Where the design community meets.
Sydney, Australia Freelance Graphic Designer + Developer Joined over 5 years ago
Here's a discussion we had about 8 months ago. Pretty much exactly the same situation as now, except they removed the downvotes. Which was a mistake in my eyes.
Last that point is really pertinent. There isn't an incentive there anymore unfortunately. Which is understandable, but no less a shame.
It's the PC silicon valley thinking that try's not to offend anyone, appeal to everyone (as if anything we as designers create don't have target markets) and come off incredibly generic, virtue signaling and preachy.
This is ridiculous. What does Political Correctness have to do with this at all? You're just trying to "virtue signal" yourself to show how much of a contrarian you think you are. Any valid objection you may have just gets lost in the nonsense catchwords you decided to dress them up in. Sure the articles tone is a bit preachy and generic, but it's point definitely isn't wrong.
Your point on target markets is absolutely correct, designers work on projects that have target markets/messages/customers etc... But that doesn't mean that the people doing that work are actually focused on that. Its not uncommon to fall into the trap of forgetting that your managers, bosses and team members aren't the target user. Some people really do need reminding of this.
From my experience, a lot designers do need reminding. Whether a slightly twee post on a blog is going to be the thing that does it is definitely questionable, but its point is not entirely off the mark.
A lot of people I have worked with — and myself for that matter — have fallen into the trap. Instead of actually focussing on what we're making and who will be using it, I started to worry more about what my bosses and managers were asking whether it was good for users/customers/readers.
It's great that you don't need this advice, and know a lot of people who also don't but there are definitely others who do,
This account should have been deleted weeks ago. I know of at least two other posts they have made in the last week or so that have been reported and removed. It's only spam.
Fair points all round.
I wouldn't dare advise someone do this work for a for-profit business. They can and must pay for the work.
Generally my view is doing pro-bono for smaller not-for-profits is a good thing. Particularly if they are a local one, helping your immediate community. Things like helping a local charity on improving their donation forms or call to actions on their site. Those are the kind of tasks that a junior can see through to completion that would have large impacts on the orgs they are helping, whilst giving them first hand experience of working with people on projects. These are the kind of organisations and tasks my comments for juniors was more focused on.
With bigger organisations, that can and should change. One thing a lot of people don't realise is that many larger not-for-profits often have budgets for this exact purpose. In saying that, the requirements change rather dramatically as well. I wouldn't suggest Juniors take this kind of work on. It can get pretty specialised.
No ones saying it not allowed. Just that perhaps there are better ways to spend the time. Whether someone wants to take that advice is up to them.
Everyone has probably done something similar in their career. I used to try and copy Carson, Sagmeister and Vignelli. The quality never got close, but it did help learn the tools. However in hind sight, whether it was an ideal way to do so, I'm not so sure.
Even though I'm personally not a fan of unsolicited redesigns, everyone is free to do them. Or not. It's their choice. But it's worth knowing there are other worthwhile alternatives.
And for what it's worth, I'd also argue that our industry is plagued by people who don't take it seriously enough.
I've been thinking about this point a bit since reading the article. I also think part of it has to do with the culture surrounding the technology.
I think Flash naturally leant itself to more creative work, not because of the tech or functionality it had, but because of the ecosystem that surrounded it.
I remember picking it up and playing with it a bit just after I left High School. Like many teenagers 15-16 years ago, it was probably a pirated copy. At the time virtually every tutorial available for flash focused on animation and building games. If you wanted to learn the tool, you were naturally guided in that direction.
I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that direction was influenced by the huge surge of teenage/adolescent users getting online at that time and being set loose. Flash had a GUI which made it easy for someone to get something, no matter how primitive, working. Drawing a circle, and then seeing it move from left to right by just clicking a few buttons, was a lot more engaging than trying to write markup just to see a static heading or image on a page. Naturally the next step would be to try and build more complex interactive things. Particularly since the internet at the time, was pretty technologically immature.
With HTML and JS, particularly since browser standards became more consistent, most of the learning material surrounding them were focused on being more pragmatic. The goal of HTML and later Canvas was mostly to build websites and web apps, rather than richer interactive experiences.
It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people learning those tools were/are doing so to use them professionally. I know most tutorials I've ever seen for HTML and JS usually aim to accomplish some thing that — particularly when compared to the Flash tutorials — is pretty dry or boring.
On that point, does anyone know any great learning resources or classes for using HTML and Canvas for more of this interactive work?
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.