I had never heard of Jonathan Harris, but this will absolutely not be the last time I pay attention to his work. I'm not so sure what will talk about in this post will relate to coding or the course of the web or really what it will do. But I loved his "lecture." It reminded me of a poem I read the other day. In my illustration class, we had a Final Comps deadline last week which basically meant that you better have some shit done or your ass is grass. Class time consisted of poking through everyone else's work and writing ambiguous comments on sheets of sketch paper that were left beside each piece. I was trying to only look through the projects that I knew would be good (the entire semester is dedicated to one project; most people make books). One of my classmates, sure of having good work, was illustrating a children's book of poems. I think a friend of his did the poetry, which was for the most part very good (and his illustrations were steller as always). They were all very cleaver and perfect for a fun and games type of child audience. They dealt with concepts like the babysitting aunt that could seriously be an alien and your parents were once 8! I laughed out loud at several of the poems and I think that it was the only book that actually kept me captivated through out the entire thing.
There was one poem that stood out though. It was about loosing. The speaker of the poem admitted to stinking at everything. He never won. He never even came close. Obviously, in the context of a children's book, I was expecting some sort of turn around ending; an unseen positive that could be generated somehow from the speakers abundance of misery. Instead though, the speaker sais something that can basically be translated to, "Its ok that I'm a looser, because without people like me, who would win?" WHAT?! Seriously? in a children's book? I thought that maybe the author was just having an off day and decided to write some morbid shit. I mean how else do you put something like that in a book for kids? To make matters worse, the illustration was a big glorious ribbon that said looser on it. Jesus.
Regardless, I liked the poem. Just not in a childrens book. The Harris talk reminded me of it because he brought up the point of there being only a hand full of nerdy dudes running the internet's social structure. Imagining those guys, and thinking about what Harris said about programmers not being comfortable with their bodys, made me think of the speaker of the poem. They're the losers that make it possible for everyone else to win. In essence that is what everyone wants.. I think. Contributing to others happiness. I mean, thats what is so awesome about being a movie star or a famous musician.
I remember an interesting study I researched when I was in general psychology about how people react stronger to personal identities rather than groups. Basically, it said that people were more likely to donate to a cause when the cause was paired with a picture of a face rather than a picture of a croup of people. Well, what if that study can be applied to these social-loser-computer-genius'? Ok, so I know I'm rambling a bit here, but hear me out. So: if people always want to contribute to others happiness and people gain the most empathy for individuals rather than groups.. would that mean that people gain the most happiness from contributing to the happiness of individuals rather than groups?
Ok, so down to the nitty gritty with it and then I'm done: Sex is probably one of the highest acclaimed past times of any culture throughout history. What happens during sex? Two people make each other extremely happy. Soooooo, if programmers are generally people that are uncomfortable in their physical bodies, is it possible that their sexual tension and therefore social frustration lead them to reach people in a different way that is programming their digital social interactions? Harris was very proud, and rightfully so, with his mural that his roommates could use as a pickup line. Is that a pre-learning-code way of dealing with the problem?
who knows.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Type Questions
Advantages of a multiple column grid-
Using a multiple column grid allows the designer a way to keep everything organized and in proportion. It is a good way to explore interesting layouts that don't feel random.
Optimal words and length per line-
Ideally the a line of text should be about 12 words long at 50-60 characters. This is based off the viewing field of the eye.
The baseline grid-
The baseline grid allows for the base lines of all of the lines of text in a layout to be aligned.
Rivers-
Rivers are created when the spaces between words line up on top of each other in a body of text. This results in a vertical or diagonal line of negative space.
Clothesline-
A line created by multiple text blocks aligned to the same horizontal line.
Incorporating white space-
White space, or negative space, in a layout can be a wonderful thing. However, the space should not be so great that related text is separated. This can be achieved in a spread by positioning the majority of the white space around the text.
Type Color-
Type color refers to the density created by the texture of a text body. This can be effected by kerning, leading, font size and weight, and x-height.
x-height -
The x-height of a font is determined by the height of the x. Fonts with a larger x-height have a darker type color.
Justification: minimum, optimum, maximum-
These measurements refer to the amount of spacing between words. Optimum being ideal.
Paragraph breaks-
There are no rules to paragraph breaks accept that they work. A break can be indicated by increased leading, an indent, a color field change, or a change in a texts alignment or direction.
