Personal: March 2010 Archives

Faced with today's economic realities, affordability is of intense concern to most people. Personally, I live on a very tight budget; so defining affordability is exceptionally important in trying to stretch every dollar. As I write today about finding a suitable definition for affordability, it is necessary to remember that the initial cost of a good or service is not the only factor in this equation. Further costs and the quality you receive also have to be considered when making decisions regarding affordability.

From a consumer standpoint, the automobile is a perfect illustration of the intersection of design and affordability. Ford's Pinto and Toyota's Corolla, both introduced at the beginning of the nineteen seventies, were aimed at the same emerging American small-car market. Both were designed with low cost in mind, but one is now synonymous with catastrophic failure, while the other is one of the most successful vehicles ever produced. Each car was undoubtedly marketed as 'affordable,' but the superior design of the Corolla (and its lack of explosive tendencies) meant that it was perceived as a much better deal in the long run.

The design processes that lead to these vastly different outcomes were obviously unequal. In designing towards the goal of affordability, or under many other constraints, good design is separated from poor design by the alternatives of compromise and sacrifice. As our last speaker pointed out, the design process is simply a systematic way to address a series of problems, questions, or constraints. When these factors are considered in a reasoned and creative way from the beginning of the process, the resulting design can be a positive compromise between otherwise conflicting goals. If a constraint like cost is factored in at the end of the process, however, the result sacrifices other standards. When a company like Ikea or Toyota begins the design process with all their objectives and constraints on the table, then the possibilities for quality, affordable design are much greater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla

In my last blog I cover Marketability in relation to Finance, but after considering it I realized I was actually talking about marketability and its social impact, more specifically the ethics concerning the branding of public space. I kind of got on a tangent on the issue of control and how when anyone, specifically companies, try to control others by through any means it may harbor for the devolution of society, for it prevents the individual from being self-reliant. I kind of regret seeming so cynical, and I wanted my next blog to focus on the positives of a post-modern capitalist society and the idea that society is like a living organism and we are all working together to help each other out. Initially one might feel intimidated or fearful of entering a world that seems everyone is competing in the exact field you are, however call me naive (which is fair) but I have faith that once we are in the 'real world' we will be in the habitat of networks and support systems where people are helping each other out. You know, that story about the Chinese people in Heaven and Hell and the chopsticks and the food and stuff? Where both Heaven and Hell ended up being one large circle of people with long arms (or chopstick or something) shoulder to shoulder around a pile or delicious food? And the people in Hell were starving around this food because they were all trying to feed themselves, but the people in Heaven were happy and full because they were feeding eath other? Yeah, something like that. So what I'm saying is next class we will have a potluck and you can only feed other people. hm.

With that long introduction, I am choosing to blog on 'marketability' in relation to 'personal.' At first when pondering the idea of marketing oneself, my cynicism jumped in and I internally scoffed and thought, "just another downfall of our capitalist society dependent on the vulnerability of specialization, selling 'yourself'." But then I considered this a little more and had a more 'Danny Tanner' take on the whole thing. We've been told hundreds of times that the working world is a semi-permeable (becuase these connections don't really exist, you know, it is an idea, but maybe one of these connections are currently shaking hands, therefore: 'semi-permeable') web of networks. So what I'm saying is next class we will have a potluck, and play Red Rover.

Marketability, a measure of the ability of a security to be bought and sold, is relative to a company and its ability to sustain its existence; marketability is also relative to the individual and his or her ability to sustain their existence. I think where marketing in general has strayed from in the past few years is the sort of marketing that is boastful, dishonest, and misleading.

Examples of more honest/modest design and marketing:

+ Apple (or course)clutter-free aesthetic and 'honest' personality of Apple (except for their 'dishonest' representation of consistently prevalent dimensional and hyper-buffered floors for every damn icon and product they own)

+ Playstation- Honesty is funny, watch this ad if you haven't already, its pretty good.

+Aveda and their campaigns for social and environmental progress. Designs are simple, honest, an informative

Ok I've only given a few examples, but I do see this being a trend. But when companies are honest, they spend more time making really neat things instead of putting effort into pretending they are something they aren't. They probably were able to reach this point after being successful, for they weren't afraid to take the risk. Fear makes people do crazy things, while honesty makes people do interesting things. In the words of Stefan Sagmeister, "Everybody who's honest is interesting." and.. "Being not truthful works against me."

