design
Bradley James Wilson
If you had to identify some design trends for the last year and the
upcoming year, what would you say they would be?
I'm working on materials to teach at some summer workshops.
--Bradley
G Rice
my immediate response is:
1. the increasingly widespread use of Emigre typefaces, especially in
advertising
2. "flow-chart" design, i.e. geometric shapes connected by various kinds of
lines; possibly a real-world reflection of hypermedia?
3. revival of illustration (as opposed to photography)
could you be a little more specific? (corporate, advertising, industrial,
newspaper, magazine, hypermedia; what kinds of design are you teaching?)
Glenn Rice suckerman -----O
gr...@iris.wmwoods.edu [or] gri...@mail.coin.missouri.edu
( "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, )
( than are dreamt of in your philosophies." -Shakespeare )
Tony Chryseliou
>If you had to identify some design trends for the last year and the
>upcoming year, what would you say they would be?
I'd say a definite trend is a retreat from the "grunge" look (thank God!).
I consider myself a young, modern designer and technologist, but I never
really did like grunge typography and design. A design/layout should
*enhance* the editorial content. Our job as designers/typesetters is to make
a writer's words as visually appealing and *accessable* as possible. The
grunge look tends to spatter things all over the damn page. If I can't tell
instinctively (as a reader) where a story begins or ends, how the hell is my
reading experience suppose to be enjoyable?
I perfect example of bad grunge and design is any recent issue of u&lc
magazine. I can't even tell where the stories end and the ads begin!
Just my $1.98 (inflation)
Tony Chryseliou
Gordon Couger
G Rice <gr...@iris.wmwoods.edu> wrote:
>tony said:
>
><snippage>
>
>>really did like grunge typography and design. A design/layout should
>>*enhance* the editorial content. Our job as designers/typesetters is to make
>thoughts; but so are pictures, colors, compositions, textures, arrangements.
>interplay of elements. "synergy," if you will pardon the fulleresque term. i
>agree that in many cases design merely serves to "prettify" or make an otherwise
>uninspired piece more exciting, but in many other cases the design is a part of
>the message. i'm sure you practice content-driven design! isn't that what people
>on a somewhat more philosophical note: not all stories have beginnings and
>endings. not all printed stories are read that way, either. (the response of
>course is "why should some designer make it difficult/confusing for me to read
>this?" my answer: it's up to the reader to figure it out, and get used to it. [i
>comments?
I have been at this a long time I first learned to handset type in the 50's.
I worked at a small shop that did good work. We probably had 10 fonts in
various sizes. for a ruled form we had to broch lead rules to thread brass
triangles through them. Crap (type set at an angle and display adds) had to
be build up on furniture (wood blocks) and stuck to it with double sided
tape and clip art had to be cast in lead.
As a result design was much more formal and thought through than it is
today. So design was more subtle and only a very few could actually do it.
Then ofset presses came along and now clip art was easy to do crap was
much easier to set and a whole lot more people could work in the design
process. At the time we all thought it was going to the dogs because those
"idiots" didn't know the first thing about design.
Now with a computer a lot more people have cutting edge type setting and
design capabilities but they have a lot less training and contact with
good designers. There probably aren't many more people out there that have
the talent for good design than there ever were but there are a lot of
people with excelent tools trying to design and set type. And a lot of them
are doing pertty good jobs. Some are doing very poor work and can't tell the
difference.
The main problem I see is doing too much. Trying to show of all you
typefaces in one peice and cluttering things up with boxes, screens and
ding-bats. Not to say you shouldn't use any of these but use them
carefully.
Gordon
Gordon Couger - 624 Cheyenne, Stillwater, OK 74075
gco...@master.ceat.okstate.edu 405-624-2855 evenings
I do not speak for my employer
Tony Chryseliou
>necessarily for their attractiveness, mind you) with a lot of complex objects
>and over-technologized effects. I think they do it well.
I think you made a very important point... Wired does do it well (I happen
to like Wired). But the majority don't. Everyone seems to think that "If I
make a sloppy, wierd layout, I can call it grunge." Instead of trying to
impress ourselves, we should try to get back to basics and concentrate on
communicating with the reader...
