Skip to main content

Thoughts on an interview.

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Two minutes: Addiction is Life is Yellow.

Addiction is a much-maligned, muddy word. Until (ca.) the 18th century, it connoted tendency and drive, rather than (self-) affliction. Opium changed that- reportedly. 
Lives described as addiction: to the approval and company of peers, to power and its accumulation, to enjoyment and personal satisfaction (to some people, this may be suffering) and to basics such as air, food, water… and possibly even living. When framed this way, and defined in reference to this word, life suddenly becomes a selfish pursuit in which the living will do anything to get their fix, devoted addicts all. 
On that note: Marylin Manson - I Don't Like the Drugs, But the Drugs Like Me. 
Also: Addiction is apparently yellow. 

A grain of rice can save the world…

…with a bit of help from all its other grains of rice friends.
Not being able to do decent research into nutrition forced me to get a bit creative with this one. And do actual maths. Thanks to Ugur & Silke for their help in this.
Extra Info: this is what a single grain of rice looks like close up:

from AMagill on flickr
I wonder if a series of single grain infographics would be would be interesting?

Two minutes: Enemy of the tribe

There was, once upon a time, a small tribe that lived in a deep jungle. They were migrant farmers, traveling from cultivation spot to cultivation spot, depending on the season and their fancy. In their absence, these spots were often used by other tribes, with the understanding that they would set aside small amount of their harvest. This symbiosis benefited all involved, keeping the soil fresh and turned, providing sustenance for the inhabitants of the jungle 
Their traditions compelled them to hospitality and friendliness toward visitors- their words for strangers and visitors translated into "friends-who-are-not-yet-friends" and "visitors-and-we-are-their-friend". If they didn't like someone, they would become "Friend-that-is-not-talked-to", usually adding "until we talk again", implying that ire was temporary and a return to friendship imminent. 
One day, they were visited by a random anthropologist. Fascinated by the vocabulary their w…