With 'marketability' and 'personal' I probably could have listed a bunch of resources for creating websites and networking, but I hope my message still seems relevant. What I am trying to conclude here with all this seemingly random information is this: when going into the scary real world we should fight any fear we have with confidence and honesty, not with the mindset that the world will take care of us but because of the freedom honesty gives us in creating work that can be innovative and interesting. Sure intimidation is a great motivator, but we can at least try to create a world free from superficiality.

I'm looking forward to this Red Rover potluck thing.

www.watchfullhouseepisodes.com
http://www.sagmeister.com/index.html

Two areas can be addressed in the context of personal design innovation. The first is design for individuals, for persons. Design is seen and used by a person. The second is how we design for ourselves--what personal gain comes from either our finished design or our work process. We need to consider both of these areas, as they are both important and need to be reconciled for everyone to be happy.

It often seems easier (and makes sense) to design in an evolutionary manner based on past innovative work that was successful and appealing. Two different examples of this are Russel Wright's American Modern and melamine dinnerware, and the animated title sequences of Saul Bass. The innovative and iconic work of both of these designers can be seen echoed again and again as other designers use them as inspiration. These "looks" or "forms" are tried and true. A person likes what is 1) well done, and 2) has familiarity. It is usually easier to evolve what is already accepted than to produce completely innovative work. At the same time, interest in new objects and spectacles is a force that draws an individual to novel designs. However, the newness of a design (especially products and interfaces) must not only provide interest on a personal level, but must also function really well. If it looks interesting, functions well, and does both in a new and different way, personal satisfaction is apt to be high. When balancing these components, what should have the priority--a different and appealing appearance or a function that meets the user's needs in a new, better way? In an essay, design editor Jan van Rossem mentions the huge profits a company such as Alessi can make from selling unusually shaped products, which is fine, "provided the consumer apparently doesn't care if...that most famous of all useless juicers, Philippe Starck's "Juicy Salif", squirts juice everywhere - a small amount of which even makes its way into the waiting glass." (1) He goes on to state that design should enhance quality of life, that originality needs a story (see the next paragraph), and that designers have to be inventors.

The other side of this subject is how we, as designers, go about our work from a personal perspective. We want our work to be accepted by users and viewers, but we also need the creation of that work to be personally satisfying to us (at least we should need that). Luckily, innovation and personal satisfaction are quite compatible, as we can feel a sense of ownership and accomplishment upon seeing our new ideas manifested. If we weren't happy being innovative, then we probably wouldn't be going into design. So how can we create designs that are both personally fulfilling (or have personal touches) and connect with users? One way to do this is to think about incorporating aspects of storytelling into our work. The book Universal Principles of Design directs us to "use storytelling to engage an audience in a design, evoke a specific emotional response, or provide a rich context to enhance learning. When successfully employed, an audience will experience and recall the events of the story in a personal way--it becomes a part of them. This is a phenomenon unique to storytelling." (2) Designer and author Anthony Dunne discusses this idea regarding electronic objects:

"Conventional roles for design include addressing problems set by industry, designing interfaces that seduce the user into cybernetic communication with the corporate cultural values embodied in the emerging environment of digital objects, and finding novel applications for new technology. But design could also develop new attitudes to electronic technology. To do this, designers could become more like authors, drawing from the narrative space of electronic object misuse and abuse to create alternative contexts of use and need." (3)

Having a personal investment in a creation that works well and communicates with the individual user is sure to have a new, lasting, positive presence.

Using the "quality of life" approach, one could say that design is about making people happy. Then, on a personal level, any particular innovative design should 1) make the individual using it happy, and 2) bring happiness to the person who is making it. The financial post will add complexity to these ideas, but for now this seems like a great methodology.

Sources:
1) Rossem, Jan van. "The Balancing Act of Design: Originality, Individualism, Mass Production". Entry Paradise: New Worlds of Design. Birkhauser, 2006.

2) Lidwell, William et al. Universal Principles of Design. Rockport Publishers, 2003.

3) Dunne, Anthony. Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design. The MIT Press, 2005.

