davidthedesigner

the sliding scale

I expect you've noticed that it went a little quiet around here prior to last Friday. It's a sign of one of the small changes that happened to me in 2011: the failed discipline of making myself (or a guest blogger) post at least every working day of the week. But in a way it neatly summarises my relationship with 2011: it was a year of small changes and nothing very much happening. I went into it thinking that it was going to be a year of enormous change. Which it was for millions of people around the globe. A year of momentous changes, and very few of them for the better. And here am I contemplating that nothing very much happened. Maybe after all that's an achievement by itself.

And I stopped talking about design very much, as well. Did you notice that? But after all, what was there to talk about. It was hardly a vintage year for design, was it? Can you remember anything you saw and immediately thought "I wish I'd done that"? No, I can't either. It was more likely an inward sigh and a thought of "well, at least the money must be good". Lucky for those who can sniff it out.

But 2011 had to be about something, didn't it? And I'll tell you what it was for me: the year of being surveyed.

I couldn't move without being asked to fill out an online survey about the 'brand experience' I'd just enjoyed. Brand experience, my ass.

You know what? I caught a coach. From one city to another (and back again). Not something that I do very often. But enough to catch the attention of the National Express brand police. Could I complete a short online survey to help them to improve the 'brand experience'?. Sure, no problem. Question: 'did you use the on-board toilet?' (or words to that effect). Answer: 'No'. Next question: 'did you find the toilet to be in a clean condition?' (or words to that effect), 'yes' or 'no'. And so it went on, five more questions about the toilet, each to be answered yes or no. And I can't move on to the next page of the survey until I've answered all these toilet questions. Oh, OK, I'll just make them up then. Anything to keep you happy. But I'll make sure not to use the toilet next time I catch one of your coaches.

And what about the BBC? They're no better either when it comes to nonsensical survey questions. 'How often do you visit the BBC site for local news?'. Easy: once or twice a day (I like to keep abreast of what's going on around me). 'What do I like or dislike about the site?'. Oh, it's getting harder. Now I've got to have opinions about it. Can't I just have a look, catch up with the news and get out again (preferably as quickly as possible)? No, I thought not. 'How easy is to find sports news?'. Look, buddy, you're talking to a man who's dedicated his whole life to the avoidance of sports news. Can I get out of this survey now, please?

And so it went on. Completely disgruntled on a scale of one to ten.

And what's 2012 got lined up for us? Oh yes, I forgot. That.

Sigh.

slave to the rhythm?

Is this really and honestly a great piece of applied graphic design? And isn't the whole point of pictograms the fact that you don't need words to explain what the picture means? Or am I missing something here?

this made me smile #70

I'm sure that 2012 logo is in there somewhere.

ooh, look - a halfway decent olympics logo

What they never tell you before you become a designer is that the whole business is based upon the 'feast or famine' principle. Well I've already had my share of this year's famine, but fate determines that it now wants to pile it on from every possible direction. So I've got my nose to the grindstone: don't expect much from me this week as a result. You lot will just have to wait, I'm afraid.

But here's something to keep you happy in the meantime. A wonderful flickr set of mid-70's logos (via the always-reliable O.K. Blog).

hostile responses all round

If you've been hanging around this blog for a while, you won't be in any doubt about my views on the 2012 Olympics 'brand mark'. Some of you may be inclined to think that this is merely designers' bitchiness, but the rule that I apply to my judgement is governed by the words of Jeff Bezos: that "a brand is what somebody says about you when you're not in the room".

Image half inched from crackunit.

I bring this up again now because there is a very interesting article by Adrian Shaughnessy over on the Creative Review blog. And the most telling words in the article are, to my mind, these: "The dismally designed literature (not done by Wolff Olins) that is currently being pushed through letterboxes in East London shows what happens when communication is freed from its moorings; it slips into muddle and cliché. Similarly, Wolff Olins’ logo for NYC & Company, the New York tourism body, met with a hostile response when applied clumsily to its iconic taxis by the client recently."

So, when it comes to the 'brand experience' (surely the whole raison d'être of the Wolff Olins pitch) it seems that what's being served up are curate's eggs. Whether that's entirely due to Wolff Olins is, of course, debatable. They may well be cooking and serving the excellent parts, but the poor curates amongst us still end up with something that can be pretty hard to stomach.

octavo and after

In case you missed it, there's a great interview with Hamish Muir (one of the three co-founders of octavo) over at Swiss Legacy. What particularly strikes me, as we draw to the end of 2007, is the similarity between what was going on design-wise in the late 1980s and now. As Hamish explains: "In London at the time, design was very ideas oriented – visual jokes, puns, clever copywriting, gimmicky use of printing and finishing techniques. In terms of typography, it was very different to what was happening in Europe – in the UK things generally followed a kind of traditional approach and it seemed type was always there to support the idea or image, it never seemed to be the idea or image itself.

