Sunday, January 31, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Article Response
How Apple Is Giving Design A Bad Name by Don Norman and Bruce Tognazzini
In the article the authors continually, and a little repetitively, focus on the switch that has happened within the Apple culture that went from user friendly over aesthetics of the product to the inverse. I don't know how true that is necessarily. Personally, many of the issues that they raise regarding key features that are not easy to figure out with out a manual are quite bothering and annoying. It took me ages to figure out that different combinations of fingers and direction obtained very different results.
However, the authors mention the tradition that Apple had before Jobs' return in the mid 90's and before the advent of iPhones and they praise the ease of use of their products at the time. I do believe this is true and many of their earlier products allowed for a whole generation to learn how to relate to screens and computing, but I believe one of the main issues their are having with their design direction these days has more to do with the complexity of the tasks we are asking our devices to perform. Yes, maybe Apple is limiting itself too much by insisting on a single button (home buttom) to carry out to many different, and maybe not enough, tasks. Yes, Apple could get off it's high horse and write a manual (something else to beautifully design).
All of the points brought up in the article are valid and Apple should take note and try to improve them. In the never ending debate over Mac vs PC, we will continue to see these types of arguments coming from both sides. Mac and PC are both flawed and will always have room for improvement.
At times I find this duality to be childish, like fighting over favorite sports teams or favorite actors, but if the two sides can maintain a healthy competition, us as users will only benefit from quicker advancement in the technological wonders they have to offer.
In the article the authors continually, and a little repetitively, focus on the switch that has happened within the Apple culture that went from user friendly over aesthetics of the product to the inverse. I don't know how true that is necessarily. Personally, many of the issues that they raise regarding key features that are not easy to figure out with out a manual are quite bothering and annoying. It took me ages to figure out that different combinations of fingers and direction obtained very different results.
However, the authors mention the tradition that Apple had before Jobs' return in the mid 90's and before the advent of iPhones and they praise the ease of use of their products at the time. I do believe this is true and many of their earlier products allowed for a whole generation to learn how to relate to screens and computing, but I believe one of the main issues their are having with their design direction these days has more to do with the complexity of the tasks we are asking our devices to perform. Yes, maybe Apple is limiting itself too much by insisting on a single button (home buttom) to carry out to many different, and maybe not enough, tasks. Yes, Apple could get off it's high horse and write a manual (something else to beautifully design).
All of the points brought up in the article are valid and Apple should take note and try to improve them. In the never ending debate over Mac vs PC, we will continue to see these types of arguments coming from both sides. Mac and PC are both flawed and will always have room for improvement.
At times I find this duality to be childish, like fighting over favorite sports teams or favorite actors, but if the two sides can maintain a healthy competition, us as users will only benefit from quicker advancement in the technological wonders they have to offer.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Article Response
Web Design is 95% Typography by iA
I like in the opening paragraphs the author tackles the some of the misconception of typography. The selection of a typeface is important and should reflect some of the values, styles and principles of a project, but ultimately there are very few instances where the typeface choice is the real star. I would compare the selection of a typeface to the job of a parent. A person that truly cares about their child can set up all the best opportunities in the world for them, but if the child is pushed to do things the correct way within those opportunities, he still runs the risk of failure. Sending a problem child to a private high school will not necessarily solve every problem just like finding the best typeface combination will not save your webpage from disaster.
For the rest, the article is a great resource of the technical side of type and webdesign.
I like in the opening paragraphs the author tackles the some of the misconception of typography. The selection of a typeface is important and should reflect some of the values, styles and principles of a project, but ultimately there are very few instances where the typeface choice is the real star. I would compare the selection of a typeface to the job of a parent. A person that truly cares about their child can set up all the best opportunities in the world for them, but if the child is pushed to do things the correct way within those opportunities, he still runs the risk of failure. Sending a problem child to a private high school will not necessarily solve every problem just like finding the best typeface combination will not save your webpage from disaster.
For the rest, the article is a great resource of the technical side of type and webdesign.
Response to Articles
What Screens Want by Frank Chimero
Before reading the Chimero article I had an idea of the opposing ideas of Flat design and, what he refers to as, Skeuo. He says that any sensible designer would fall somewhere in the middle of the two and that both camps are incorrect in their approach, as their are both aesthetic in nature. I would agree with the need of finding a middle ground and not simply putting the aesthetic value of either above the other, but I think he somewhat glosses over the fact that flat design might be more effective in it’s reproducibility.
Flat design has the advantage of using smaller file sizes and adds a cleanliness and order to the screen, allowing for the same shapes to be reproduces at any size. When it comes to file size, flat design is often easily describable by few vector points, lines and shapes that allow for quicker processing. Sometimes the difference may be minimal between a Flat rendition as opposed to a Skeuo one, but all the elements of a website add up and can cause sites to run slowly for those who do not have the most up to date technology. Cleaner lines and shapes also allows for more manageable motion graphics as well.
