wonderful, and it makes me nostalgic for a time that there is no way I would have ever even lived through. So, watever I say here has no bearing on his actual music. It's just that I feel that so much more could have been done to this cover. I mean there is nothing "soulful" about this. Just a bunch of type thrown on there. I'm not impressed.
Finally, this one is so bad it's almost good; almost. Jonathan Richman is great. He's funny, he's been on Something About Mary, his lyrics are simple and inconsequential, but he could have done SO much more with this cover. It's still impressive that they produced this cover on a serious budget and without the help of computers, but still, it's pretty bad.
Alright you crazy Aussies aka Men at Work, what the hell is this? It's an offensive color (except that it DOES stand out in your stack if you happen to be looking for it quickly in the midst of a dj set), it's ugly type that is just thrown on the top of the cover. I appreciate the designer trying to make the title type work with the illustrated amp and stuff, i get it, but then the top just blows the whole design. I feel like the placement of the name of the band could have been executed much better.
Secondly, and another canary yellow (???) is Sam Cooke. I LOVE Sam Cooke. His music is wonderful, and it makes me nostalgic for a time that there is no way I would have ever even lived through. So, watever I say here has no bearing on his actual music. It's just that I feel that so much more could have been done to this cover. I mean there is nothing "soulful" about this. Just a bunch of type thrown on there. I'm not impressed.
Finally, this one is so bad it's almost good; almost. Jonathan Richman is great. He's funny, he's been on Something About Mary, his lyrics are simple and inconsequential, but he could have done SO much more with this cover. It's still impressive that they produced this cover on a serious budget and without the help of computers, but still, it's pretty bad.
Journal Entry #3: Music to my eyes.
I collect records. I love them. I like the gritty sound. The skipping (at times), the tactile feeling of really SEEING your music, the dirt you get on your hands when you're rifling through garage sale stacks in hopes of landing a Kenny Loggin 12". I love them.
Recently, I was looking through my collection and I was noticing some amazing type usage. The frist one I chose to talk about is this Lorett Lynn album, which is the soundtrack for "Coal Miner's Daughter", the movie in which Sissy Spacek did an exceptional job portraying the country music legend. Here is the cover:
I love how campy it is. I get the feeling that I am in Frontierland in Disneyland or something. It feels SO Loretta Lynn, good ol' country girl. I think that the designer did a tremendous job keeping the rest of the cover wite save the photo of Spacek in a vignette feel.
Secondly, who doesn't love the Boss, right? I never really got the whole Springsteen thing until very recently. My mom loves him, but I never really saw the big deal. Well, now I get it. Maybe it's a tell tale sign I'm getting older; I don't know. Anyways, I think this cover is great because of the size of the otherwise super typical type. It's so small in relation to the rest of the cover, it's serif, it's nothing amazing. But what get's precedence? His ass. It' great. It's like Bruce sat the designer down and was all, "Look, if they don't know who I am by now, then they aren't going to know. Just put that picture of my butt up there, front and center. Why do you think I wear these tight jeans? To play better? No, No. and while you're at it, just throw my name up there, and let 'em know the title too...yeah, just like that." I mean what would YOU say to that? He's the boss for God's sake. I like what you do Bruce.
Finally, I am not crazy about The Doors. I actually bought this album because it has that "Whiskey Song"(which is actually called "Alabama Song" but whatevs)on it, and my room mate and I joke about how awful that song is. That being said, I think that te logo design for The Doors is great. Especially for the time that the album was produced (1967). I have a new appreciation for te time it takes to produce hand generated type WITH the use of computers. I can barely believe that designers were capable of manipulatiing type the way they were in pre-CS4 days. I really like the Doors logo. There I said it.
Recently, I was looking through my collection and I was noticing some amazing type usage. The frist one I chose to talk about is this Lorett Lynn album, which is the soundtrack for "Coal Miner's Daughter", the movie in which Sissy Spacek did an exceptional job portraying the country music legend. Here is the cover:
I love how campy it is. I get the feeling that I am in Frontierland in Disneyland or something. It feels SO Loretta Lynn, good ol' country girl. I think that the designer did a tremendous job keeping the rest of the cover wite save the photo of Spacek in a vignette feel.
Secondly, who doesn't love the Boss, right? I never really got the whole Springsteen thing until very recently. My mom loves him, but I never really saw the big deal. Well, now I get it. Maybe it's a tell tale sign I'm getting older; I don't know. Anyways, I think this cover is great because of the size of the otherwise super typical type. It's so small in relation to the rest of the cover, it's serif, it's nothing amazing. But what get's precedence? His ass. It' great. It's like Bruce sat the designer down and was all, "Look, if they don't know who I am by now, then they aren't going to know. Just put that picture of my butt up there, front and center. Why do you think I wear these tight jeans? To play better? No, No. and while you're at it, just throw my name up there, and let 'em know the title too...yeah, just like that." I mean what would YOU say to that? He's the boss for God's sake. I like what you do Bruce.