Whether you like it or not, the Internet has become the primary tool for information acquisition.(1) The Internet exists as a forum for issues, and a home for open debate. Like never before, humanity has a voice and tool to relay information, sway an audience or move a people to act. The internet holds such an important role in our modern society, that countries like Finland and Estonia have even declared internet use to be a "basic human right ."(2)

Person awareness starts with being informed of an unknown. One of clearest means of connecting with an audience and enticing them to move on an issue, is by shocking them. Shock value has found a new medium on the web that can be easily and quickly transported, saved, sent and forwarded in e-mails. This medium is of course the video, especially the YouTube video. By simply uploading a video to YouTube, or any other major video host, a user can take a completely unknown issue, or a video of their cat sleeping and create a "viral" video sensation. In this phenomenon, an online video will be relentlessly forwarded, and shared. The video, and therefore the issues that it brings about, can go from virtually unheard of, to a water-cooler-hot-topic overnight.

Many activist groups have found success in using the Internet-user's pension towards "viralizing" videos, for the good of their group. The group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) Have released many videos on to the web, only to have them become widely shared viral videos. However, if you think that all of these videos contained shocking images of animal cruelty, you may be surprised. The most popular and "virally-transmitted" videos ever produced by PETA, were actually rather risqué clips defaming fur or sharing vegetarian's sexual health benefits.(3)
http://www.peta.org/content/standalone/veggielove/Default.aspx
When millions of viewers saw and shared these videos, they instantly altered the image of PETA as the crazy-women-yelling-in-front-of-the-mall, to a more relevant and humorous group.

As designers continue to cater more and more to the upcoming digital-native generation, we have to fully understand the extent of the Internets importance and its clear role in the life of these users. Digital design offers us a whole range of new possibilities (interaction, motion, etc) that are impossible within the world of print. We should be excited and engaged in exploring these new mediums, and challenging ourselves to come up with new strategies and means to communicate. Clinging to paper print outs as effective means of designed communication seems more and more irrelevant

1. Reuters, "Internet Most Popular Information Source" http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55G4XA20090617

2. CNET, "Finland makes 1mb broadband access a legal right"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html

3. Visible Measures, "Temptation Versus Teasing"
http://corp.visualmeasures.com

Recently, I got stuck in a rut. Everything in my life was cluttered and messy and distracting, and one thing that I really used to enjoy, design and my work, really suffered. I didn't even notice it was happening until I woke up one morning with a general disgust for my daily routine. I decided to change everything I could. I moved my TV and unplugged it, I gave my video games to a friend of mine, I moved all of my useless junk in my room to suitcases and boxes, gave away old clothes, stripped down everything that was excess and packed it away. Originally I thought this would be a move toward a new start, a moment where I could move on from and change for the better, it turned out to be something different.
I never really changed, but I went back to my old ways, back to when I would carry a sketchbook around with me, and instead of messing around on the computer or with video games, I read magazines or books or just listened to music. It has been probably one of the most satisfying things I have done in my life recently. And now that I have had some time to look back and think about it, I realize I was streamlining my environment. Not making things quicker, but more focused, on what I wanted to do, not what could distract me. I became more efficient. I think this is a really important quality that anyone who wants to be exceptional at anything should possess, an efficiency in their discipline.
As designers we think of being efficient as having a quick and successful project turn around, knowing hot keys for our programs, and having the latest equipment and tools. This is definitely one way to think of it, but being efficient in your skill set as a process is equally as important. Even slowing down can become more efficient, moving away everything you've done up to a certain point standing up and taking a look at it from another angle can change so much.
However, in a business setting this is a completely ridiculous idea, when acquiring clients and securing new accounts is the rule. At the moment I am doing some work for a data storage company where the entire motto is "go paperless, go green," it's an admirable idea, and these days it seems like a great concept to pitch to potential clients. When I started, they were so excited to have a "creative professional around" and "someone who understands visual concepts." However, when it came down to it, they were/and are, so focused on turning out a finished product that my skills became completely useless. I had to be more efficient. There was an instance where I was asked to create a new logo for a sister company of sorts. So I went back to my office, got out my sketchbook and started working out ideas and colors and so on. Fifteen minutes later my boss came in and asked what I was doing, I told him I was working on some concepts, he replied with "I need this in twenty minutes, just make it good enough." I was kind of shocked, I had been asked to finish projects in a couple hours or by the end of the day, but a logo in twenty minutes? Outrageous! I dropped my pencil and opened Illustrator, shaking my head. When I was done, and after it was handed in. I wondered why they even needed me, someone with a proficiency in Word probably could've worked up something just as good, but the worst part about it was that no one really cared, they just needed it fast and out of the door. It didn't matter what kind of changes I had made in my life, and how much more efficient I was in my pursuit to become a designer, just how fast I could turn out sufficient work.
I came across a great article by Aza Raskin, and I think it puts much of what I am trying to say in perspective: "Efficiency is a tool that should be included in the arsenal of every designer." I was so frustrated with how quantitatively efficient i was being forced to be, I lost sight of the fact that I needed employ the lessons of my personal qualitative efficiency that I had taught myself into my design process. I didn't have time to ponder and sketch and philosophise about what elements to incorporate, I needed to know what tools I had at my disposal and what I could do in the asked amount of time. Not be rushed, but understand what was being asked of me, and which definition of efficiency to focus on.