Tony Chryseliou
G Rice
<snippage>
>really did like grunge typography and design. A design/layout should
>*enhance* the editorial content. Our job as designers/typesetters is to make
>a writer's words as visually appealing and *accessable* as possible. The
>grunge look tends to spatter things all over the damn page. If I can't tell
>instinctively (as a reader) where a story begins or ends, how the hell is my
>reading experience suppose to be enjoyable?
well, that's debatable. therefore, i'll enter the debate >:-}.
first of all i think design is as much a part of the communciation process as
the words themselves. Saying that our jobs are to make a writer's words as
appealing/accessible as possible is taking a rather limited view of the role of
design. you might as well use nothing but Caslon (it's appealing, it's
accessible, it's highly *legible*!). but that would reduce "design" to being the
lapdog of writers.
communication is more than just words. words are symbols for conveying ideas and
thoughts; but so are pictures, colors, compositions, textures, arrangements.
interplay of elements. "synergy," if you will pardon the fulleresque term. i
agree that in many cases design merely serves to "prettify" or make an otherwise
uninspired piece more exciting, but in many other cases the design is a part of
the message. i'm sure you practice content-driven design! isn't that what people
like David Carson at Ray Gun are doing?
that said: Ray Gun is a music/pop culture magazine. grunge design *fits*. you
wouldn't want to see it in, say, Time or Newsweek.
on a somewhat more philosophical note: not all stories have beginnings and
endings. not all printed stories are read that way, either. (the response of
course is "why should some designer make it difficult/confusing for me to read
this?" my answer: it's up to the reader to figure it out, and get used to it. [i
sense flames approaching!] times change.... what's considered "normal" or even
"conservative" now would have been practically illegible a few centuries ago.
and that's my $1.98 worth. (which is pretty cheap, considering the rates we
charge! <g>)
comments?
Tony Chryseliou
ideas and
>thoughts; but so are pictures, colors, compositions, textures, arrangements.
>interplay of elements. "synergy,"
I agree fully, I never meant to imply otherwise. But often in "grunge", the
content's (ie, a magazine article) legibility is sacrificed to satisfy the
"look". This is fine for a painting or any piece of art, art is subjective.
But not for a magazine *article* (we're not talking about a pictorial
spread), where the words should be important. If the words weren't important
to someone, why bother to publish them and make them readable?
> i'm sure you practice content-driven design!
Absolutley. I hate half the stuff I do because it's dull or pc (politically
correct). But hey, I'm designing for my audience, not myself. That's part of
the sacrifice you make as a commercial designer, artist, whatever.
> isn't that what people like David Carson at Ray Gun are doing?
Yes and no. I think half time he is just amusing himself and being selfish.
Then the mindless masses say, "Carson is cutting-edge, so whatever he does,
it must be good..."
>that said: Ray Gun is a music/pop culture magazine. grunge design *fits*. you
>wouldn't want to see it in, say, Time or Newsweek.
Right. But like I said before, there's "good" grunge and "bad." IMHO Wired
does good grunge. Ray Gun has it's moments. My problem is that anybody
thinks they can do grunge because it looks so primitive on the surface. The
results are often horrible.
>on a somewhat more philosophical note: not all stories have beginnings and
>endings. not all printed stories are read that way, either. (the response of
>course is "why should some designer make it difficult/confusing for me to read
>this?" my answer: it's up to the reader to figure it out, and get used to it.
Whoa!!! No way. I come from the commercial world, where we WANT the customer
to buy our product. In layout and design, you're selling the content (words,
graphics, and pictures) to the reader's "eye". If you make it hard on them,
they lose interest. This is Marketing 101.
Tony Chryseliou
Peter C.S. Adams 7-5263
> > on a somewhat more philosophical note: not all stories have beginnings
> > and endings. not all printed stories are read that way, either. (the
> > response of course is "why should some designer make it
> > difficult/confusing for me to read this?" my answer: it's up to the
> > reader to figure it out, and get used to it.
>
> Whoa!!! No way. I come from the commercial world, where we WANT the
> customer to buy our product. In layout and design, you're selling the
> content (words, graphics, and pictures) to the reader's "eye". If you
> make it hard on them, they lose interest. This is Marketing 101.
Well, I don't think I'd go as far as that for a magazine. Many
magazines, like WIRED, are sold more on the design and image than the
content. However, Tony has a point. You design to the reader, you don't
read to the design. This is indeed Marketing 101. Still, pushing the
envelope is also part of a designer's job (if the readership permits, as
it obviously does in WIRED, etc.) I wouldn't want my article
"Troubleshooting GPFs" done in grunge (or whatever) but my article
"What's That Klingon Doing in My Swimming Pool?" would work great.