Finally, I am not crazy about The Doors. I actually bought this album because it has that "Whiskey Song"(which is actually called "Alabama Song" but whatevs)on it, and my room mate and I joke about how awful that song is. That being said, I think that te logo design for The Doors is great. Especially for the time that the album was produced (1967). I have a new appreciation for te time it takes to produce hand generated type WITH the use of computers. I can barely believe that designers were capable of manipulatiing type the way they were in pre-CS4 days. I really like the Doors logo. There I said it.
Journal Entry #2: Books!
So, recently I have had to put a lot of thought into book covers and typefaces being used. I have been assigned two book assignments in my classes. For VC 370, I am currently designing 3 illustrations for a book of my choice, and in VC 332, I am giving a current book a complete re-working. While I was looking for ideas and trying to gather as much reference as ever, I began perusing my book collection, and quickly snapped 3 photos of covers that I feel use type strongly.
First, Exteremely Loud and Incredibly Close, by Jonathon Safran Foer. I love this cover because of the way the type is used and intermingled with in the shape of the hand. The handprint is important because it relates directly back to the story, and the main character, Oscar. I think the designer did a wonderful job varying the shapes of the type and making a slightly distracting design, as well as a completely competent one. Once you read the book you close th cover and have a new appreciation as to why it is what it is. I appreciate this.
Next, I like David Sedaris' Me Talk Pretty One Day. I like the self illustrated chalkboard type tat the designer used. Because most of the short stories contained in the books are from David's childhood and schoolyears, I feel as though it is an appropriately fitting example of type usage.
Thirdly, I chose, Naked Lunch, by William S. Burroughs. The reason why I feel that this cover is succesful is because the book is so twisted and about heroin use and bohemian living of sexuality and huffinh, inhaling, shooting, or smoking anything a junkie can get their hands on. So, naturally, the type is placed off kilter and sideways, which makes the reader uneasy, and feeling a little topsy turvey.
I love each one of these books for different reasons, and I believe that their cover art just helps drive that idea home.
First, Exteremely Loud and Incredibly Close, by Jonathon Safran Foer. I love this cover because of the way the type is used and intermingled with in the shape of the hand. The handprint is important because it relates directly back to the story, and the main character, Oscar. I think the designer did a wonderful job varying the shapes of the type and making a slightly distracting design, as well as a completely competent one. Once you read the book you close th cover and have a new appreciation as to why it is what it is. I appreciate this.
Next, I like David Sedaris' Me Talk Pretty One Day. I like the self illustrated chalkboard type tat the designer used. Because most of the short stories contained in the books are from David's childhood and schoolyears, I feel as though it is an appropriately fitting example of type usage.
Thirdly, I chose, Naked Lunch, by William S. Burroughs. The reason why I feel that this cover is succesful is because the book is so twisted and about heroin use and bohemian living of sexuality and huffinh, inhaling, shooting, or smoking anything a junkie can get their hands on. So, naturally, the type is placed off kilter and sideways, which makes the reader uneasy, and feeling a little topsy turvey.
I love each one of these books for different reasons, and I believe that their cover art just helps drive that idea home.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Journal Entry #1: Go Nike Go!
So, I saw one of these ads in a magazine last week, and decided I would try and find the other ads in the series. Try as I might...I FOUND THEM! I really love the hand produced typefaces that they used.
These two were made for a racing event that Nike is supporting in their two largest hubs: Portland, OR, and NYC. I love the twisted headband and the appearance of the hair as if I'm running behind this person watching them sweat their ass off; the mini rat tail is pretty epic as well.
This one is rad because of it's playbill feel. I like the time and consideration that was put in the all over feel of the piece. The distressed ink is a nice touch.
Finally, these guys are fabulous. I LOVE the shoelace, continuous line that they used in the type production, and I like how it makes me feel about Nike as a brand. It feels cool, time consuming, dedicated, and handcrafted. It makes me want to toss aside the idea that Nike is full of jocks behind desks in small cubicles with their eyes dead set on the botom line. It makes me Hope, HOPE, that their is still fun people behind big monitors with biger, crazy ideas rattling around inside their heads.
I like it.
Just do it; I guess.
These two were made for a racing event that Nike is supporting in their two largest hubs: Portland, OR, and NYC. I love the twisted headband and the appearance of the hair as if I'm running behind this person watching them sweat their ass off; the mini rat tail is pretty epic as well.
This one is rad because of it's playbill feel. I like the time and consideration that was put in the all over feel of the piece. The distressed ink is a nice touch.
Finally, these guys are fabulous. I LOVE the shoelace, continuous line that they used in the type production, and I like how it makes me feel about Nike as a brand. It feels cool, time consuming, dedicated, and handcrafted. It makes me want to toss aside the idea that Nike is full of jocks behind desks in small cubicles with their eyes dead set on the botom line. It makes me Hope, HOPE, that their is still fun people behind big monitors with biger, crazy ideas rattling around inside their heads.
I like it.
Just do it; I guess.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
