Help Me Help Free Software's Typography

If you have any interest in the state of Free Software typography, I implore you to try and convince Jos Buivenga to license his fonts under a license that works with Free Software, and, at the same time, gives him the legal protection he requires in a fashion that meets his needs. This might include something such as the Creative Commons, the SIL Open Font License, or like license that allows us, as Free Software users, to include his beautiful work in repositories and source packages.

Mr. Buivenga's work is nothing short of absolutely beautiful craftsmanship. If you are unfamiliar with his work, head over to his site and examine some of his typefaces.

Further still, his typefaces are already licensed in a fashion that puts them extremely close to some of our acceptable licenses. All we need to do is to persuade him that such a move would not only be appreciated, but also help protect him in terms of legal situations. With your showing of support, we may move one step closer to making this a reality.

I am dearly hoping that I can include Fontin Sans in Mythbuntu's default theme for 8.10. With a little recognition, support, and desire, we may be able to make this happen and, at the same time, greatly help out the typography situation for all of Free Software. Can you imagine having Fontin or Fontin Sans available by default in a project such as Ubuntu? Wow.

Thank you for all of your help. This may be the one time I'd love to see someone put a Digg article / Reddit article up to help the cause. Jos might just well consider it if we show him some sincere enthusiasm and support.

The World of the Ill Informed

I have said on more than one occasion that I believe one of our key problems to addressing the issue with FLOSS design and aesthetics is education. I'll stand by that.

Thanks to the unknown people out there who are either drunk, deceived, or accidentally coerced and end up reading the dribblings on this blog, I have gained yet more evidence to support the opinion above. It appears that a blog post or two ended up on Reddit. I was quite shocked and well... flattered. I am convinced that very little of this personal exploration is phrased in a convincing or meaningful manner to gain interest with the general audience of FLOSS users. Further to this, I sincerely doubt anyone actually cares about these sorts of matters in the bigger Reddit / Digg community.

We who believe in the core values of Free Software, however, are a growing number. As a simple reality of statistics, hopefully the audience that cares about art, design, aesthetics, presence, etc. will grow accordingly. For all of those people, I sincerely thank your precious minutes of reading. Without you, none of this focused attention on this particular aspect of Free Software means anything.

Onto the real guts of the matter.

Recently, as a result of a Reddit posting regarding my previous post, a very few posted two comments. One misses the mark entirely, and I won't post it here. The comment in question was:

"...underlying logic of art and design." is a contradiction in terms. (Any programmers/mathematicians who have taken a design class know what I'm talking about.) This is essentially just a giant troll blog post because all art is totally subjective. Designers never seem to get this.

It would appear that Leonardo DaVinci and the rest of his clueless brethren were foolish. Their dedication to studying the various elements of painting were completely delusional. The pointless ramblings were worthless. Why continue and attempt to establish further schooling such as the Bahaus, the Royal Academy, Vkhutemas, or any other institute when everyone should have just realized at the onset that all of this is totally subjective? Thank goodness the poster put his critical point in italics, for without that, we would have probably glazed over this most profound revelation.

After a sorry and unfortunate head nod, I went away.

Then, out of the doom and gloom, a response came! Someone had actually taken the time to counter the poster's views. Again dumbfounded, I read on. There was a debate. A discourse. I saw people actually engaged in a discussion about a rather fundamental principle regarding art and design! It was rather exciting. Yes... that last statement goes to show you how much of a dimwitted and foolish idiot I am. Sadly, it was a true statement.

I give full marks for Quidpro for taking the time to actually respond to the individual. I am impressed that someone took the time to respond, and respond in favor of the artsy fartsy side. As of the last comment, I'd like to expand:

No, of course not. I never said that. I implied (and meant, though I never outright stated) that artists and designers need to lose their pretentions of procedure and recognize art and design as creative acts. There are guidelines (not rules) for avoiding poor design (i.e., don't put vibrant, strongly contrasting colors next to each other), but art and design are fundamentally non-procedural. The measure of the success of a piece of art for me is whether or not I like it, not whether or not it lives up to arbitrary "rules" of design. The measure of success of a piece averall I suppose would be the percentage of all people everywhere who like it.