So what we set out to do was to make design where type and typography were central to the idea. Where type would be the image."

It seems to me that the birth of the new ugly may signal a renewed 'call to arms' to those who appreciate the art of typography.

an open letter to visual communications students at harford community college*

*and any other design students who happen to stumble across this blog.

Yesterday's post from me was about connections, and about how valuable those connections (although virtual) are to me personally. But connections work both ways, and this week I find myself listed as a reference for this week's assignment for Visual Communications students at Harford Community College, Bel Air, Maryland.

So, welcome my young friends - you're very welcome here. But I do notice (from my statistics) that you're not hanging around for long. That either means that you think you have nothing to learn from someone like me, or you're out getting yourselves wasted and saving up your assigned work until the last possible moment. My first piece of advice to you is: that's not a wise strategy if you want to transition your studies into a design career.

But the best piece of advice that I can give you is to learn to love typography. It's not easy, I know - especially when you're young and hot with hormones. I thought it was the most boring thing I'd ever encountered when I was your age (except, perhaps, double-entry bookkeeping). It may have been my tutor, though - he certainly didn't have the presence (or the beard) of your Professor Kenneth Jones. Or maybe I just started out with the wrong font - Univers. The most unforgiving typeface of them all. But I stuck with it and plodded on (well, I am a Taurean) and gradually I came to like it, and eventually - after ten years or so - to love it.

And the reason you should learn to love typography - and all things type - is that, should you follow a design career, the only thing that will remain constant over the years ahead will be type. Everything else will change - and change several times over. And you will need to accommodate and make those same changes yourself. But if you love type, you'll always find a way to make that happen.

So, good luck with your studies. And don't be shy - drop me a comment and let me know what you think.

(Oh, and one last piece of advice to the student at bottom left: lose the hat.)

it's a load of tosh

"It's admirable to want to engage young people, but a brand which is so easily and mercilessly mocked by young and old simply won't appeal."

Just when you thought I'd forgotten about the ugly little runt, I'm here to remind you that I haven't. Oh, and Bruno Maag agrees with me.

the backroom boys are beavering away (and other things of note)

Typepad tell me that they "are escalating the issue" - so, for the time being, this blog remains image free prior to July 10th. Let's hope they dig out the little gremlin soon.

So today, because I'm feeling as though I'm only partly here, I'm going to send you off to have a look at some other interesting things - the first of which is, quite literally, the most interesting:

Ben has posted a few observations about the 'graphics' or 'branding' (or maybe it's the 'identity') that his team created for Russell's Interesting 2007 conference. I missed out on the conference itself (because I was too slow off the mark in sending off for a ticket), but I had a very small third-hand involvement by way of helping out Anne with her 'I Like' postcards.

Ben has some really interesting observations on how this whole conference was 'branded', and I think this makes for illuminating reading when set against the debacle that was the launch of that London 2012 thing. 'Branding' (whatever that word really means) is all about reaching out and engaging with your audience, and this demonstrates how it can be done extremely effectively, yet with minimal resources. And perhaps it's the minimal resources that are the key: because with minimal resources comes humility. And that's precisely what the 2012 Olympic thing lacks: humility.

A while ago I had an A-Level student email me to ask if I could explain what branding was. She'd been set a design brief to invent a 'brand'; she'd asked around some friends who suggested that she designed a logo for an airline or a colour scheme for an up-market car manufacturer; and she was stuck - she didn't know what to do, and she didn't understand what 'branding' meant, expect that it was something that had to be 'designed'. So I advised her to stop worrying about cars and planes, and to start with something closer to home. To take something that she was personally interested in - and, purely as an example, I suggested this might be making jam. Now she had to imagine that she was taking a stall at her local market where she was going to sell her jam. So, if she wanted this venture to be a success, she had to start thinking about the jars she was going to use, what labels she was going to put on them, how she was going to produce those labels, what the lids would look like, what tablecloth she was going to use, and how she was going to display her jars. And because her starting point is taking something she's interested in, it's that succession of smaller decisions which will create her 'brand', and if she cares about what she's doing, and really wants to sell that jam, then her 'brand' will be successful.

And next you should head over to David Airey's blog, where he has some interesting points to make about blogging mistakes to avoid. Easier said than done though, David: as you'll see from the opening lines of this post, I'm suffering from having made mistake #1 (maybe).

And finally, on a lighter note, you should head over to The Serif where today is officially 'what are you working on, right now' day. You'll find me there, just below the great Michael Johnson who's looking for HTML code in his stickies (you see, I do know my place in the world).

some more about that logo

we made this (it's their blog) have come up with a really interesting article about the design of the Montreal Olympics logo.