Like many of my colleagues this week, I have been hitting the web design hard recently. I had hoped to have my portfolio ready to send to potential employers by now, but it has been slow going. I have been logging the hours on it, though there doesn't seem to be much to show for it. Instead, I've spent my time learning Dreamweaver, Flash and the mechanics of web design. It'd also help if I hadn't changed my overall design three or four times so far.
So, while attempting to modify my design processes for the web, I found this entry from Publication Design to be very helpful. This post helped me change my thinking about the differences between print and web design. Before, I thought web differed in terms of space (limitless), navigation (simple) and possible font/color choices (limited). (Also, my design skills online? Limited, but growing!)
However, this slideshow by Khoi Vinh, brings up another good point: control. When designing for web, designers give up some of their control. Instead, the control is given to the users, who are able to determine how they get content (to an extent). That can be hard to adapt to, when one is used to the control of print design.
You can find his slideshow on the differences between print and web design through the link on Publication Design's website. I've also included it below.
It's been a busy week design-wise (and school-wise, work-wise and life-wise...). Because spring break is a few days away, it's been double production for Vox. Inititally, I was a little worried about the extra work. Primarily because I had to switch my department design week with another designer when I had my trip to New York City. And it was my week for feature design. So, only three things to get in (all before running to work at two). Thankfully everything got turned in on time.
I'm eager to see my feature in print. One of the crtiques I recieved on my portfolio was a lack of feature design. So far, I'm happy with how this has turned out. Once I pull pdfs off the server, I will post them here.
Since they decided to use the cigarettes mimicking flipping someone off on the cover, I had to move that from my splash page. Instead, I featured a photo of a woman exhaling smoke. With guidence from Meredith, we rearranged the title to look as if it were smoke coming from her cigarette. Although I really liked my initial splash page, I think this works really well, too. The cigarette formation probably works better as a cover image, since it reads quicker. On the splash page, however, I had the opportunity to be a little more abstract, which I like.
I found this article in the archives of Publication Design. Since a lot of you mentioned in class that you will be working on resumes and web portfolios over break, I thought it would be helpful. Personally, I plan on putting in a lot of work on my site. I have been working on it slowly whenever I have time, but I'm still not very far. My biggest hurdles thus far have been program limitations (which I'm overcoming) and design indecision. I've had about two or three different layouts since I've started. It's either been too cute, too bland or too feminine. Since I am interested in men's magazine (such as Esquire) or another not-strictly-female magazine, I'm definitely trying to stay away from too cute. It's a hard thing to balance, though. I do want to make something that is represenititve of me and my personality ( which does include "girl" and "feminine"), but I also want to appeal to certain audiences.
Aesthetic issues aside, the article linked above helps a lot with the technical aspect of designing for web. For instance, taking into consideration the use of scroll bars. Something I've changed in my design is my vertical navigation bar. I had used large, round buttons that required the user to scroll to see them all because the initial window only showed about half of them. This was a problem because instantly half of the links to my work are hidden. Generally, users are unlikely to scroll very far down, so it is good to have the bulk of your information within the paramaters of the initial window.
This week we ventured in to logo design and explored our creative design processes. Trying to design a logo was not easy for me. When the assignment was presented to the class, I had a few ideas and images that came to mind. I jotted some things down, but pretty much forgot about it until earlier this week. As much as I have to do on a daily basis, this isn't too unusual. Unfortunately it doesn't always bode well for the creative process. So, my initial go at this assignment was not terribly pleasant.
It was frustrating because I had looked at a few articles on logo design and that pigeon-holed me on what a logo was. It has to look good in black and white and color. It should be able to run large and small. Use simple shapes. You get the idea. Rather than helping me, these "rules" started to restrict me to the point where I wasn't really coming up with anything. Eventually, I stepped away from the articles and my computer and started flipping through magazines, looking specifically at different logos for inspiration. Also, it was a chance to kind of relax so I could let myself think. I finally came up with a few ideas that I like.
I plan on looking more into my process and how I work as a designer. I think having that sense of awareness when I am approaching a project will help. Plus, putting a little more thought into my process will hopefully help me put more thought into my designs. Here are a few of the logos I came up with for the "Show me dharma" program. Also, this week I've been putting more work into my website. I am trying to get something done as soon as possible, so that I can start applying for jobs. I feel like I have to have that done before I can even think about sending out a resume. I've purchased my domain name and started uploading basic skeletons for the various pages. I went through a few drafts before I landed on the current design. I've gotten decent feedback from the people I've shown thus far. There is still a lot of work to be done, so I'd love to hear any and all feedback you have on it. I'm still learning the ins and outs of web design, but I think I have a good start. If you'd like to click through the different pages, you can here. Below is a screen shot of the basic format I am using for the site.