And I'm not sure anybody on Reddit would seriously try to argue that marketing is a bad thing. I'm aware that there is a lot more to it than design, and most of the bad parts are separate, but if the design of a product and its packaging gets between me and using/researching the product, that is bad.

As a gross summary of possible audiences we are facing regarding our branching out in the field of art and design in FLOSS, this is a pretty typical response. This isn't to attack the person in question here, but rather to highlight similar sentiments that I see again and again posted from people who, based on world view, education, or otherwise, simply refuse to understand that people actually study these sorts of issues for years at a time. The same investigative reason that someone chose to post this quote has led to at least a thousand years of formal study in the field of art, aesthetics, design, and other like areas. So yes, we have been over this ground before.

I implied (and meant, though I never outright stated) that artists and designers need to lose their pretentions of procedure and recognize art and design as creative acts.

I would like to think that anyone who has read this blog before realizes that I have never suggested that there is some strange and mystical hidden ability when it comes to creation. In fact, my library has dozens of books that systematically dismantle the notion that there is any magic in it at all. The reality is that procedure underlies the achievement of output. Without procedure, there is nothing. Without the procedure of pencil to paper, there is no picture. In terms of the dynamics of commercial art and design, those "pretensions of procedure" are not only more important but perhaps more fundamentally critical to follow. Internalized and private "art for art's sake" artists need only worry about a single audience member.

I'd challenge you to find a single real world designer who agrees with the above statement. J. Ive has spoken numerous times about his internal design procedure at Apple. The brilliant mind of Chris Bangle has given lectures on the subject of process. The Suprematist movement had a clear agenda and technique engaged to express and communicate their radical political belief structure.

Indeed, this is entirely about procedure.

There are guidelines (not rules) for avoiding poor design (i.e., don't put vibrant, strongly contrasting colors next to each other), but art and design are fundamentally non-procedural.

This is again, simply ill-informed. The i.e (I hope they meant e.g., as if those are the only guidelines, I'd be worried) is simply incorrect. Fundamentally, there is audience, context, and communication. To this end, there most certainly are guidelines. These guidelines are, in fact, when applied to typography, graphical composition, and design patterns, most certainly procedural. But of course, I may be entirely mistaken as to what a procedure is.

And I'm not sure anybody on Reddit would seriously try to argue that marketing is a bad thing. I'm aware that there is a lot more to it than design, and most of the bad parts are separate, but if the design of a product and its packaging gets between me and using/researching the product, that is bad.

This isn't about marketing. Certainly marketing has a vested interest in art, design, aesthetics, presentation, etc., but when the waters become so muddy that a casual commenter mixes up the two, I become gravely worried. Worse still, when someone suggests for a minute that those critically complex elements become the adversary of "using / researching", I become worried even more.

All of this is ultimately about relativism.

When one asks the rather classical relativistic question "If a woman on a moving train throws a ball forward, how fast is the ball travelling?", it is quickly apparent that the question is fundamentally impossible to answer without a point of perspective. Is the point of perspective the woman on the train? Is it a person on the ground standing still? Is it someone on Mars?

There is no singular correct answer. This doesn't stop us from providing math and rationalized approaches to 'solving' the problem, however. We don't give up and wave our hands in the air screaming "It's all relative and subjective!", do we? No, instead, we provide the critical hitch-pin -- the point of perspective -- and suddenly simplicity takes over.

Again, and apologies to my longtime readership, this comes down to audience. Our audience is that point of perspective. It is that by which all things must be judged.

To anyone who, for a brief and ill-informed moment, professes that none of this matters, I will leave you with one of my favorite realities.

In the late 1930s, Alex Steinweiss had an epiphany. He would take the drab, monochromatic, and generic plain paper album wrappers and design some original artwork for them. Despite the fact that the cost of this was going to be more than the conventional manufacturing techniques, he was given the go-ahead.

The rest I will quote from Stylepedia:

Shortly after the first covers were issued, Newsweek reported that sales of Bruno Walter's Beethoven Eroica Symphony broke all records compared to the same release in a nonillustrated package.

Imagine what happens you apply more procedure and theory to this approach.

