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.

Comments

[Bert Vanderveen]

When I got my first Mac (1989), I was doing layouts for an agency that had their own typesetting equipment (Linotype 300), but no Macs. I'd do the design in Quark (version 2!) & then trace it on markerpaper, simulating the bodytype with a broad grey marker. Stuck that on board, added an overlay with all of the t/s instructions and presto!
The client always complimented me on the accuracy of my design: the type always fitted…
Those were the days.

[Richard]

Takes me back Bert. We had an image setter (might have been the 300) inhouse. I can remember spilling coffee over a whole pile of artwork but it was OK 'cause I hid it behind a desk, re-ran it all out and re-mounted it all. No one noticed.

We started on Mac SE's with "Megascreens" attached. Everything in black and white and not a layer in sight. Had no idea what we were doing. Horizontally scalling type 'til the cows came home. If I caught someone doing that now it would send me nuts.

[Ben]

Good tip.

[Ben H]

This is a good point. Thanks.

The rough also makes the client use their imagination.

[John C]

Heh, I worked this one out instinctively, having gone from being an illustrator who was always having to produce pencil roughs beforehand to doing more design-oriented work. I still sketch out ideas to show clients even though I rarely sketch anything for myself, preferring to work things out as I go along.

The "use your imagination" point is the key here, I reckon. The brain seems to like having a gap it has to fill and the sketch provides this. If everything looks too finished but isn't quite "there" yet, it's difficult for people to make that little leap of imagination to see how it could or would be better.

[André Breda]

I agree, but there are still people out there that think the exact opposite. The problem is, when a client sees the "polished" rough, he thinks it's how the final product will look like, therefore limiting your creativity from the start.

[Kevin Cannon]

I wonder whether that approach can be applied to web design. Hrmmm.

[Richard]

That depends Keith. If it's a big "idea", like Miranda's site -
http://noonebelongsheremorethanyou.com/
- then yes, definitiely. If it's a more conventional site, perhaps not. It's really good when you're presenting a "big idea" and not so good when your presenting a "design".

[littlechild]

I agree