Hyphenating text-
En dashes are used to indicate amounts of time, like dates. Em dashes are used in dialogue to indicate a long pause in thought or speech.
ligeratures-
A ligerature occurs between certain letters that would seem awkward paired next to each other in certain type faces. f and i is a current ligerature to avoid the dot of the i from interfering with the finial of the f.
CMYK VS RBG-
CMYK stands for cyan, blue, yellow, blak. These are the colors used by printers. RBG stands for red, blue, green, the colors that make up all colors on a screen.
Hanging punctuation-
Hanging punctuation is basically, exactly want it sounds like. It is commonly used in quotations that not a part of a larger body of text.
foot mark & apostrophe-
A foot mark has no indication of direction ( ' ) whereas apostrophes will be curved to the left. This is the same in relation to inch and quote marks.
Using a multiple column grid allows the designer a way to keep everything organized and in proportion. It is a good way to explore interesting layouts that don't feel random.
Optimal words and length per line-
Ideally the a line of text should be about 12 words long at 50-60 characters. This is based off the viewing field of the eye.
The baseline grid-
The baseline grid allows for the base lines of all of the lines of text in a layout to be aligned.
Rivers-
Rivers are created when the spaces between words line up on top of each other in a body of text. This results in a vertical or diagonal line of negative space.
Clothesline-
A line created by multiple text blocks aligned to the same horizontal line.
Incorporating white space-
White space, or negative space, in a layout can be a wonderful thing. However, the space should not be so great that related text is separated. This can be achieved in a spread by positioning the majority of the white space around the text.
Type Color-
Type color refers to the density created by the texture of a text body. This can be effected by kerning, leading, font size and weight, and x-height.
x-height -
The x-height of a font is determined by the height of the x. Fonts with a larger x-height have a darker type color.
Justification: minimum, optimum, maximum-
These measurements refer to the amount of spacing between words. Optimum being ideal.
Paragraph breaks-
There are no rules to paragraph breaks accept that they work. A break can be indicated by increased leading, an indent, a color field change, or a change in a texts alignment or direction.
Hyphenating text-
En dashes are used to indicate amounts of time, like dates. Em dashes are used in dialogue to indicate a long pause in thought or speech.
ligeratures-
A ligerature occurs between certain letters that would seem awkward paired next to each other in certain type faces. f and i is a current ligerature to avoid the dot of the i from interfering with the finial of the f.
CMYK VS RBG-
CMYK stands for cyan, blue, yellow, blak. These are the colors used by printers. RBG stands for red, blue, green, the colors that make up all colors on a screen.
Hanging punctuation-
Hanging punctuation is basically, exactly want it sounds like. It is commonly used in quotations that not a part of a larger body of text.
foot mark & apostrophe-
A foot mark has no indication of direction ( ' ) whereas apostrophes will be curved to the left. This is the same in relation to inch and quote marks.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Make Mistakes Faster
Bruce Mau's incomplete list of manifestos was definitely far from what I was expecting. Many of his points seemed to be quite contradictory: Take field trips, avoid fields. Of course the meaning of field was completely different in these two cases, but there were other instances where I found myself wondering how this advice should really be taken. Some of the points seemed to be good advice for anyone at any time. But then every once in a while there would be a point like, "Don't enter competitions." I still don't think I really understand why Mau insists that they are simply "Not good for you." Is it that he doesn't trust unknown judges to decide what is best? Or possibly that he doesn't care for a best to be chosen? Whatever, I think they're probably alright.
Anyway, I ended up deciding to pick the mantra: Make Mistakes Faster. I think that Mau's idea (even though he admits to borrowing the idea from Andy Grove), is that the quicker you make mistakes, the quicker you filter out possible solutions, and the quicker you arrive at a feasible solution. I would agree with this. The problem is that making mistakes takes as much time as making progress. Mau would argue that mistakes are progress. And I would agree. But putting exhilarating effort into making choices I expect to result in mistakes seems like a waste of time. When I say that for this week I will MAKE MISTAKES FASTER, I mean that I will try possible solutions more vigorously. However, maybe it wouldn't hurt to try some things that I think are inherently bad.