The Trail of Ink From Here

So while I worry that we have a long way to travel in terms of art and design education, I see much hope in our culture. Thanks to everyone who cross posts, discusses, attacks, debates, and explores. Thanks to every single person who dedicates irreplaceable minutes of their lives to reading this blog. Thanks to everyone who carries the flag of the cause.

In short, thanks to you. I am but the sum of your clicks.

Dear Mr. Shuttleworth

Wonderful to see that you are still showing a pulse regarding art and design. It has been what, a couple of years since you have made a blog post about pretty as a feature. A tad trite and myopic, but at least a sign.

Admirable that you are finally setting your sights on the right target -- Apple.

Now, somewhere at the front of my grey matter (albeit rather shrunken and useless grey matter) I can't help but think "Why does such a brilliant visionary still fail to understand the underlying logic of art and design?"

It makes no sense.

First, you let absolute blights take place regarding the Ubuntu brand. Nothing like dollar-shop packaging to really elevate a sense of luxury and elegance. I know... it wasn't Canonical's idea -- that was Valusoft (like you didn't get alarm bells from the company name?) Surely your dozen glossy Wal-Mart-esque photo shoot gone bad Shipit CDs are the pinnacle of elegance, no?

Ok... we forgive you. You are a brilliant guy and damned be me if I don't firmly believe that you are capable of actually caring about art and design presence as it pertains to Ubuntu.

Let's start with where we have come from. Ubuntu has had from October 2004 to get its art and design elements in place. Since then, what have we had? I would speculate that we have seen:

1. A blind insistence on poor design patterns. This means glossy rubbish. This means a reliance upon abstract backgrounds in the name of pleasing no one. This means tepid delivery and poor craftsmanship on all fronts. This means completely inadequate communication between the web presence, the marketing presence, the desktop presence, and every other element in Ubuntu. This means chasing after hideous creatures such as Microsoft corporate design missteps. Sorry, by "poor design patterns" I probably should have said "no design patterns". The result? I'll let everyone be the judge.
   
2. A shallow and vacuous discussion about art and design whenever it rears its head. "Pretty", "Beautiful", and other such empty words mean nothing to anyone who knows even a brief 101 level understanding of art. And yes Mark, this is about art. Given free reign of development, we produce ghastly hodgepodge designs (see Ubuntu mobile) with no care and attention to audience. Do you think that you can define a word such as "Beautiful" without defining the obvious subtext that screams "Beautiful for whom?"
3. A horrible ignorance to the fact that the craft of art, design, photography, music, and every other element is an extremely broad spectrum of learning. In plain terms, don't expect much when you hire people with no education. Sorry... that's reality. Let it go. Do you think for a minute that Apple and Microsoft would even venture a job offer for an entry level graphic position without a degree? Yes... some people out there who care about art, design, music, photography, etc. actually study these things for years. Sometimes they even go so far as to get a Master's or Doctorate level degree (Diana Fong comes to mind. Is it any coincidence that the glory years of Fedora 5, 6 and 7 were forged under her term? Compare with the ghastly and bland delivery of 8 and 9, for example, or the less than mediocre bank-cubicle OpenSUSE?) One of the fathers of Constructivism El Lissitzky? Yep... educated in art and design. The amazing typographic brilliance of Jan Tschichold? Yep... educated in art and design. I'd go on and on, but I doubt I could convince you. Maybe one guy... this J. Ive guy I have read about... oh yeah... looks like he went to design school too. Weird.
4. Simple lack of caring. Does Ubuntu really care? You occasionally, about once every couple of years, offer a chittering about typography or design, but do you really and fundamentally have a respect and care for the field?

Ok... enough of my silly and groundless opinion. Time to get into ship shape and move forwards. Here are my completely uneducated and ill advised suggestions:

1. Care. This part I know you can do. You are one helluva brilliant mind, and dare I say that all of FLOSS's future has a deep investment in your ability to lead us out of this. Sit down with interested parties and have a discussion in earnest. Involve everyone from marketing to key developers. Create understanding and caring. Shirk the ignorant. Create a culture that real artists, designers, musicians, and other creative types want to be a part of. Think Xerox PARC but artistic. Think the design team at BMW. Heck... go listen to Chris Bangle talk about design. Surely he might have an impact on you?
   