Resources:

http://humanized.com/weblog/2006/07/22/know_when_to_stop_designing_quantitatively/

Airports and Security

Every year I get to travel intentionally at least once and so this gives me the opportunity to learn, understand, and accept the, lately many, security changes that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) makes. However, some of these changes and decisions trouble some frequent and non-frequent flyers, and the TSA as well as each airline company and airport committee are left to make decisions and changes that will rebut them in order to not lose customers.

One of the most argued changes in recent years is TSA's new advanced imaging technology that began being used in 2007. In a nutshell, the two inventions, Backscatter and the Millimeter Wave, helps the people in charge to, well, see under your clothes. It's not really an exaggeration because that is what they want to see. Many people have gotten away with hiding weapons in awkward places that the metal detectors can't scan, or smuggling animals, plants, and food, which obviously isn't something the detectors can detect. According to their website, in this month of March alone, 150 Backscatter imaging technologies were deployed throughout the USA but only 40 Millimeter Wave units total are found in the country. The difference between the two can be seen here.

Backscatter

Millimeter Wave

The reason why there's controversy with these new imaging technology is because some people believe that this is one more step of violating citizen rights and that it's unconstitutional. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has available on their website MANY of the complaint forms against these imaging technologies expressing such opinions. After looking at some of these complaints I stumbled upon a few different but similar reasoning for these objections. One of them was of a father that was travelling with his wife and two children. He believed that not only was the machine an invasion of privacy but that it was "sick and perverted" towards children. Another woman, written exactly word-for-word, said "that the new security measures is for a bunch of peepoing toms."

There is no way to explain or design these units in a way that will not scare some people away. It is what it is, and along with other changes, some people have decided to travel by airplane less. Some airlines have made the decision to turn off and disable the wonderful personal mini televisions each person have in international flights, you can no longer have anything on your lap during the last 30 minutes of flight in some airplanes, the change of carry-on rules narrowing down to one per person as well as the size restriction being stricted to a smaller size than before, the list goes on. During my 10 hour flight back from Brazil just six days after the terrorist attempt on Christmas Day, I became a bit angry at the last hour of the flight when the air crew requested everyone to wake up, buckle up, put away everything, while restricting access to the bathroom. I was extremely uncomfortable, and bored out of my mind.

The airport itself, however, can be a very happy and friendly looking space and I think that's what the committee and even the TSA want it to be in order to, like mentioned before, rebut the whole idea of fear of travelling by airplane. The many shops, windows, familiar food restaurants, in some places free Wi-Fi, are all meant and designed to please and attract flyers into making them feel more comfortable.

In the end, and a personal opinion, I think that these new advanced imaging technologies are OK. Of course they're being handled professionally--nobody can print or save any of the images seen through these machines and is permanently deleted from the system just seconds after first appearing on the screen after the confirmation of the person being clean of threats. However, it's a bit scary as to what new invention is going to be designed in order to scan more of a person. How far is too far? Will it be too much when airport security starts scanning our thoughts? Aren't both an invasion of privacy?

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/the-problem-solver/2010/03/airport-body-scanners-other-security-technology.html

Lucy Michell/Appeal/Personal

Appeal is to attract, and what us as designers are attracted to is not necessarily what the everyday consumer is attracted to. Throughout my four years in the design program I have struggled with what I am attracted to as a designer to what the everyday consumer is attracted to. Obviously we have learned that you can't design for everyone but you must design for someone, and that someone cannot be yourself...unless you are putting together your portfolio.