Anyway, I ended up deciding to pick the mantra: Make Mistakes Faster. I think that Mau's idea (even though he admits to borrowing the idea from Andy Grove), is that the quicker you make mistakes, the quicker you filter out possible solutions, and the quicker you arrive at a feasible solution. I would agree with this. The problem is that making mistakes takes as much time as making progress. Mau would argue that mistakes are progress. And I would agree. But putting exhilarating effort into making choices I expect to result in mistakes seems like a waste of time. When I say that for this week I will MAKE MISTAKES FASTER, I mean that I will try possible solutions more vigorously. However, maybe it wouldn't hurt to try some things that I think are inherently bad.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Sagmiester, Abrams, and McCloud (journal 3)
I don't really know where to start with this one. Sagmeister, Abrams, and McCloud all touched on such different topics. Sagmeister weighed the moral value of being a designer, Abrams explained the value of the unknown, and McCloud gave an extremely dense lecture on the science of comics and what their future entails. At first thought, there really isn't much these three have in common. One is a graphic designer renown for creating album art, another a director/producer, and the third, a comic book artist. However, they are all extremely successful at what they do, and they all do some sort of art. So they must all be good creative thinkers. McCloud said that the key is to learn from everyone, follow no one, look for patterns, and work like hell. Sounds pretty right on from what I know. The others don't provide such a simply put strategy, but I would think that they both follow some sort of similar model, even if only subconsciously.
Well, hell... I think I hit a rut. I guess I'll just give my tow cents on Sagmeister. Although I really enjoyed the Abrams video the most of the three.
I have gone through phases when I would become obsessed with answering ethical questions, like those addressed in Sagmeister's article. What SHOULD I do as a designer, what CAN I do as a designer, what do I WANT to do as a designer... etc. Overall this was very frustrating as I'm sure it is for anyone. Sometimes, I would ask myself things like what are the biggest problems in the world? Or, what will be the largest threat to our existence? Other times I would feel a little more light hearted and think, what will happen to the film industry? Or, how could I entertain people most effectively? What I began to realize was that the answers to these rather daunting questions involved a lot more than good design. Thus, I stopped looking at myself as a designer, and started looking at myself as a communicator. That way, when I approach a project, my main goal is to solve the problem, not make a design. I don't know how much I have cared about being ethical recently. I think that for now I'm just trying to be better. That way, when I'm better I can be ethical more efficiently.
Well, hell... I think I hit a rut. I guess I'll just give my tow cents on Sagmeister. Although I really enjoyed the Abrams video the most of the three.
I have gone through phases when I would become obsessed with answering ethical questions, like those addressed in Sagmeister's article. What SHOULD I do as a designer, what CAN I do as a designer, what do I WANT to do as a designer... etc. Overall this was very frustrating as I'm sure it is for anyone. Sometimes, I would ask myself things like what are the biggest problems in the world? Or, what will be the largest threat to our existence? Other times I would feel a little more light hearted and think, what will happen to the film industry? Or, how could I entertain people most effectively? What I began to realize was that the answers to these rather daunting questions involved a lot more than good design. Thus, I stopped looking at myself as a designer, and started looking at myself as a communicator. That way, when I approach a project, my main goal is to solve the problem, not make a design. I don't know how much I have cared about being ethical recently. I think that for now I'm just trying to be better. That way, when I'm better I can be ethical more efficiently.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
What is good Design? (journal entry 2)
O.K. so here are the summaries...
In "Ten Principals of Good Design," Dieter Rams lists and defines what he thinks is good design. In "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy," Don Norman explains 3 ways that design can make you happy (only its more like 4, because his slide show brings up 4 headings, but maybe they thought 4 was too large of a number for people to grasp, or maybe I missed something, whatever).
Oh, and the question for Don: "Do you think that one of the three (or four) ways design can make you happy takes president over the other?
But really, What is good design? I have been putting nearly 100% of my academic efforts to design related things for the past two years now, and I still don't really know what good design is. I am more confident now to voice an opinion about something that I think is bad design, but I still cant really answer that question. I try to go to all the Hallmark lectures, and a good number of those speakers have made statements about what they think is good design and no two are exactly alike, but they all sound good when I hear said, as part of a greater lecture. It seems to me that every designer out there has their own definition of what makes design good. More interestingly, they all try and define good design by breaking it into some sort of category. For example, "Ten Principals of Good Design" and "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy." That is weird. Its not like every scientist stresses over which category of stuff they can lump together to define science. That would be so painful! "Hmmm, well I think, that good science should be innovative, useful, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, down to the last detail, and worded as simply as possible." HOLY SHIT! Those are 9 of the 10 things good design is according to Rams! The only one not in the group: aesthetic. The funny thing is that all of those things are true of good science. Having an aesthetic quality is the only thing that separates the two, according to Rams. That's probably why Norman has recently (recent to 2003 that is) decided to devote his life to exploring what can be done with changing around aesthetics (it can make you happy!).
