Or Carams current ten rules of design.
I went to a job interview with a place that shall remain unnamed for now.
This being an interview I got through this blog, I felt I should report about it here.
I have two thoughts on it: it reinforced my belief in that best results can be achieved when design and technology work closely together. It results in better usability and a simpler technology, thereby enhancing our daily lives.
The digital environments we interact with have long become obiquitous, but the way we use them can nevertheless be improved. Engineers alone would probably focus too much on the functionality of the object in question, designers too little, focusing in stead on it's good looks. The best way to think about a new product is from both sides, thus creating a well-designed product on a base of sound technology.
The second is a simpler though. I got invited to the interview because someone liked my designs. Now, while I have no problem whatsoever with my stuff being liked, I hold the belief that, even if you like it, it is work I have done for another client, adapting to their visual language. For you, dear prospective employer, with a different focus, a different approach to conveying your institutions information, my communication designs would be different, more befitting to the tone and content that you wish to communicate.
As a Leopard can't change it's spots entirely, I might apply my usual rules of clean, informative design, with a focus on typographic topography and a pleasant reading experience. Or the situation might require something different entirely. The question is: can you designer adapt to that situation.
Liking stuff isn't enough to employ someone, in my opinion. You do, after all buy the person. So consider: Can you work with this personality? Are they capable of grasping the concepts they are faced with and turning them into an understandable communication that represents my organisation adequately? Do they know their stuff well enough to print without wasting money on botched trial runs? Do I think that they can make my public output exciting?
These were questions running though my mind as I sat there, talking to two very pleasant people on an office on the 13th floor.
I went to a job interview with a place that shall remain unnamed for now.
This being an interview I got through this blog, I felt I should report about it here.
I have two thoughts on it: it reinforced my belief in that best results can be achieved when design and technology work closely together. It results in better usability and a simpler technology, thereby enhancing our daily lives.
The digital environments we interact with have long become obiquitous, but the way we use them can nevertheless be improved. Engineers alone would probably focus too much on the functionality of the object in question, designers too little, focusing in stead on it's good looks. The best way to think about a new product is from both sides, thus creating a well-designed product on a base of sound technology.
The second is a simpler though. I got invited to the interview because someone liked my designs. Now, while I have no problem whatsoever with my stuff being liked, I hold the belief that, even if you like it, it is work I have done for another client, adapting to their visual language. For you, dear prospective employer, with a different focus, a different approach to conveying your institutions information, my communication designs would be different, more befitting to the tone and content that you wish to communicate.
As a Leopard can't change it's spots entirely, I might apply my usual rules of clean, informative design, with a focus on typographic topography and a pleasant reading experience. Or the situation might require something different entirely. The question is: can you designer adapt to that situation.
Liking stuff isn't enough to employ someone, in my opinion. You do, after all buy the person. So consider: Can you work with this personality? Are they capable of grasping the concepts they are faced with and turning them into an understandable communication that represents my organisation adequately? Do they know their stuff well enough to print without wasting money on botched trial runs? Do I think that they can make my public output exciting?
These were questions running though my mind as I sat there, talking to two very pleasant people on an office on the 13th floor.
Comments