As a designer it is hard not to design in my own aesthetic, but that is what a successful designer does. They are able to achieve what they are trying to portray in a multitude of different style and new ways. When showing my portfolio to my mentor he said you have a very apparent style and that's a good thing to have but you have to be able to be as effective in other styles, which therefore make you more desirable in the working design world.

I am currently doing freelance work for French Meadow Bakery and Café, working on the advertisements and art-directing photography shoots. It was difficult at first because my personal style is so far removed from their modern, country, classic aesthetic, that I had a hard time visualizing what kind of ads would fit with their aesthetic and what would be appealing to their audience. So I drilled the owner and manager with questions and since I had already worked there as a server for over a year I had a pretty good idea of their clientele. What I learned was that I could apply my problem solving skills, that I use for my all my projects, but I couldn't apply my own personal style. And we as designers have to be ok with that. Once you can get past that and research the situation the final outcome will be so much better.

I have come away with that experience with the knowledge that we must always know who we are designing for and we must put aside our own personal aim to completely change the world with our personal styles.

Obviously the client must approve our designs, but ultimately, the real moneymaker is the consumer. We have the job of not only appealing to the client but also the consumer. What is interesting is that you have to sell your design to the client with the consumer in mind; the client may think something is one way but the real determinate are the consumers. In the Brad Gap Marty Neumeier states "a brand is not what you say it is it is what they say it is." They meaning the consumer, you have to make your client aware that it is the customer that defines their brand, and that like you must maneuver away from their personal feelings. So I reiterate how important it is to understand your audience and steer yourself away from designing it for yourself. You are not the consumer (only in very slim circumstances.)

We all have what we think is the right design or the right thing to do, so it's very difficult to step outside of that. Our speaker on Tuesday from 3M said something to the degree that, everybody thinks they are a genius, the one with the right ideas, but with that attitude nothing ever gets done. The importance of understanding your audience as well as working within a group are just a few of things needed to successfully appeal to your consumer. Everyone is always going to have their own opinion, but the ones that can compromise, know their audience and work with others are the designers that can successfully appeal to their target audience as well as feel ownership on their personal designs.

Neumeier, Marty. The Brand Gap: How to Bridge the Distance between Business Strategy and Design. Indianapolis, IN: Pearson Professional Education, 2003. Print.

Berry, Nathan. "3M Product Design." Senior Seminar. McNeal Hall, St.Paul. 23 Mar. 2010. Lecture.

As graphic designers we focus on designing to communicate, but now it seems more and more we are persuading consumers to buy. As a designer we have the talent to persuade in designs, but can also communicate positive messages and encourage people to take action in some instances. Can these actions lead to change when dealing with poverty?

Today people are creating innovative ways in fighting poverty by involving others in making a small change or a big change. Replace.org for example simple offers people to take their message and use it to better poverty in their area. There are companies out there that demonstrate that graphic design isn't just a field to persuade people to make a purchase. The Red Cross created an ad that aimed at getting the youth involved in helping those less fortunate using just an image of a Nintendo DS. In the United Kingdom reinvented "remember to recycle" logo depicts someone grabbing food from the trash and read "Your trash is someone else's food." In Brazil an ad depicts a kid trapped under the concrete and read, "Help a child escape the streets. Donate to our children's villages in Brazil." Salvation army and plenty other companies strive to promote helping the less fortunate and use design to create powerful messages to promote change and help eliminate poverty one design at a time.

In design the possibilities are endless, and new ideas to help a big cause are being seen. We have a great talent that can transform society. Sappi has a program called "Ideas that Matter," that supports designers for the public good. As a designer you need to feed yourself, but also look at ways your design can feed others.

Ads described can be seen:
http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/designing-tutorials/23-awesome-examples-of-design-as-a-force-for-good/
Sources:
http://www.sappi.com/SappiWeb/Initiatives/Sappi+Ideas+that+Matter/Sappi+Ideas+that+Matter.htm

As design students, we hear the word copyright come up in many classes and discussions whether it is in regards to our own personal work, or the work of others. For me, and I'm guessing for other students as well, the issue of copyright is something that I know is important and I feel I have some knowledge regarding. However, I don't necessarily believe I am as thoroughly educated on the subject as I should be.

