The second rough design is nowhere near finished (as you can tell), but I thought it would be worth the upload just to give an idea of where I am going with it.
When i first created this i really liked it. Unfortunatly however, after looking back on it over the next few days i realised that it was probably too load, too bright and a bit of a photoshop disaster.
After disliking the previous site design because of its load nature and potentially, slightly 'childish' design i went for something a bit more formal. Unlike the previous design i still really like this. However i don't think it is best suited as a way of advertising myself as an interactive media artist. I believe that it verges a bit too close to being a 'generic' or 'typical' website layout, and as such i don't think it reflects the best of my creative ability. I will however contemplate using it either as the basis of a client project in the future, or purely as an example to show clients to see what sort of thing they're after.
At present i am really happy with this design. I think it is well balanced in all considered areas of design, from my POV atleast. I have put the image online at 'http://edsonweb.co.uk/vector/' to see how it looks on the internet. Still deciding upon what background to have etc.
Potential new, slightly Web 2.0 style front page:
Dan Saffer Interview
Looking at this interview had a bit of a disrupted start (the link from the lecture didn’t work!). But after that it got interesting.
This designer clearly knows what he is on about, and is very intellectual. The points from this interview that interested me the most were:
· Knowing the medium
· User-input
· Applied art
· Newbie mistakes
Knowing the medium, in his words, were to explain how you can only do good design, if you are aware of the surrounding design and competition. He also says that we should consider physical design as much of a parallel as digital, and I have to agree. I can’t say that I have ever really thought about it in this way, but after seeing it written down it has become evidently true. Some of the best digital designs you see today have something to do with a physical design form, be it street art or architecture, many of these styles and principles are copied and inspirational to a lot of digital works.
User-input, Saffer believes, can add great quality to a design. After all, they know their business much better than you do, and putting as much user-input into design as possible gives a piece a much higher chance of approval from a client. This is definitely something to remember during any client project.
Applied art, meaning something that is both aesthetic and functional. I think this defiantly one of the most important things to keep in mind when producing websites. One of the website my group presented in class, we thought, was a classic of example of where this had not been taken into account. Creating a website that looks great, with no functional ability, is about as useful as a painting. And a website that works great, but is horribly designed, is about as interesting a dictionary. Website really needs a happy medium to be most effective.
This designers notes on newbie mistakes made me realise some errors I have made, and probably still making today. He explained how it is important to create many different designs for one thing, not just to find one or two and run with those, this is something I cannot deny I am guilty of. The problem is, as he put it, “It is hard to kill your babies, but sometimes you have to.”
Overall a very interesting article, leaving me with a few things to consider in my future approach and designs.
I really couldn’t agree more with what this guy says. When reading the article I found myself constantly nodding my head and thinking “he is absolutely correct”, on many subjects. I found it very interesting when he mentioned using a ‘manuscript’ to plan a website. I’m not entirely sure, in a web-design sense, what a manuscript would contain. Although I am sure this will come to light sooner rather than later.
His opinions on colours schemes, Web 2.0 layouts, and photography are ones I can relate to very easily. When asked “Tell us about your use of colors in your designs.” (Note: American spelling, I assume it’s a Yankey website) He responded by saying he currently prefers a greyscale layout and one other colour. I found this particularly supports my current preference of website colour schemes Even within the last week I have used this thesis on a current project.
Although I’m probably meant to be analysing this from a technical view point, I think this designer has a real likability about him. I enjoyed his comment about his first website; he says his first ever live site is still currently in use. Although he keeps the address to himself. I liked this particularly as it reminds us that everyone has to start somewhere, and that I should probably keep my first websites under my hat as well.
I can’t really agree or praise this designer anymore, so I should probably stop. All I can say is everything he said I already believed, and has in a way, confirmed my thoughts, or has made me realise where I might be going wrong in some basic principle areas.
I have bookmarked this interview, and will be doing some research into this designers work later.
The interviews can be found at:
Dan Saffer: http://www.designinterviews.com/interviews/interaction-design-is-an-applied-art
Joel Schafer: http://www.designinterviews.com/interviews/599
When purchasing a product there are certain things we take into account, possibly subliminally, sometimes very well acknowledging the fact. However, it is more than likely that we will purchase a more expensive version of a product for little gain except its physical appearance.
A prime example of this is with iPods and specifically the iPod Touch (shown below).
The iPod touch was considered a revolutionary MP3/MP4 player when it came out In September 2007. It was also considered to be the best on the market.
I purchased an iPod touch in the first few months of 2008. When searching for an MP3 player I initially went out looking for an item under the £100 mark. Whilst searching for an MP3 player there’s two options. Either, the cheap end plays MP3’s, or, there’s the brand name models which come with a few more features ie contacts, calendar etc. As you may be able to guess, the iPod touch costs a ‘touch’ (no pun intended) more than £100. In fact it is twice the price, £199.99.
So why did I pay twice the price I was originally willing to? Was it because it came with a calendar? Or was it because there were games available? Personally I don’t think it had anything to do with any of that. After all don’t we already have items that tell us where to be and when, and don’t we have over-priced Sega’s to play games on? So why is it that we pay more? I believe it is the design and media glorification of a product that sways our decision.
I believe that the design of a product and how it is portrayed in the media work hand in hand to convince us to buy a product at twice the price of its rivals. The reason for this its obvious – well sort of. I believe that the reason we buy these products is because we’re made to feel that they will make a much bigger difference to out life style than the non-branded Japanese import. We’re never really told how they will improve our quality of life, but it seems we are willing to believe it anyway. The other reason is entirely due to the design of the product. I think that it’s our subconscious idea of wanting the best. As with anything, if its aesthetically pleasing it is considered in our minds ‘better’ than a product with identical functions.
