(between the lines of age)*

I've been enjoying Mike Reed's guest week over at Ben's blog. It's a brave move by Ben, I think, because he runs the risk of either alienating his regular audience, or being completely upstaged. But I guess the one thing he hadn't anticipated was that Richard Madeley (yes, Richard & Judy Richard) would drop by and start commenting. (I'm now rooting for Vanessa Feltz to turn up when Ben returns and starts moaning about tea again.)

Seriously though, Mike's intent this week was to "open up the dialogue between designers and writers, and perhaps bring the two a little closer together" - something which he's certainly succeeded in doing.

Take this post, for instance. As Mike say's, "it's like someone stuffed a Howies catalogue and an old Blackadder video into an Innocent blender and hoped for the best". And that's just the words he's talking about. Because the design ain't much better, is it? Just remember that somebody, somewhere made a conscious decision that the paragraphs (including the headline) ought to have THAT MUCH indent, but conversely made the gutter between the two columns really, really tiny. Just as well they haven't yet mastered 'lock to baseline grid'.

But it's a trap that's easy to fall into. Especially if you work for a certain type of client, or a certain type of agency. Richard (no not that Richard again) alluded to it in his guest post on my blog: about Neo Sans being referred to in his studio as 'Technology Company Sans'. I had the misfortune, several years ago, to get involved with a regional advertising agency, and there was a lot of 'technology company' work going on at the time. And the standard formula (because, remember, the task at hand was simply to make money out of a deal) was for the designer to combine an image of a globe with an arrow pointing to the right and upwards, and the copywriter to insert the words 'mission critical' at every available opportunity.

But guess what? That regional agency is still making enough money to enable the directors to run a fleet of black Porsches and ENORMOUS, shiny 4X4s. Which, unfortunately, is why we'll always be surrounded by such crap.

Anyway, I digress. Do pop over and say hello to Mike. You've only got just over 24 hours in which to do so.

*And twenty extra brownie points if you can tell me where the title comes from.

Comments

[Mike Reed]

That's a very kind and generous post, David, thanks. (Although there was never any chance of my upstaging Ben.)

I'd deliberately steered clear of the design of the poster. Partly because it was suggested by someone as an example of shocking copy, and also because, although it's obvious the design is dreadful, I thought someone more qualified would do a much better job of saying why. And you have. Cheers.

(By the way, if you click "Richard Madeley"'s name in the comments, you'll find it may not be quite the real Richard Madeley. I'm sorry to say.)

[davidthedesigner]

Well, what a bummer, Mike. Not the real Richard Madeley: and it was such a good story as well. I guess I'll now have to turn my attention to rooting for 'not the real' Vanessa Feltz. But, you know, with these people it's pretty difficult to know where the reality ends and the fantasy begins.

[David Atkinson]

Sounds like Neil Young to me.

The title, I mean.

[davidthedesigner]

Yeah, David's spot on. The full title (from which the title is taken) is 'Words (Between the Lines of Age)' by Neil Young, from the album 'Harvest'.

I can see an emerging trend here: post titles named after 60's and 70's song lyrics (well, it's just as valid as having one of those stupid big pictures as a home page).

Or maybe I'm just turning into an ageing hippy?

[David Atkinson]

You know, just because that link goes to the Richard Madeley Appreciation Society doesn't mean it's not the real Richard Madeley. I wouldn't put it past him.

[davidthedesigner]

Well, it had me fooled, David. That's what I meant by not knowing where reality ends and fantasy begins.

But look on the bright side: whoever he is, between us we'll have increased his traffic quite substantially.

[Mike Reed]

Now I'm very confused about "Richard Madeley", David. He's left another comment on my post about the Neilson poster. (http://tinyurl.com/2ayt38)

The comment doesn't (quite) sound like a joke, but if you read any of the posts on his website it seems obvious he's either (a) not who he says he is on the site or (b) not who he pretends to be on the telly. I must say, it's not a question I predicted when I agreed to take over NDG for a week.

[davidthedesigner]

Hmmn. Any sign of Vanessa Feltz yet?

[Richard Madeley]

Look guys, I can assure you that I don't need the traffic. Didn't you see the piece on my blog in the Guardian a few weeks ago? I’m a bit disappointed by this constant questioning of my identify. Is this how you treat all people who leave comments on your blog? I thought my points were quite cognisant about the subject of good writing. However, I’m getting used to being made to feel unwelcome. I can see when I should perhaps move on.

And just when I found a blog I was actually interested in reading… Oh now, look what you’ve done. You’ve upset Judy. She’s crying now. I hope you all feel good about yourselves.

[davidthedesigner]

Calm down, Richard. Everyone's welcome here. But, do you know what? I've never, ever watched 'Richard & Judy', so I'm not best placed to know whether you're just pulling our legs or not. What do you think, Mike?

By the way, I'm playing Father Christmas tomorrow. Do you think I ought to play it for real? Or come clean and tell the kids I'm really a designer?

[Mike Reed]

David, if you haven't seen Richard & Judy, you must. If only just once. For the experience. Once seen, never forgotten. But I'm afraid I'm convinced our legs are being pulled by "Richard". If I'm wrong, Richard, and you really have lost sleep over "Chuck Norris and his well gnarled plums", then of course I apologise unreservedly. But I think you can see where I'm coming from.