When it comes to production, we can see that a Flat and clean design allows for an easier reproduction. This can be seen within typeface design in the past century. The advent of sans serif may have come in part because of aesthetic preferences, but it ultimately has conquered within an industrial setting. Helvetica, Univers and many other sans serifs are simply easier to reproduce thanks to their simple structure. For awhile I worked in graphic production creating vinyl cuts for all kinds of projects and without a doubt sans serifs, but also the more simple serif typefaces, made for an easier an cleaner reproductions at any size.
Another important point in the essay, is when Chimero mentions the importance of having universal names to describe motions within interactive and motion graphics. Often when collaborating in these types of projects I have come to a point where I could only describe a certain motion with geometrical terms, perhaps describing the the radius on which it spins a certain amount of degrees. This works well sometimes for simple motions that ultimately have to be express in a mathematical form within After Effects, but sometimes I can only resort to sketching out the various steps or hope to find two or three similar examples of a given motion on that may exist on the internet.
What The New York Times Web Reboot Gets Right by Rob Tannen
The change from a multiple page spanning article to a single page is a fantastic change in my opinion. For one it allows me to avoid loading times. I cannot stand, and I assume more and more people as well, the never ending gallery of images, articles, essays, blogs, etc. displayed on separate pages. This is a trick that may have worked in the past to get you ad revenue up, but I think intelligent users of the internet will increasingly shy away from these types of websites. Secondly I believe it gives the paper more credibility. Not that it will validate any of the sources or fact check the journalist efforts, but it will ultimately give the reader a better sense of what the paper’s intents are. Yes, they have a bottom line to meet, but users value the functionality of a website if it helps in their experience. Readers will find the New York Times to be trustworthy simply because they are not attempting to trick you like the other multiple page websites. Also, in my experience on the web, it seems like the website that are looking for the highest amount of clicks, often have the weakest of content. A look at any top 20 images of memes or albums of the month will show that some web developer are able to string a single paragraph of information into 3 or 4 pages by displaying a single sentence as the caption to an image. Sometimes they are effective because users want to find out what the top album of 2015 was and will click through all the pages, but many will be offended by this layout of information, since it could easily been displayed with a simple grocery list.
Before reading the Chimero article I had an idea of the opposing ideas of Flat design and, what he refers to as, Skeuo. He says that any sensible designer would fall somewhere in the middle of the two and that both camps are incorrect in their approach, as their are both aesthetic in nature. I would agree with the need of finding a middle ground and not simply putting the aesthetic value of either above the other, but I think he somewhat glosses over the fact that flat design might be more effective in it’s reproducibility.
Flat design has the advantage of using smaller file sizes and adds a cleanliness and order to the screen, allowing for the same shapes to be reproduces at any size. When it comes to file size, flat design is often easily describable by few vector points, lines and shapes that allow for quicker processing. Sometimes the difference may be minimal between a Flat rendition as opposed to a Skeuo one, but all the elements of a website add up and can cause sites to run slowly for those who do not have the most up to date technology. Cleaner lines and shapes also allows for more manageable motion graphics as well.
When it comes to production, we can see that a Flat and clean design allows for an easier reproduction. This can be seen within typeface design in the past century. The advent of sans serif may have come in part because of aesthetic preferences, but it ultimately has conquered within an industrial setting. Helvetica, Univers and many other sans serifs are simply easier to reproduce thanks to their simple structure. For awhile I worked in graphic production creating vinyl cuts for all kinds of projects and without a doubt sans serifs, but also the more simple serif typefaces, made for an easier an cleaner reproductions at any size.
Another important point in the essay, is when Chimero mentions the importance of having universal names to describe motions within interactive and motion graphics. Often when collaborating in these types of projects I have come to a point where I could only describe a certain motion with geometrical terms, perhaps describing the the radius on which it spins a certain amount of degrees. This works well sometimes for simple motions that ultimately have to be express in a mathematical form within After Effects, but sometimes I can only resort to sketching out the various steps or hope to find two or three similar examples of a given motion on that may exist on the internet.
What The New York Times Web Reboot Gets Right by Rob Tannen
The change from a multiple page spanning article to a single page is a fantastic change in my opinion. For one it allows me to avoid loading times. I cannot stand, and I assume more and more people as well, the never ending gallery of images, articles, essays, blogs, etc. displayed on separate pages. This is a trick that may have worked in the past to get you ad revenue up, but I think intelligent users of the internet will increasingly shy away from these types of websites. Secondly I believe it gives the paper more credibility. Not that it will validate any of the sources or fact check the journalist efforts, but it will ultimately give the reader a better sense of what the paper’s intents are. Yes, they have a bottom line to meet, but users value the functionality of a website if it helps in their experience. Readers will find the New York Times to be trustworthy simply because they are not attempting to trick you like the other multiple page websites. Also, in my experience on the web, it seems like the website that are looking for the highest amount of clicks, often have the weakest of content. A look at any top 20 images of memes or albums of the month will show that some web developer are able to string a single paragraph of information into 3 or 4 pages by displaying a single sentence as the caption to an image. Sometimes they are effective because users want to find out what the top album of 2015 was and will click through all the pages, but many will be offended by this layout of information, since it could easily been displayed with a simple grocery list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)