33 of 365 - Desired line design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
33 of 365 – Desired line design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
Desire lines are a development tool that a designer can use from the way that people actually interact with an interface, space, or object before finalizing features, paths, or navigation. It is often used in designing walking paths in a new space to help determine the best place to put a paved path. It is also used in interface design for software and industrial design for tools and other objects, but can be applied in lots of situations.
In this illustration, I made thin lines indicating paths (desire lines) that people used to get from one place to another in a space, and wider pathways reacting to the desired lines that most people chose that might be paved and formalized.
Tame The Web logo rev4 by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
Tame The Web logo workspace by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
Here is a final image of the workspace that I used to create the new Tame the Web (TTW) logo using Inkscape, with the help of Michael Stephens. Michael has been the heart of TTW since its inception, and wanted to have a logo to present his organization to a larger audience. He reached out on Facebook (where I get most of my work) and asked about logos on his page. He got some feedback, and in the process, Lori Reed decided to tag me, and I responded that I’d love to be involved in the logo if possible, and that I’d work for free. Michael contacted me and we began. I asked him to fill out the design brief on this site (it’s in the menu above) and when I got the response, I did this.
Tame The Web logo revision 0 by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
I tend to start logo work with the fonts. In this particular case, I used some of the information from the design brief to create a possible logo. In the brief, Michael talked about the past branding work that he had done and what had been present. He wrote that a heart symbol had always been a constant in identifying TTW. He also shared a palette, some quotes, and some clarifications in order for us to work through the logo. Michael understands brand. When he saw the image above, he said that the logo I proposed was beautiful, but that it was not the right feel. He said that it had a certain old-timey feel to it, and that he was looking for something a bit more contemporary. I understood, and decided to focus on fonts, as I usually do. He told me he liked a few of the fonts in the first submission, and I decided to focus on those.
Tame The Web logo rev1 by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
In this revision, I took the fonts that Michael liked and tried a few subtle differences, including the pipe between elements,. the kerning, and the imagery. I never thought the whip would go very far. 🙂 I sent them to him, and he said that he loved the curve in the line, but that straight spoke to him more. He also liked the tighter kerning in some of the versions. He liked the horizontal version as well.
Tame The Web logo rev2 by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
After he gave me feedback I focused just on the elements and kerning that he liked, and decided to incorporate the palette he had suggested, with deep blues. I grabbed one of my favorite deep blue palettes, and applied the colors to the elements. I sent it back.
Tame The Web logo rev3 by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
But there was still the issue of the missing heart. I decided to play a bit with text and image to introduce hearts, which Michael enjoyed. We agreed that the solid blue heart worked best, and worked best ahead of the title.
Tame The Web logo rev4 by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
Here are the final two versions of the logo, one horizontally aligned, and one block sized. I absolutely loved the opportunity, and I’m so grateful to work with someone like Michael. Even though I always have great, creative, and interesting clients, Michael was a standout.
31 of 365 - Design by committee design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
31 of 365 – Design by committee design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
There are times where design is best accomplished by a single, monolithic voice (design by dictator) and other times when it is best done by committee. In cases where stakeholder buy in is not necessary, the design parameters are exceptionally clear, or the scope and timing of the design are narrow, design by dictator may work perfectly. In many other cases however, design is best done by collecting representatives of diverse backgrounds, stakeholder representation, and critical thinking. The design by committee process often takes more time, is often a compromise of many views, and can be frustrating comparative to a single voice, but it often leads to a design that is of higher value to more people. Design by in-group, in which the committee is composed of only like-minded people, can be just as disappointing to a larger audience as design by dictator.
I decided to do an abstract color study illustration of the potential beauty of design by committee, many voices coming together in a reasonable fashion. Meanwhile, I did the design without advice from others. Irony?
30 of 365 - Depth of Processing design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
30 of 365 – Depth of Processing design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
Depth of Processing is a design theory in which it is believed that when information is analyzed more deeply, the information is more likely to be retained. Instruction sheets that are more complex and analytical are more likely to retained than more superficial ones.
In this illustration, I wanted to do some wireframes of a learning object, showing an increasing likelihood of information retention due to the more analytical thinking required to process it.
29 of 365 - Defensible space design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
29 of 365 – Defensible space design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com
Defensible space is a theory about the way that spaces (often collective residences) are arranged considering the environmental variables like Territoriality, Surveillance, and Symbolic Barriers. It is generally applied to environments for reducing crimes. Territoriality is marking a space as an owned and maintained space, such as sign on a door or a gate marker. Surveillance is adding elements that increase awareness or foot traffic, such as seating areas and lighting. Symbolic Barriers are elements that show care and ownership for the space, such as flowers or organization.
I decided to illustrate a basic infographic to show some of these elements.
“As defined in Newman’s book Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space, defensible space is “a residential environment whose physical characteristics—building layout and site plan—function to allow inhabitants themselves to become key agents in ensuring their security.” He goes on to explain that a housing development is only defensible if residents intend to adopt this role, which is defined by good design: “Defensible space therefore is a sociophysical phenomenon,” says Newman. Both society and physical elements are parts of a successful defensible space.” ~ Defensible space theory – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – http://goo.gl/yvahq
Cost-Benefit Analysis study: a font mashup between Gill Sans and Scriptina Pro
Cost-Benefit study: a font mashup between Gill Sans and Scriptina Pro
Cost-Benefit as a design principle talks about the tension between the cost of the user’s time, effort, and other resources versus the benefit to that same users. If the perceived cost of a user exceeds their perceived benefit, the user will stop the use of the design. If the value of the benefit exceeds the perceived costs, the user will sustain their use, despite sensing the cost. If a user has to wait too long to get their food at a restaurant, they might get up and leave, despite the fact that they lost time and effort in the process of waiting until that point, and that they will need to find some other way to get the food. If that same diner had waited for weeks for the reservation to open, or had some other perceived valuable benefit to staying despite the wait, they will do so.
I decided to illustrate the concept of Cost-Benefit by considering the costs and benefits of using an interesting but complex font. I was given the idea by Melissa Brisbin, who after hearing the explanation of cost-benefit in design, suggested the creation of a font that was elegant and beautiful (benefit), but not especially legible (cost). I decided to match up the major points of each character between two of my favorite fonts: Gill Sans and Scriptina Pro. I’m pretty sure I’m supposed to hate both, as a sensible designer, but I can’t. I just love their lines and forms too much.
If the user finds the font more valuable for its interestingness than its legibility, the user might find a way to use it, despite difficult reading. If the user was looking for a font for a paragraph of text, they might dismiss the font as too difficult to read at that size, despite the potential for beauty or interestingness. Special thanks to Melissa Brisbin for the inspiration for today’s sketch.
Fonts on the Brain – Leaver’s Hoodies