So is design science? No, science is not aesthetic. But is that the only difference? If it is, then why aren't these profound lists put to some sort of scientific or psychological test and organized so that we designers don't have to keep worrying about when its good to make something stand out. Or when its more important to make something so that people will buy it or make something so that people will enjoy the feel of it. Or so that we can just know if a good book cover is one that it captures the essence of the book with out making obvious references to focal points in the plot or if someone can see it from a mile away. Is aesthetics the only thing getting in the way? I think maybe. When you add aesthetics to the equation, nothing is fact anymore. But then again, it could be because we as designers expect different things from designs we are critiquing. For example, the first day of class, I told my small group that I thought "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" cover was ugly. Then Lauren said that it was voted one of the best of the year by Print magazine. They had chosen it because it was highly recognizable. Recognizably wasn't even in my criteria when I was evaluating the covers success, but I couldn't deny that book covers in general may profit from being recognizable.
Overall, I think that one thing that every designer agrees on is that design must work. As far as I am concerned, it can end there. good design works. That's it. Everything else is subject to opinion and once that happens nobody can really be right. The challenge though, I think, is evaluating the ways that design should work and which ways are more important than another.
That's my rant. No disrespect to either Rams or Norman intended. I also have my categories of words that I pompously think have relevance to each other.
In "Ten Principals of Good Design," Dieter Rams lists and defines what he thinks is good design. In "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy," Don Norman explains 3 ways that design can make you happy (only its more like 4, because his slide show brings up 4 headings, but maybe they thought 4 was too large of a number for people to grasp, or maybe I missed something, whatever).
Oh, and the question for Don: "Do you think that one of the three (or four) ways design can make you happy takes president over the other?
But really, What is good design? I have been putting nearly 100% of my academic efforts to design related things for the past two years now, and I still don't really know what good design is. I am more confident now to voice an opinion about something that I think is bad design, but I still cant really answer that question. I try to go to all the Hallmark lectures, and a good number of those speakers have made statements about what they think is good design and no two are exactly alike, but they all sound good when I hear said, as part of a greater lecture. It seems to me that every designer out there has their own definition of what makes design good. More interestingly, they all try and define good design by breaking it into some sort of category. For example, "Ten Principals of Good Design" and "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy." That is weird. Its not like every scientist stresses over which category of stuff they can lump together to define science. That would be so painful! "Hmmm, well I think, that good science should be innovative, useful, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, down to the last detail, and worded as simply as possible." HOLY SHIT! Those are 9 of the 10 things good design is according to Rams! The only one not in the group: aesthetic. The funny thing is that all of those things are true of good science. Having an aesthetic quality is the only thing that separates the two, according to Rams. That's probably why Norman has recently (recent to 2003 that is) decided to devote his life to exploring what can be done with changing around aesthetics (it can make you happy!).
So is design science? No, science is not aesthetic. But is that the only difference? If it is, then why aren't these profound lists put to some sort of scientific or psychological test and organized so that we designers don't have to keep worrying about when its good to make something stand out. Or when its more important to make something so that people will buy it or make something so that people will enjoy the feel of it. Or so that we can just know if a good book cover is one that it captures the essence of the book with out making obvious references to focal points in the plot or if someone can see it from a mile away. Is aesthetics the only thing getting in the way? I think maybe. When you add aesthetics to the equation, nothing is fact anymore. But then again, it could be because we as designers expect different things from designs we are critiquing. For example, the first day of class, I told my small group that I thought "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" cover was ugly. Then Lauren said that it was voted one of the best of the year by Print magazine. They had chosen it because it was highly recognizable. Recognizably wasn't even in my criteria when I was evaluating the covers success, but I couldn't deny that book covers in general may profit from being recognizable.
Overall, I think that one thing that every designer agrees on is that design must work. As far as I am concerned, it can end there. good design works. That's it. Everything else is subject to opinion and once that happens nobody can really be right. The challenge though, I think, is evaluating the ways that design should work and which ways are more important than another.
That's my rant. No disrespect to either Rams or Norman intended. I also have my categories of words that I pompously think have relevance to each other.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)