I've seen (and done) designs where the design is the art and both the
illustrations *and* text are there to support the art of the design, not
to push a product or convey information. Poetry, for example.. Again, it
comes back to the audience. But we as designers can no more let the
reader mandate the design than a 19th century painter could let the
viewer say "This impressionism stuff in AWFUL!" Design as you feel you
must. If you need to please the client, design something that will
please them, but otherwise design what you think is appropriate to the
material no matter what the design looks like. You as artist must decide
whether your art or your income will suffer in each case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And the #1 thing you can do to help the environment is ... become a
vegetarian. Ask me why! --Peter C.S. Adams (ada...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bradley James Wilson
three design trends of 1995?
--Bradley
On Fri, 26 May 1995, G Rice wrote:
> tony said:
>
> <snippage>
>
> >really did like grunge typography and design. A design/layout should
> >*enhance* the editorial content. Our job as designers/typesetters is to make
> >a writer's words as visually appealing and *accessable* as possible. The
> >grunge look tends to spatter things all over the damn page. If I can't tell
> >instinctively (as a reader) where a story begins or ends, how the hell is my
> >reading experience suppose to be enjoyable?
>
> well, that's debatable. therefore, i'll enter the debate >:-}.
>
> first of all i think design is as much a part of the communciation process as
> the words themselves. Saying that our jobs are to make a writer's words as
> appealing/accessible as possible is taking a rather limited view of the role o
f
> design. you might as well use nothing but Caslon (it's appealing, it's
> accessible, it's highly *legible*!). but that would reduce "design" to being t
he
> lapdog of writers.
>
> communication is more than just words. words are symbols for conveying ideas a
nd
> thoughts; but so are pictures, colors, compositions, textures, arrangements.
> interplay of elements. "synergy," if you will pardon the fulleresque term. i
> agree that in many cases design merely serves to "prettify" or make an otherwi
se
> uninspired piece more exciting, but in many other cases the design is a part o
f
> the message. i'm sure you practice content-driven design! isn't that what peop
le
> like David Carson at Ray Gun are doing?
>
> that said: Ray Gun is a music/pop culture magazine. grunge design *fits*. you
> wouldn't want to see it in, say, Time or Newsweek.
>
> on a somewhat more philosophical note: not all stories have beginnings and
> endings. not all printed stories are read that way, either. (the response of
> course is "why should some designer make it difficult/confusing for me to read
> this?" my answer: it's up to the reader to figure it out, and get used to it.
Ken Maharaj
more than that. As an amateur, (a "consumer" of artistic
design rather than a paid producer thereof), I agreed completely.
Jump in any time, Glenn!
Ken.
Peter Bielecki
"Tell Us Your Tales of Type Excess!" [and win lots of crap]
Peter Beletski
notyo...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Chris Sansom
>my particular hatred is of round-corner rectangles. to me that
>just says, "hack". i'm glad aldus got rid of that tool (even if you can still
>get a corner-radius dialog box)!
... to which Tim Bond reacted:
>I laughed out loud when reading this message
I too was amused by it. Actually, I quite agree, but when I first used PM
about 5 years ago I came to it (and, indeed, the Mac) very much as a
"hack". One of my weekly tasks at the school where I work is laying out a
single-sheet newsletter. There are certain regular features -- a letter
from the headteacher, etc. -- and some of these had been clad in
round-cornered rectangles by my esteemed predecessor. "Great", I thought,
"I've never been able to do these before," and stuck with them for quite a
time. As I grew more discerning in these matters, I liked them
progressively less and when PM5 came along I started reducing the radius
step by step (so as not to offend anyone!). They now have square corners.
However, I also like lumps of text in boxes less and less as time goes by.
Hmm -- I wonder how I can make the boxes disappear by stages...
Pip pip! ... Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sansom "The ocean is the ultimate solution"
ch...@edenvale.demon.co.uk --Frank Zappa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Offenstein
>
>>my particular hatred is of round-corner rectangles. to me that
>>just says, "hack". i'm glad aldus got rid of that tool (even if you can still
>>get a corner-radius dialog box)!
>
>... to which Tim Bond reacted:
>
>>I laughed out loud when reading this message
>
>
>I too was amused by it.
Well guys and gals, I've stumbled across the answer - Grunge boxes!! I just
did a flyer where I started with rounded boxes, thinking it would offer a
change from the usual squared off reverse blocks I've used in the past.
Then I scrapped that for a grunge box I created in Photoshop. Even though
no "ooohhs and aaaahhs" came forth from my peers, I was pleased with the
look.
My .02 for the design thread is that I think *grunge* is the reflexive
response to *hack.* It's all in the flow!
Ciao.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Offenstein * CCSO * ti...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu * 217/244-1398
********* http://ux1.cso.uiuc.edu/~timo/timo.html *********
1517 DCL * 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana 61801 * Pager/255-3169
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~