2. Read. That's right... sad but snoringly boring books on art and design. Not great bedtime reading for someone with a code-centric approach, but maybe you will see something that clicks. At the very least, you will perhaps develop a little more understanding as to why our culture in FLOSS is so dearly lacking the supremely focused and caring individuals that can lead the way. I know they are there. Hell... I have watched them drop by, become completely saddened, and leave. Let's turn that tide around.
   
3. Support people with credibility. Somewhere, someone needs to have credibility to lead us out of this. We need someone with passion, education, and the ability to actually discuss the issues at hand. We don't need more people talking foolishly about "Ugly" "Usability" "Beautiful" etc. Understand that to attract the real deals, we are going to need real deals at the helm. It is entirely unlikely and implausible that a gifted and trained artist, designer, photographer, musician, etc. will rally behind people that can't discuss the issues with the language and understanding that trained folks deliver.
4. Listen. It is quite possible that we have been beating around the right path for gosh knows how long only to never really see it executed. Ashton Lafferty's work surely showed you that even a baby step in the right direction yields amazing results. Now imagine if the execution were more than a mental fart and a whim of amoeba-like decision making. Ashton is a member of the community. Imagine that! I'd say that you suddenly may have realized that producing the artsy-fartsy stuff goes a long way. Now try to visualize that impact on merchandising, marketing, promotion, and most importantly, satisfaction.
5. Figure out the audience. Apple has been spot on in this. Yes they ignore the business sector. Yes they pay close and dear attention to the artsy types. Yes they choose to leave some options out. Yes they alienate some people. After all of that though, do you see the dividends? I loosely ranted about this quite a while ago, and I'd argue that the number one core reason that we flail with the design-by-amoeba is this very reason.
6. Goal. Four years we have run up and down the pitch not knowing what the hell we were doing. Is this fear? Is this rooted in some uber-geek insecurity that refuses to let Ubuntu become what it so rightfully deserves to be? Once we have an audience clearly in mind and rationalized, let's set a damn goal. Why are we pursuing the dark theme? What is a new icon set going to attempt and provoke regarding emotion? What the hell is the point of typography if we have nothing to communicate? What the hell is Ubuntu design going to say?

Now honestly Mark, ask yourself. What has been the greatest achievement regarding art and design in the past four years? Was it a result of your direction and caring? Has there been a wise choice made in any capacity at Canonical regarding the design presence of Ubuntu?

I'd answer that question with a single resounding "YES". It was one decision. It was all about a bird. I'd bet that it was argued, debated, and discussed. I'd bet that there were many inside of Canonical who wished to see that bird get killed. I'd bet it came down to your decision. It was a wise one. As you move forward, pay close attention to the culture you have created at Canonical regarding art and design. If there is one thing I will say about Steve Jobs (and I don't have much to say about him) is that he absolutely and fundamentally cares and believes in art and design. He pushes it. He observes it. He is passionate about it. He imbues his culture at Apple with that care. He puts it at the forefront.

Now imagine if we had a Steve Jobs with an ethical grounding. Someone who admits to his neglect of the art and design situation and, because of his absolute and true inner resolve, chooses to learn in an area where he needs to. Imagine that fictional Steve Jobs with a deep rooted belief in Free Software. Imagine that fictional Steve Jobs with the will to provide an ethical computing platform.

Now if only I could quit imagining.

When you were out in space looking out into the awe inspiring vastness, I wonder what it was like. Care to take us there?

Fractured

Dabbling around with Inkscape. A little further exploration with the white on black stroke styling seen elsewhere on this blog.

Time Out For Brilliance

Most of the time I find it dire trudgework trying to get the passion out about art and design in FLOSS. It is simply hard work.

Sometimes, I am absolutely disgusted by my own clueless ignorance.

Julian Oliver is one of those moments. Originally, prior to my leaving the art team and such, I had a few readings of Julian's emails. He, like me, certainly has the ability to be abrasive.

Despite my initial reaction, I continued to read Julian's posts. Many times, I found myself agreeing with what he had to say. This led to a phase two Googling.

Julian is, for all intents and purposes, one hell of a brilliant mind. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't throw those sorts of words around together too often. In this case, that description may not quite do him justice.

