Ace Jet 170

Uncommon knowledge: 007

I haven't done one of these for ages (perhaps for good reason) but then this one just popped into my head so I thought I'd share it. I've been thinking about universal rules and how certain principles can work for all sorts of graphic design stuff and I think this is one of them.

(Yes, there's probably exceptions, but then there usually are with rules.)

I've heard and read this expressly applied to advertising but I think it can work for almost anything, like the student magazine I'm working on (hence simple headline with photo of hamster). It's a basic principle, at times ignored: creative heading with creative image - idea overload; "straight" heading with "straight" image - idea underload*.

So: Really interesting image goes with simple words; Oh so clever copy line with straight forward picture; Si Scott typography over...er...nothing probably; that kind of thing. But you probably knew all that.

* Not sure if that's a word.

Uncommon Knowledge: 006

Most of what I know about what I do has come from books I've read, as opposed to being taught formally. Over the years I've noticed that the things that I've learned fall into one of two categories: The first being stuff that I didn't know and was subsequently able to apply in some practical way; the second being confirmation that at least some of the techniques that I've managed to work out for myself or with colleagues were actually correct and worthwhile.

This "Rule" falls very much into the latter category; the reassurance coming straight out of the Paul Arden book that my brother-in-law bought me one christmas. Now I'm not saying this approach is always appropriate but, as I'll try to explain, sometimes it's just right.

Like many of our contemporaries, we kind of fell in love with the Mac when it first appeared in the studio all those years ago. It allowed us to realise our ideas so quickly and output highly finished visuals. Our clients, in turn, loved our visuals, we'd taken all the guess work away. No more marker visuals, no more ambiguity; what we showed them was what they were going to get.

But as time went by the nature of our work shifted from pure design/style-lead to marketing-focused/ideas-lead design and we started to realise that we were having to labour for hours, sometimes days, to get our ideas to look just right on the Mac. On top of the problem of the sheer man-hours involved, our new clients could and often would reject concepts in seconds; the effort:results ratio was way out of kilter.

So we literally went back to the drawing board, employing some brilliant "old school" visualisers to hand render, often intentionally roughly, our concepts. And a few great things happened: the visuals took a fraction of the time to render; we were able to explore more creative routes (meaning "more" as in a greater variety and "more creative" as in more adventurous); and our clients focused solely on our ideas, didn't get hung up on details and almost invariably approved a concept.

Uncommon Knowledge: 005

A very small one to start the week and it's only good for some people:

I'd been working for years, really years, before this occured to me. I don't know anyone else who does it but on a purely practical, everyday level, it's dead useful. It's also so bleedin' obvious...

Incidentally, I've tried something with this entry. Someone told me to include a microscopic bit of code along with the text from the card so you get that if you don't want/can't get the image. Don't know if I've done it right though so if anyone can tell, please let me know.

P.S. Thanks to Alistair for proof reading this entry.

Uncommon Knowledge: 004

This is a small one but I was reminded of it today when a friend asked me to cast my eyes over some ad layouts he was working on.

Unless you're doing it for a specific effect or are referencing an historic style like these:

it has a tendency to look just plain boring. These, of course, look stunning.

Uncommon Knowledge: 003

This one should be common knowledge and in a way I feel like I'm stating the obvious. But then I'm also aware that many designers still don't do this, so for what it's worth, here goes...

You see, whether we like it or not, most designers are accidental typesetters. Few of us ever set out to be typesetters, but we find ourselves in a time when as part of our daily work we're knocking out text on our Macs. It can be a big part of our day.

Problem is, lots of us are still doing just that, knocking it out. What do we know about the details of good typography/typesetting? In the old days (ah, the old days...cow gum for goal posts...) we had typesetters to take care of the details for us, details like this:

Of course, if you're from the US you might have a liking for the em-rule, but that's another story.

If you want to find out more about doing it the right way, buy a copy of Hart's Rules or Copy-editing, or both!

This kind of stuff reminds me of the Fletcher quote, "You can only muck about with language if you know what you're doing. Otherwise you're just being sloppy". I think the same goes for typography.

Uncommon Knowledge: 002

Now I don't know if anyone reading this is familiar with James Webb-Young's little book, perhaps lots of you know it. For that matter I don't know whether the technique he describes is taught in college. I didn't discover the book until I'd been working for years, which is a shame because it's ace. And here's the fundamental principle around which he presents his technique:

JWY goes on to suggest a system for collecting and ordering the stuff you collect. I found adopting it, a) encouraged a more systematic and varied collection, and b) keeps it all together so it's easier to find later. His Technique for Producing Ideas goes further and has proved invaluable.

The combinations thing goes for everything we do: On one level we combine colours with shapes and typefaces and words, and end up with logos. On another level we take an airmail letter and the idea of love songs and think about love letters, and end up with things like this, despite who the client is.

Uncommon Knowledge: 001

Update: Looking back at this I've made it sound like a cure-all, which it isn't - perhaps I've been a tad flippant. But hey, the beauty of the blog is that I can pop back in and fiddle about a bit more, so here goes:

This has worked for me many times, when I'm working on a simple, usually asymmetric* layout. Bold text, simple graphics. Very much in the Constructivist or Swiss styles, or epitomised by the likes of Matter, Zwart, Muller-Brockman. The angle has a tendency to suggest movement, upward in this case, while the horizontal can feel too stable when drama/dynamism is required. Think Suprematist paintings like this more specifically stuff like this or this. Or this.

Is that any better?

* Actually, I really only ever do asymmetric, but that's another story.

Uncommon Knowledge: Intro

I've had an idea for something new. I've mulled it over, bounced it off a colleague or two and I think it might, just might, be a goer.

You see, every know and then I get the urge to impart knowledge that I've accumulated on others, usually younger designers. OK, sometimes it's reminisciences about PMT cameras and Rotring pens, but sometimes, very occasionally, it's something that might actually prove useful. Usually, it's stuff that I wish I'd known when I was at their stage of life/career.

It might be something very small, like The En-rule Rule, or it might be something big, like The Dead Designer Rule. Whatever it is, I give it in good faith and in the geniune hope that it proves useful.

So here we are then: introducing a new Ace Jet series: Uncommon Knowledge, a bit snappier than my original title (but which might serve as a suitable sub-heading), Stuff I wish I'd known much, much earlier in my career.

Perhaps it'll prove to be a very short series or perhaps I'll just be telling you things you already know but I'm going to give it a whirl and see how it goes. Let me know what you think.

And I'm going to use John Blyberg's brilliant Card Generator to present the ideas. That way, they'll at least look nice.