I love typography. It is such a great, simple way to set a tone for your design. A professor I had for class a few semesters ago put it best: When thinking about or choosing type, open your eyes and listen. He described type as the voice of a design and encouraged us to think about how the typeface would sound if it had a voice. It may sound silly to you, but I think that is such a great way to view choosing a typeface. While functionality, readability, etc. are all important things to consider when picking a typeface, the character, or voice, of the type can be just as important.
In talking with a few colleagues about design, I've found that choosing a typeface is difficult and frustrating for some. I agree. As with anything in design, there can be so many variations that it is hard to find that one that fits just right. So, when I found a post on Publication Design claiming to have a list of 60 good fonts for just about everything, I was definitely interested. It never hurts to have a good list of fonts you know work. Publication Design's post links to the list, which was published by Smashing Magazine. There are some really great typefaces included in this list. Although it is titled "60 brilliant typefaces for corporate design" I there are a lot of versatile fonts on this list that can be used in feature or cover design.
Here are five of my favorites.
1. I love the serifs on this typeface, especially in the first weight shown. It just seems to have a lot of character.
2. Candy Script is just fun. It makes me think of an old soda shop or ice cream place. And now I feel like having a burger and a giant chocolate shake.
3. Ealing is just gorgeous, particularly in the lighter weights. I've been really drawn to this thinner typefaces recently. This one is very clean and orderly looking as well as sleek, which I really like.
4. Here's one with a ton of character. I like the rough, handwritten quality of it. There are a lot of standard handwriting fonts that I don't care for, so it is nice to see one that actually works. This one looks a little historical as well, especially in the first line of the example. I feel like it belongs on old, yellowing paper.
5. Here's another really nice scripted typeface. I don't really have a good reason for liking it; I just thinks it's fun. Also, it seems as if it would be a useable scripted font that doesn't look like it came from a wedding invitation.
There was also a link to My Fonts, a website I'm not very familiar with. From an initial scan, it looks like there is a lot of good content there. And a lot of pretty type pictures. Who doesn't love looking at those? Even better, you can register and gain access to free font downloads. Here is the link to one featured on the 60 Best list (three of the weights are free). Enjoy!
Finally, one last thing to convince you that typefaces really do have great personalities.
This week, I resurrect an older favorite: GOOD Magazine. For those of you who don't know, GOOD is a non-profit magazine that focuses on environmental issues and making a difference in the world. If you are an avid coffee drinker, such as myself, then you might have noticed a smaller version of GOOD magazine in Starbucks in the final months before the election in Nov. GOOD partnered with Starbucks to present customers with a different political issue each week. Among the many interesting things in this napkin-sized publication were the even presentation of both sides, the commitment to getting readers to understand the issues and that the issues were presented graphically. It was a great and approachable way to understand the political issues of the election race.
The graphics for this mini-publication were primarily made by graphic artist Nigel Holmes. If you aren't familiar with Holmes' work, then definitely check out his website. The site alone speaks to his design aesthetic (which is a great thing to keep in mind when designing portfolio sites).
This video explains what "vampire energy" is and how it affects our daily lives. I really like how simple all the illustrations are and how it gets the information across. Information graphics are a good source of inspiration for me because I think they showcase how best to visually explain something.
Though I am still eagerly awaiting the arrival of the latest issue of Vanity Fair, I've seen a little bit of buzz about this issue's cover. The cover features, as V.F. calls them, the new legends of comedy: actors Paul Rudd (love), Jason Segel, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill. Also, as part of their photo shoot, the comedians recreated a well-known V.F. cover. Some of you might be familiar with the cover, which featured actresses Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightly and American fashion designer, Tom Ford. The cover was shot by the Annie Leibovitz, of course. Leibovitz returned to shoot for this month's issue and recreated the cover. I'll leave it up to you to decide which one is better. How anybody on this shoot, especially these men, kept a straight face, I have no idea. Spoof covers are always fun. I also love that Leibovitz shot the cover in tribute to her own March 2006 cover. Interestingly, the V.F. site doesn't seem to be calling this a spoof. Can you really call it a spoof if it is being done by the same photographer and publication? I'm not really sure, but I appreciate that V.F. is able to poke fun at itself.
For more fun photos from this shoot and more of V.F.'s new legends of comedy, click here.