When beginning my research, I thought it important to first define the word copyright to ensure I had a clear-cut meaning of exactly what it meant to better guide my analysis. I found that Copyright is "the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work."

After defining copyright, my first question was, as designers, how do we obtain these exclusive rights? The good news is that when we create work, we automatically own the copyright to that work for our lifetime, plus an additional 50 years. No publishing, or registering of your work necessary. However, if you see someone using your work without crediting you, the only power you have without registering is to write him or her a "cease and desist" letter. The only way to legally file an infringement of copyright action is if the work in question has been registered.

Registering a copyright on your work is easy and very inexpensive, averaging around $35 - $45. At this point in our careers, many of us probably don't feel too at risk for copyright infringement, but it is a good thing to keep in mind and consider. Have you designed a great logo and displayed it on facebook? Come up with a brilliant packaging design that has made its way to thedieline.com? Might not be a bad idea to register the copyright and protect your work.

Visit http://www.copyright.gov for more information or to register your work.

My word is communication and I think that as graphic designers we can all agree that communication has absolutely nothing to do with us. I know each of us spends countless hours on a design in order to make it so perfect that no one will conceive a single thought by looking at it. We work hard to create products that may as well be made for the comatose. Many people ask me, "Why do businesses come to you to design logos, cover letters, and business systems when you, as a designer, try so hard not to create any impression upon people?" I always respond, "It is so that no one may think positively nor negatively about a business." Customers are happiest when they can look at a design and not even realize it is there. They can stare at it for hours with a ho-hum attitude and then move on with their only thought being "What the hell was I doing for the past few hours?" Communication, although important in almost all aspects of life, has no place in the world of design.

Just kidding!! ☺

Communication, I believe, is at the very heart of design. If people didn't have a need to communicate with each other then there would be no need to design messages to catch peoples attention. The whole goal of design is to create a visually stimulating message that draws a consumer/viewer to a particular product or idea. So the big question is, how do we as designers communicate effectively?

I believe it boils down to two simple things: who are you going to communicate to and how are you going to communicate to them.

In an article I read, it talks about research based design and trying to get Graphic Design to be PHD worthy like architecture is. They find that doing a lot of research "improves work flow and efficiency...adds to a designer's creativity" and "Clients, it turns out, are more satisfied when they are able to see just how and why their designs will be effective or not." When doing research, designers gather information through the use of the internet, interviews with the client and consumer, a companies previous print/web materials, and competitions' materials. If you find yourself researching a single individual (probably attractive) through the means of Facebook and Google maps then I would say you are probably just stalking. Once you know your target audience, you need to figure out how you are going to communicate to them.

As human technology has evolved, so has the way we communicate. This has made it both easier and harder as graphic designers to communicate with a target audience. Easier because now you can put something up online and thousands of people from all over the world can see it but also harder because there are so many different applications and programs that designers need to know. Are you going to be asked to design a new magazine ad, website, iphone app, ...ect. According to Mobile Metrics firm Admob, "half of iPhone users buy at least one app a month."

I myself am not an expert when it comes to what the latest technical advancements are and how they might affect me, but I know that change is inevitable. You can either jump on board otherwise it may be time to choose a different profession. I almost feel like graphic design is merging with computer programming which I had never imagined when I joined the design program 5 years ago. I know that it isn't exactly the case, but it appears like that is where things are heading. I can see it 5-10 years from now where so many designers know how to program that it will become the expected standard.

In the end, effective communication comes from understanding the audience and then having the ability to utilize the tools necessary to communicate with that audience. The tools will continue to change as will target audiences. The life of a graphic designer is very variable which, overall, should be good for us because as creatives we probably dislike the stable and mundane.

http://www.articlesbase.com/graphic-design-articles/importance-of-research-in-graphic-design-1271672.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/admob-half-of-iphone-users-buy-at-least-one-app-a-month/
http://tracedesign.com/home/2009/07/01/tell-your-story-in-pictures/
http://abriefmessage.com/2007/09/04/heller/

The term status covers many aspect of design. On a personal level, status as a designer might determine how well know you are. One's design status also opens or closes design opportunities. However, another way to look at status is what you have to do to get there, what sacrifices does one have to make to become a great designer? Status raises the question of what it means to be great/famous and what one has to do to get there.

