what we do
- Started
- Last post
- 77 Responses
- jimbojones0
@gramme I agree with you that making things excellent (or at least to feel that the work you do is solid) is cool. It's really depressing though that we do it for ourselves in first place.
I once worked for a magazine as a freelancer, the font they used had all sorts of issues, ugly collisions, too big accents, no punctuation kerning etc. I fixed it all up (for free btw, the real gig was layout), showed the editor, who was a designer too. He said 95% of people won't notice it, and the 5% that would, probably don't read our mag.
- lukus_W0
jimbojones;
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that at the moment you're looking for too much from graphic design; it's a vocation where you can get away with choosing to excel if you decide to. There's enough to graphic design to keep most people satisfied and eager to keep improving.
The fact that the majority won't appreciate it is a moot point - we live in a world where the idiots are quite clearly winning. I reckon learning is reward enough sometimes. If you're not learning anything and your job's boring .. move on.
- transmission0
our ad agency once did a TV spot for us this after about 5 years after they developed our new brand and picked Futura as one of our house fonts. Our "brand manager" sent it to me to go over it the first thing i noticed was that they didn't use futura ( it was helvetica ) and I mentioned it to the "brand" manager and she said she hadn't even noticed! that's not the first time she's confused many sans-serif for futura.
It saddens me.
but really many faces these days are very similar in nature to each other. For designers they're like apples, you can taste the difference between a Golden Delicious and Granny Smith but to most it's an apple.
- Coffeemaker0
I AM FUCKING CRYING HERE!
- scarabin0
they're not going to be able to say "hey that's verdana", but in their feeble reptilian brains they're going to get an overall impression, and that impression is closer in line with how ikea wants to be seen.
not a huge change, granted, but who said it was
- Rand0
we did it for the lulz
- DrBombay0
I can't believe you started a new thread about a comment I made. I liked the Ikea catalogs the way they were. Futura looked better, but .01% of the consumers are going to realize it even changed was the point.
- Coffeemaker0
historians of design, professors in design will notice.
all for the lulz and bar talk...
- identity0
what have I been doing with my life? I need to re-evaluate my life's purpose... Janne, you need any help on the Sea Shepard?
- sorry, just finishing my potatoes and whale filet.. what were you referring to again?Coffeemaker
- Yushin Maru 2identity
- i see...Coffeemaker
- Just memorize that name - it will come in handy lateridentity
- 7point340
- OMG! my design-centric colleagues will eat this up at the local "grumpy designer" pub!identity
- enjoy7point34
- OH THE IRONY!!!Coffeemaker
- Coffeemaker0
Bloody Beastiality Corporation also known as the BBC uses Gill Sans as well...
- gramme0
I think you've made your point quite thoroughly jimbo, and I hear where you're coming from. For reasons I've mentioned above, I think it's still worthwhile to pay attention to details that no one may ever notice. If all else fails, I still go back to the idea of excellence—it's always worth the time to make things excellent, that is as long as one isn't being wasteful (which I think is a relative concept and means different things for different clients).
I agree with you that it's a designer's job to find affordable solutions for clients. On the topic of wastefulness and paying $1,400 for fonts, let me give you a bit more background on the project for my church. I had set the logotype in Mercury, which my former employer already had in their font library. I too thought that $1,400 for fonts was pricey for a church, so instead I proposed Glosa by Dino Dos Santos. Glosa is a great family of display and text fonts, with similar design qualities to Mercury. The price tag of $500 seemed much more reasonable for a church of their size.
But when I told them the logotype was set in Mercury, they asked how much it would cost to use that family instead of Glosa. I said "$1,400", and a couple of them scratched their heads. Then one elder asked "is that a recurring fee or a one-time expense?" I replied, "once and for all". His response was "well, if we only have to pay for it once, and it's something that's perfectly harmonious with our logo, and our publications staff can use the fonts, then what are we waiting for? Let's do it." Several other people in the room nodded or murmured their approval. I was shocked, but they clearly though it was worth the expense.
I hear what you're saying about church branding. I think many churches overdo it. Whether we overdid it here in this case, I'm not sure. You're entitled to draw your own conclusions. My only goal was to make something timeless and appropriate, that wouldn't need to be replaced for a long time.
- And also, what johndiggity said.gramme
- linky to the church thingy?jimbojones
- 3rd client on my websitey.gramme
- ah that, yeah I like the mark and most of the rest. didn't like this: http://imgur.com/owu… And your navigation is tiresome although goodlooking...jimbojones
- tiresome although goodlooking... I never got why any design manual would contain guidlines on building the logo, just hand over the .eps ffs... General ranting.jimbojones
- the logo, just hand over the .eps ffs... General ranting.jimbojones
- —Because it was been handed to some sweet but dense in-house people who don't know ass from elbow.gramme
- With the old logo, they routinely changed colors, fiddled with the icon, etc.gramme
- They needed explicit instructions in writing to show that the wordmark is an inherent part of the logo...gramme
- —and is not supposed to be messed with in any way. Believe me, if anyone were to mess with their logo, it would be these people.gramme
- these people.gramme
- janne760
that is truly sad, Rand. people can be so evil. :'(
- jimbojones0
@gramme, regarding badly drawn Arial, people don't notice such things. It took me years to see what good type is. Even designers (I don't even mean the folks with cracked Photoshop, but people who received design education of some sort) pick badly drawn typefaces all the time, 90% of what Smashing Magazine delivers is amateurish crap and still people go oohh and aaahh.
And then there are faces that were drawn badly for a reason, applying certain aesthetic standards to say.. OurType Parry would make a pretty badly drawn face. I think it's fantastic for what it is, a fun quirky text face. Same goes for Dolly, not a single straight line, is that even allowed?
So I would puke if I had to layout a magazine using Times, but I can't say this face is ugly, or illegible or what would be my argument to replace it with Albertina or something? And people would not notice the change. Is it all just for my own satisfaction? Then the cliche of self-centered bullshit-telling overhyped desingers is perfectly true.
- So why even bother? I ask because it seems you really enjoy typography.gramme
- that is the question that bothers ME, is it all just for me alone, this can't be itjimbojones
- what's wrong with well-tracked Times? (serious question)identity
- it only works in tight columns. the digital version is too sharp, too much contrast.jimbojones
- set0
I thought the qbnz was broke for a second there
- morilla0
The only people who care are designers. End of discussion.
- no, it's the start you fucktard; the question was why we care and if we shouldjimbojones
- take it easy, wow.DrBombay
- life is short Jimboborino, settle down and dont take yourself so serious.morilla
- come on, I just like to curse on the interwebs. you cunt.jimbojones
- cock. balls.identity
- erikjonsson0
what is this meta discussion
- dropdown0
Children don't know to not eat paste, but parents know it's for their own good.