I encourage all of my readers to go off now and click the link below. Remember -- this guy is one of us. After visiting and seeing his work, I'd like to say that I am elated to have found a member of the community that attacks his work with passion, education, and brilliance. Heck... even the suggestion that cartography is an area of art worthy of accolade warms a very special part of my heart.

Without further ado, I offer you:

A Link to the Blog of Julian Oliver

If we are but the sum of our clicks, he certainly deserves yours. Thanks for reading...

Context, Context, Context

The following is a demonstration. If you are not from North America, this may have a lessened impact.

The following is a visual experiment I created.

Art and design is deeply rooted in context and a sum of the collective parts. Taken alone, something is meaningless. Factor in audience, culture, context, and design elements, and two simple presentations can come to mean entirely different things.

In short, this is a summary of design and how the impact of a given design changes based on both cultural understanding as well as discreet design elements.

Figure 1

Figure 2:The simple change of a language caption results in two abstract colour swatches to be 'read' in entirely different ways.

Summary

Ubuntu currently is seeking out a design-by-amoeba approach. As the above sample hopefully illustrates, the overall impact of a design is directly related to the statement / goal, and intrinsically bound with not only the elements that define the piece but also the context in which they are presented.

Ubuntu could easily be viewed as a 'piece' in its entirety. Without a clearly defined goal and a clearly defined audience, the pursuit of any design aspect -- however sincere -- is a completely useless effort. With the above demonstration, perhaps you will more greatly appreciate why I believe that without such a definition, makes a discourse about the details of Ubuntu's design completely impossible and irresponsible.

A discussion about fonts remains vacuous without playing a clearly defined role in an overarching design pattern. How an icon appears is inherently about what surrounds it and its role in the 'bigger picture'. 'Good' and 'bad' wallpapers are irrelevant without outlining the goal of the piece.

What do you want Ubuntu to communicate and to whom do you feel the default presentation should be geared? I can assure you that for every demographic represented in the readership, a different opinion will result.

Do You Have Design Related Content?

What excites you? What drives you crazy?

I want your ideas. If you think you have an article related to design and Free Software, send me your work via email or comments. If you have something that you would like investigated, send me an email and I'll do my best to research it.

I would like to see if there are any other people out there passionate about the artsy fartsy design related elements of FLOSS. It is a relatively new area with regards to FLOSS and obviously a critical one. If you wish, you can easily remain anonymous.

I'll try my best to do justice to your suggestions or work. As again, I am but only the sum of your clicks...

The Art of Design From a Master

MetalMusicAddict of Ubuntu Studio fame, aka _MMA_ on Freenode, sent me this link in IRC.

I'd like to say that I found this discussion so completely relevant, so completely pertinent, and so completely analogous with FLOSS design that I felt compelled to write a blog post briefly about it.

Please take the time to watch this presentation with Chris Bangle. I won't spoil what he discusses, but as you watch the video try to transpose what he is discussing about cars with computers and operating systems. The two are not that far apart when it comes to design, and you may get a distinct tingling feeling when you see the overlaps.

All in all, it is a wonderful presentation from a brilliant mind in design. Xerox PARC was an amazing place, but it looks like Bangle has a pretty amazing place to create as well.

If we are to aspire for the stars, we may wish to heed his words well.

Thank you once again. I am only the sum of your clicks.

*** UPDATE: A wonderful site. Here are three more links to presentations that are extremely relevant to our FLOSS culture. Enjoy...

Yochai Benkler on the New Open Source Economics
Charles Leadbeater on Innovation
Clay Shirky on Instituions Versus Collaboration
***

Who is Ubuntu's Audience?

I have previously rambled on in this blog about whom I personally believe Ubuntu's primary target audience might aspire to be. Despite the fact that Ubuntu has failed miserably at making a clear design pattern around a given audience, it does still appear to be attempting to attract an audience of some sort. Whom is this audience? Everyone is free to speculate, but let's take a look at some hot news...

If you missed it, Ubuntu is now available at Best Buy via Valusoft. While this is a huge event of some magnitude, I'd suggest that the execution and optics aren't helping us.