As we draw closer and closer to graduation, the process of compiling a portfolio and job searching has become a top priority. As we look at our portfolios, we look for things that will make us stand out; things that we think look great. The creation of great things does not stop once we land our first jobs, but continues throughout our time as a designer, on a venture to become "famous". However, the way which we define "famous" varies. One might define famous as well or widely known on the other hand, it might be defined as first-rate or excellent. As designers, I believe, we believe in a highbred version of famous, one that makes us well known for excellent work. This pursuit of status opens the doors as we look to move up in the design work force. However, our pursuit of having high status does not come with out cost. As Rochelle mentioned in class, along with several speakers, most design jobs require long hours and tight deadlines - this, to most, is a sacrifice of our personal lives.

Design status does not come without cost, cost of time and personal life. This is a cost some are willing to give, others not so much. However, to be a great/famous designer is a status opportunity that opens many doors for our future. To some, status is very important, to others so is time at home. As designers we must seek our own happy ground, if at all possible.

8 Common Graphic Design Myths Revealed http://www.creativeopera.com/2009/8-common-graphic-design-myths/

The Creative World At Workhttp://www.core77.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001508.html

\pə-ˈlü-shən\ : the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects

I believe that as designers we have a responsibility to ourselves to use our powers doing something we really care about. Hopefully that means doing something that will positively impact those around us. One of the biggest issues today that we will definitely have to face throughout our careers is environmentally friendly design. In respect to my word, pollution, this means everything from using energy efficient computers to printing with non-toxic inks to just printing less.

Becoming aware of and limiting the amount of pollution we cause with our designs will create innovative products that can set precedents for others in our field. For example, SunChips is now using completely biodegradable packaging (1). Hopefully, this will encourage their competitors to also look for ways to decrease the pollution their products cause. I realize it will be a slow change that is coming much to late, but bringing about sustainable design now will keep you ahead of the pack-plus making you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

Another example of how decreasing pollution is fueling innovation is the Bloom Box, which, although still pretty secretive, seems like an actual solution in the future of clean energy (2). Google was the first to try it out, followed by other massive companies such as Fed-Ex and Wal-Mart. Ebay saved over $100,000 in its first 9 months of use. There are tons more examples of other designers creating groundbreaking products with tons of money to be made. I don't think that environmental protection and financial stability are on opposite ends of the spectrum anymore. The green revolution is here to stay and we would be wise to drive our designs in that direction now.

(1) http://www.sunchips.com/healthier_planet.shtml
(2) http://mashable.com/2010/02/25/bloom-box-videos/

It is difficult to define the word "fun" for graphic designers hold their own personal preference and idea of what fun entails. Fun could mean one thing to one designer and something entirely different to another. The online article, "Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things" by Donald Norman describes a side of design I found to be very intriguing. Throughout this article, Norman describes his view on three very different designs of a teapot and why each hold their own importance whether functional or purely a sculptural piece. Norman states, "Design is important to me, but which design I choose depends on the occasion, the context, and above all, my mood" (1). He goes on to describe how design is heavily tied to our emotions, and how individuals are drawn to certain designs depending on its aesthetic, usability, and practicality. So what is the definition of "fun"? This article describes it as a means of how an individual feels while using the product because, "Sure, utility and usability are important, but without fun and pleasure, joy and excitement...our lives would be incomplete" (1).

Along with the teapots, Norman describes a number of other designed products. Throughout his article he reflects on how individuals feel while using or viewing a product. For example, BMW's Mini Cooper was described not for its efficiency, but rather focused on its aesthetic. The New York Times stated, "...almost no new vehicle in recent memory has provoked more smiles" (1). This quote explains how consumers have the ability to bypass usability for aesthetics because of their emotional instinct. Therefore, because the Mini Cooper is so appealing and fun to look at, individuals have chosen to ignore the flaws of the product because it makes them feel good.

Human beings are the most emotional animals alive where our emotions aid in how we make decisions. For example, the article explains happiness as an aid to creative thinking. The article describes, "...being happy broadens the thought processes and facilitates creative thinking" (1). In a study, individuals were asked to solve a problem requiring "out of the box" thinking. One group of individuals was given a small gift to make them feel good whereas the other group didn't receive anything. As a result, the individuals that were given the gift performed significantly better and gave creative solutions for the problem. Therefore, when people feel good and are having fun, they become more creative.

