3 ms·

The reason people are arguing interminably about which poster is better, is that both are almost equally bad. They are a terrible illustration of the principles

The reason people are arguing interminably about which poster is better, is that both are almost equally bad. They are a terrible illustration of the principles the author has read about, and they're not a good model to emulate. The trouble with design is that everyone has an opinion, informed or not, and everyone feels their opinion is equally valid, a priori, because they sense it is very hard to objectively prove anything in a discipline which is all about communication and intention. With apologies to the author, this page itself is terrible design in almost every way that matters, starting from the top with the horrible typography, reinforced by overly literal illustration which bludgeons the reader over the head with the intended meaning (little bits of mess behind the word mess, a crying baby for 'you feel like a baby', really?) and distracting use of irrelevant graphic devices - huge script font which does not connect with meaning, pink sitting in the wrong place behind heads, another font 'Quicksand' which has the worst kerning I've ever seen, etc, etc. All that is practically shouting 'do not take graphic design advice from this writer' before you even begin reading. If you want to learn from good design have a look at : Paul Rand: http://www.paul-rand.com/foundation/identity/#.VRcG0JPwYZw http://www.paul-rand.com/foundation/identity/#.VRcG0JPwYZw El Lissitzky or other Constructivists: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=el%20lissitzky%20poster https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=el%20lissitzky%20poster Mies van der Rohe or other Bauhaus designers: http://www.knoll.com/product/brno-chair-flat-bar http://www.knoll.com/product/brno-chair-flat-bar Paula Scher: http://new.pentagram.com/2009/02/new-work-the-museum-of-modern/ http://new.pentagram.com/2009/02/new-work-the-museum-of-mode... Saul Bass http://www.saulbassposterarchive.com/ http://www.saulbassposterarchive.com/ Tufte on Minard and others: https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters You'll learn more from studying those designs than you would from reading or looking at this.

nthnclrk 12y ago
^ This is the only comment that needs to be read in this entire thread.
Estragon 12y ago
The before-and-after with detailed explanations is a tremendously appealing format for learning about design though. Are there any good guides which take a similar approach?
- grey-area 12y ago
  The before of all the designs in my list above was a lack and some requirements - that's how design usually starts, not with a previous design. So I think presenting design as a before/after is actually not productive in most cases - ideally it's the process of reifying an idea, not prettying up some information while not considering the broader picture. In the case of the example presented, a better design would wipe the slate clean and ask if all that information was really required at all. The flyer needs to get people to the aikido class, so you probably need a couple of things: Why do I need this? How do I join? The medium and context is also v. important - is it on notice boards at a distance (needs impact), in people's hand, via the post, all three? There are many ways to get there, but I'd suggest if you want a satisfactory solution you wouldn't start from here (the examples in the article). This is what is damaging about before/after - it stops you asking the hard questions about what information is required and what the priorities are.

nthnclrk 12y ago

^ This is the only comment that needs to be read in this entire thread.

Estragon 12y ago

The before-and-after with detailed explanations is a tremendously appealing format for learning about design though. Are there any good guides which take a similar approach?

grey-area 12y ago
The before of all the designs in my list above was a lack and some requirements - that's how design usually starts, not with a previous design. So I think presenting design as a before/after is actually not productive in most cases - ideally it's the process of reifying an idea, not prettying up some information while not considering the broader picture. In the case of the example presented, a better design would wipe the slate clean and ask if all that information was really required at all. The flyer needs to get people to the aikido class, so you probably need a couple of things: Why do I need this? How do I join? The medium and context is also v. important - is it on notice boards at a distance (needs impact), in people's hand, via the post, all three? There are many ways to get there, but I'd suggest if you want a satisfactory solution you wouldn't start from here (the examples in the article). This is what is damaging about before/after - it stops you asking the hard questions about what information is required and what the priorities are.