Operating systems are boring. They are the things that dorks and dweebs such as myself discuss. The average mainstream user sees Apple and Microsoft. Apple is clearly the least dorky of the batch, with an obvious design pattern that is harnessed to maximum effect to leverage this dichotomy. Couple that design team with a cooperative and tightly integrated marketing team and you can quickly understand why they are so darn hip.

So where are we with Ubuntu? Well we have Valusoft. Valusoft? Exactly. When I first read this I had images of those fun filled dollar junk stores lined with hundreds of "SixThousandGameCompendium" and "RecipesThatYourGrandmaLoves" computer collections at an overpriced $1.99. Yikes.

"It's just a name." I repeated that to myself as I read onwards. Then my jaw hit the floor. I saw this:


Good lord. What the fsck is that? At this point I quickly realized that the state of art and design is, even though apparently hell has not frozen over and pork has yet to fly, worse than the decision making behind Microsoft's uber-tacky and tepid Vista.

Whoever is responsible for that blight should be sent out to the back of the shed while Dad explains to little Johnny that their designer-marketer-decision-maker lived a good life and was a really nice dog.

Specifically:

1. Horrible photography. Yes horrible. It is not only swelling with corndogs but bursting with what appears to be hideous flash photography. Worse still, did anyone actually like "Eight is Enough"? [1]
   
2. Hideous composition. Let's just say that there isn't a single shred of evidence that whomever designed that packaging knew how to use even the basic drawing tools in OpenOffice. A perfect candidate for the design job of such significant proportions. That box is a layout. Layouts are subject to compositional rules and design thinking. That result shows as much care and attention as a chronically drunken parent raising an eight year old.
   
3. Beyond disturbing amount of geeky techspeek data. That box fails to ask a question, and worse, is the loud and rather scary dork at the party who is clinging on to you talking about Linux while you quietly try to pry his hands off of your arm near the punch bowl.

"Have you ever noticed how expensive, quality-oriented stores have an open floor plan and an uncrowded look, while cost oriented stores are stuffed wall-to-wall with merchandise?"
-- Alex W. White "The Elements of Graphic Design"

So we have arrived at what appears to be a glaringly poor design decision. The perfect arc of design, presentation, and communication has been executed. Ubuntu is the consummate dollar shop operating system!

How is Ubuntu expected to achieve a notion of value and extoll the virtues of software freedom whilst fighting the neverending barrage of dollar-shop credibility forwarded through absolutely abhorrent design? What does Canonical believe that the above packaging is achiveing as a communication goal?

Again, dearly beloved readers, I believe that the actions speak far louder than words when it comes to the Ubuntu franchise. Many people will ramble on about branding in the Ubuntu ranks, and yet this hideous misstep is somehow viewed as an acceptable design decision? I'd bet it was the identical design process that put this work on the official site attempting to promote Ubuntu open week:


God bless that man. I think he is a most upstanding citizen and this is not an attack on him. Please don't read this as such.

This is again, however, chronically symptomatic of the overarching theme that crops up again and again on this blog. Who is Ubuntu's audience? Are we attempting to attract oven salesmen with this choice of photo? What are we to read into that photo when we couple it with the ninety point army stencil font "LIVE"? Should we think this is an advertisement for "Rambo IX: An Old Beginning"?

I will leave you with a quote from the official site:

"The Valusoft and Canonical teams have worked hard on the packaging to show how Ubuntu has a program for the common activities that users need such as “Web Browsing”, “Productivity Suite” and “Email”. This makes it much easier for a consumer to work out if Ubuntu is right for them. I think the teams have done a great job presenting Ubuntu simply and concisely."
-- Steve George, Director, Corporate Services

Certainly Mr. George, I agree. Now, if you could point me to the aisle that is selling those $1.99 super sponges and turkey basters, I'd be most elated.

[1] "Eight is Enough" was a television program from the late seventies to early eighties. The television show had a shot almost exactly like the box top during the introductory credits. I need to explain this because some of my audience are apparently a younger generation that would be well suited at battle school next to Ender Wiggin. I am truly inspired by this completely tech savvy and remarkable group of 13-17 year olds. The future looks much brighter with you folks around. Thanks for reading.