Fun is a difficult concept to fully understand as graphic designers. What constitutes fun? Who should be having the fun...the designers or the consumers? What does fun entail? Defining the word fun is almost impossible because there are so many ways to view such a simple concept. Throughout his article, Norman describes how designs are heavily tied to our emotions. It appears that when a product is aesthetically pleasing, we are not only drawn to it because it welcomes an emotion of happiness and fun, but it also aids to our well-being.

(1) Norman, Donald. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things.

Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books?id=h_wAbnGlOC4C&printsec=frontcover&sourc

e=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

(2) Hout, Marco. Design and Emotion. Retrieved from http://www.design-emotion.com/

Let's say my life depended on it -- say, I'm a character in some bizarre existential Czechoslovakian novel -- and I had to quickly put a label on my ideological stance in this world or be killed, I would say that I'm a romantic-realist. I'm not sure if that label would save my life, or elicit a scoff from my strangely cerebral imaginary assailant, but that's what I am. What that means (to me) is that I have a fascination with things that are beautiful, emotive, and perhaps whimsical, but that I am even more enamored with these things when there is a good, solid, well-thought out reason behind them. That means that I enjoy the paintings of DaVinci not just because they are pretty pictures, but because he documented thousands of pages of scientific and anatomical research and graphical studies that guided his paintings. In fact, I probably enjoy looking at the notebooks that chronicled his research more than observing his paintings. The reason I like this logical component of design is because it can make design so powerful.
All design takes planning, and good design often takes some serious research. Done correctly, well-planned and executed design can have a surprising level of impact on every aspect of our lives, even on things as internalized as our own personal physical and psychological health. Such is the power of good design and research.
To prove this point, there is an abundance of data that has been collected on how designers can affect things like the emotional disposition of an individual. In fact, there is a conference every year called the International Conference on Design & Emotion. This conference is centered around the idea that design is so powerful, even simple designed objects and products can have a profound impact on four areas of human emotion: happiness/joy, satisfaction/contentment, anger/irritation, and disappointment/dissatisfaction. Think about it, doesn't the sleek look of that unibody MacBook Pro make us feel contented to use it. Doesn't a well-designed apartment or living space (feng shui is based off of logical framework after all) help us sleep better at night and feel relaxed?
As designers, we wield the ability to affect -- for better or worse -- not just how people feel about a product, but also how they feel about themselves as they interact with a product. For example, many studies have shown that simply the color blue can enhance people's performance and confidence while exercising and lifting weights, whereas certain shades of gray can trigger activity in the the same areas of the brain as thoughts about death, taxes, and disorientation. (2) If you're a smart, informed designer, what color are you going to make that yoga mat?
The more informed we are as designers, the more we can encourage a positive, healthy direction in people's everyday lives. If the designed project is large enough -- say, a large community center, or a top-ten website like google -- every design decision could potentially have a positive and healthy affect on thousands, or millions, of end-users. If we are responsible and informed designers, we can help people in an effort to be mentally and emotionally healthier.

(1) Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Special issue editorial: Design & emotion. International Journal of Design, 3(2), 1-6.

(2) http://www.precisionintermedia.com/color.html

My key point is Convenience. When I first starting thinking about this word I felt a very negative connotation - laziness. Immediately I was reminded of something my father used to say to me growing up. Whenever I took the easy way out of a situation he would say "Grace, don't be a get-by." This is something I've often reminded myself of when faced with tough decisions - particularly in design. Many times the most convenient design solution is not the best.

When looking for others viewpoints on lazy design, I came across an interview with Jakob Nielson, a web usability consultant. He states, "Lazy design often yields stupid design" (2).

So what is lazy design in terms of Convenience? It's the type of design where creativity is hindered and originality lost. It's that moment where you choose to use a Photoshop brush instead of drawing your own illustration; its that moment where you decide to download a handwritten typeface instead of designing your own. Lazy design allows Convenience to dictate the direction of your project.

Dictionary.com defines Convenience as "anything that is intended to save resources such as time or energy" (2). Time is probably the most valuable resource to most designers; in fact it is the reason many of us often choose the easy way out. We only have so much time in a day - over a weekend - and in this life. Everyday we must choose where to focus our energy. As designers, we must decide how to balance our work load while still yielding beautiful, innovative work.

(1) http://www.petefreitag.com/item/400.cfm
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convenience