Sins and Virtues of Graphic Design

[hybrid56k]

Hi everyone not sure if this is the correct forum for this but here goes. I am in university studying graphic design, we have just been given a new brief to design a 20 page booklet on the Sins/Virtues of graphic design. I am really lost on where to start and was hoping that I could get some ideas on what you all consider the sins/virtues to be. This project has me really worried so I would appreciate all the help I can get.

Kind Regards
Allan

[Harry]

Biggest sin of all: Comic Sans. Lol. I'm afraid I don't have any more serious answers. Someone will though.

[D856C]

One sin of graphic design, depending on your point of view, is eye candy gloss over substance. Very few graphic designers know, or seem to care to know, about information graphics (infographics), visual display of information, or users.

Rather bizarrely, they contend that whatever follows this week's fashion trend meets whatever user objective you care to name. This refusal to take responsibility for the effect on users devolves graphic design to the shallowest of artistic whim. Heck, even many artists think of it as their duty to get the viewer to think. Quite the opposite of what's become popular in graphic design.

This could do well as the "seven deadly sins" kind of thing. In an information age -- if that's what you purport we're living in -- the chief sins is superficial fluff.

Maybe redesigning for the sake of redesigning is not enough: to communicate visually one must first have something to communicate about. Or maybe too many design schools are teaching students how to imitate successful styles instead of how to communicate visually.
…Many sites submitted had no concern for the user on the most basic levels. Rarely could you identify an idea or purpose behind the site, or name a possible user goal the site was intended to facilitate. There was no flow, no legibility, no usability. It wasn’t so much that the designers had contempt for their users as that they seemed never to have been taught to think about users at all.

—Jeffrey Zeldman; The rebooter’s children go rebootless; 23 June 2005 11 am edt

You can use plenty of evidence from very damning sources like Zeldman to make a provocative and persuasive point. (FYI: Teachers -- the good ones -- like this)

For the other six deadly sins, or whatever number you decide to go with, check out this article. Check out the article by Andy Rutledge Logo Misapplication.


For authenticity, you're talking about infographics on the information design side and authenticity on the advertising side.

Infographics should be as obvious as the color red to graphic designers -- it's anything but. Most see infographics as "charticals" and superficial graphic treatments of subjects when reading is deemed too difficult. USA Today infographics are typically what is thought of, and as far away from information graphics as you can get.

Advertising and authenticity are blithely spoken of by graphic artists who haven't got a clue. The hallmark of this is the de facto web standard of stock photography of a glass-clad futuristic office building the company doesn't have an office in .....populated by fashion models dressed like employees the company doesn't have.

This is so ubiquitous a practice, people are at a loss for any alternative and blind to the vulnerability to counter advertising tactics like authenticity.

The advertising of Innocent Drinks and the "Wendy the Snapple Lady" campaign contrast the superficial generic fluff. Even a student with meager skills will be able to turn up research that Snapple fortunes were good during the Wendy campaign, and suffered when they dropped that approach for grim corporate pablum. And ,when they went back to a "real people" approach, bottom-line results improved.

One stellar example is the Dove "real beauty" campaign. Unlike almost every other aspect of graphic design, this was a genuine choice of aesthetic. Not the default, phony choice of whether to use the blond supermodel or the brunette supermodel or the false choice of whether this week's PhotoShop gimmick should be in blue, red, orange or green. One reason to use this is the bottom-line results: Sales spiked.

[heatherink]

Sin: you can never get projects fully out of your mind.

Virtue: design is all around us, there's inspiration around every corner.

[hybrid56k]

This is what my brief says.

Using your experience so far, list your own seven deadly design sins and seven heavenly design virtues. Use each of those as a page design in a book. The book will need a cover and can be either sixteen or twenty pages long, depending on how you lay it out, if you have a contents page, a seperater page or whatever. The size of the page has to be 230 x 160 landscape i.e. it is bound on the short edge - the reason for this will become apparent.

The book has to have a title, and it needs to be 230 x 160 landscape

The sins/virtues can be as serious or as playful as you like.

Each sin/virtue has its own page and design, use illustration, photography, type for the design - the components are up to you.

The book can be bound using a comb binder.

[strev]

BIG SIN: working for free

[Andy1982]

BIG SIN: working for free

What if its for Charity which is something I have done recently?

[strev]

What if its for Charity which is something I have done recently?

I do charity work every year and so should everyone! (Sorry Andy, I forgot about that)

[Andy1982]

I do charity work every year and so should everyone! (Sorry Andy, I forgot about that)

Its not a huge amount I do graphically, but what I do is rewarding a sense. I've helped pack two shipping containers full of medical equipment this year, and knowing that it is going to a country truely in need makes it rewarding.

So yes, everyone should do charity work, even if its not in a design capacity.

[hybrid56k]

anybody know how I keep this thread going it seems to have stopped having input.