Why Droid Isn't the Answer

If you haven't heard, Droid is the new typeface that will drive the typography on the Android platform.

Currently, there is some discussion about using Droid for the Ubuntu default. I would be worried if this were the case, and this post will hopefully describe why I feel this way.

The Standard Gripes

I'd start by suggesting that changing a type without having a goal or a reason is probably the starting point. This is all standard part and parcel of my entire gripe with Ubuntu design; no audience and no goal. A simple starting point, but one without a goal. Why should we change the type at all?

This isn't to suggest for a second that I'm content with the typography in Ubuntu. The default type in Ubuntu speaks to the greater whole as being implemented without reason. It is also symptomatic of a franchise that cares extremely little about its art and design presence. Look no further than the default wordmark type for further cues. This is despite the fact that someone has attempted to bring more life into the default title font.

The Problem with Droid

When I first examined Droid, I noticed immediately that the font colour seemed distinctly odd. Knowing that I probably wasn't the only person to notice this, I wondered why this was the case. Droid was developed specifically for the Android platform - Google's foray into the world of phone and PDA operating systems. As such, I suspect the type colour had something to do with the context of the presentation. If your work is to appear on a three inch screen all day, I'd suggest that colour and stroke widths will probably be a factor. For example, consider the following sampling from Droid Sans:


Note how the kerning clogs up at points and creates a rather inconsistent text colour on the whole. This is obviously by design. Again, I would suggest that this choice was made in direct relation to the legibility on smaller screens. Having yet to test Android out, I'd probably guess that a default point size makes Droid Sans work remarkably well. In the above example, however, the kerning feels almost cluttered and irregular. Let's look at another sans type -- MgOpen Cosmetica:



Note the consistency of colour creating a more uniform character of texture at the same point size.

The Law of Clunk In Free Software

I fear Clunk. Clunk is everywhere in our Free Software world. What is clunk? Loosely, I'd describe Clunk as the pursue-at-all-costs anything that is heavy, blocky, and chunk-like. While some would like to try and persuade you that the broad outline / inner line of Tango is there in the name of usability, it certainly isn't usable for me. Square rigid lines or mathematical symmetry is one of Clunk's earmarks. If you can express it with math that an eight year old understands, it is probably fit for the stylized world of Clunk.

Droid isn't quite Clunk. That said, it certainly has elements that, when examined, might make it a distant relative of Clunk. I would also speculate that the Clunk factor is driven, again, by the contextual nature of Droid -- that of the three inch screen domain. Examine the following study of the serifs of Droid:



Note the heavy almost slab-like serif. Note the distinct rigidity of the top shelves. This, in conjunction with Droid's other stylings help to pull the overall feeling into a notion of heavy.

Compare now, with the serifs of MgOpen Canonica:



Of particular relevance here is the tapering of the serif (adnate) mixed with a subtle curve. If we look to the Art Nouveau movement, we have some of the most enduring techniques used time and time again to indicate ideas of elegance. Needless to say, willowy tapered lines and curves are a key component of that style. The above example will hopefully illustrate how those subtle cues pull a given face toward the more abstract notions of elegance.

Axis of Interests

Finally, I'd like to draw your attention to another of Droid's traits -- the axis. All of typography has its roots in human calligraphy. As type has evolved, the strokes that define the shapes have shifted through the times. Droid's axis is what one would describe as rationalist. The earmark of a rationalist look is that the axis falls perfectly vertical. Note the following visualization:



This rigid upright nature is again almost certainly related to the context. Alternate axis types might suffer somewhat on a smaller screen, depending of course on the hinting engine.

Ubuntu forwards the catch phrase "Linux for Human Beings" as part of its push. What is interesting is that in reality, no part of the overarching presentation really speaks of humanity. We have suffered through wave after wave of plastic gloss and stilted, poorly crafted swoops and curls. At some point, if Ubuntu were to actually try and execute a design that echoes humanity, we might consider using type as one of the driving forces.

Almost coincidentally, there is also an axis known as humanist. This comes from the fact that a calligraphic pen would have been held at a particular angle and scribed by hand. This yields an axis that is asymmetrical in nature. Once again, let's look at the MgOpen Canonica use of axis:


The difference should be self-explanatory. A little more human and a little more elegant.

Conclusion

All of this isn't intended to be a monologue against Droid. On the contrary, Droid will probably work wonderfully in its given context. This is a discussion as to what happens when something suffers from Design-By-Amoeba. There is no iterative evolution. There is no process to the thought and construction of the presentation. Ultimately, this becomes problematic for all aspects.

This brief examination by a rather dim-witted and terribly incoherent individual is nothing more than an attempt to highlight why Droid may not be quite suitable for a desktop environment. I can fully appreciate why some people might want to shake things up and make changes, and at some point, I sincerely hope change happens in Ubuntu, as Ubuntu truly deserves it.

With the idea of change, I'd also like to stress that change for change's sake is the path of pure folly. "We need beautiful fonts!" In what context? Is a font beautiful unto itself? "We need a dark theme!" Why? What other elements are being brought to the table? Who is the audience? What is the design trying to evoke?

I fear that too much of Ubuntu's attention to art and design is driven by outside forces. Do we care about type or is this yet again symptomatic of the "yes-we-really-do-care-and-now-we-hope-you-think-we-are-cultured" approach?

Thanks for reading and sorry if this bored the heck out of you. Leave a comment if you care, as in the end, I am nothing but the sum of your clicks.

Phoronix Performance Testing

Phoronix Test Suite wants a logo - if you are up to the task head on over and help them out.

I am not a huge fan of logo design contests in Free Software. They are generally painful and end up with strange end points. At any rate, this is another case of "I-couldn't-help-myself-itus."

If you aren't from North America, you may not be familiar with the oil performance additive STP. Without that connection, this is just a drab dry boring logo.

The Force of Change

There appears to be some turmoil regarding the dramatic KDE 4 and 4.1 release. Not exactly surprising; KDE 4 established some new paradigms and made some serious design decisions. I personally applaud the attempt at change. This early phase would be the disruptive portion of the festivities.

We need look no further than our very own Ubuntu Alpha 1 turmoil to see a similar trend. There are certainly a few posts that have popped up. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who cares?

As discussed in past posts, all design should be firmly rooted in the fundamental question of audience. Who is it for? It is upon that ground that all evaluations should be based. This is about guesswork. Firmly locate your audience and make solid guesses based on your knowledge, experience, and hopefully, training. In no way is this an easy task. Without an audience, the commonplace vacuous statements that crop up again and again in Free Software design mean nothing. Usability? Means nothing. Beautiful? Nothing. Distinctive? Nothing.[1]

A certain degree of forcing must happen. One must have change forced upon them before one can evaluate those changes. Apple did it with the iPhone -- no buttons! Microsoft did it with, well, an entire operating system. With both of those two examples, we can quickly see that this Project Force can result in generalized success or generalized failure.

In the realm of forced change, I leave you with a few questions:

1. Does historic precedence impact the acceptance of work? I would argue that Ubuntu must work doubly hard regarding art and design as its past is mired in extremely poor optics on many fronts. Every push of zero credibility adversely affects the subsequent.
2. Does the internal Free Software art and design credibility structure work when it is pushed out into the openness of the mainstream world or does it work to cleave a deeper 'us versus them' vantage?
   
3. Should the client / developer be the judge in Free Software? How does the nature of Free Software change the nature of the role of decision maker with the advent of a more mainstream adoption?
4. How do we know how the audience of a particular Free Software design feels? Our forums don't state age, gender, or region by and large. Our polls don't reflect it. Digg operates on a polemical 'yes/no' system which creates veils of authenticity without the veracity of background information.
   
5. In the case of monetarily supported development, the client is obviously the judge. That said, does it work for a Free Software community? What good is a monetarily supported piece of development if it isn't adopted or accepted? Many of the Free Software companies have a vested interest in this question. How does that impact things such as the UbuntuLooks GTK engine? Novell's SLAB menu element? Clearly there is more to the problem than throwing money at it. It needs acceptance.
   
6. What are the motivating reasons for Free Software change and how do we discuss them without ending up with divisions and separations? How do we manage a system where we have a unity of effort with a diversity of presentation? How do we get this strange culture out into the mainstream to assure a healthy ecosystem? Ubuntu has done tremendous work at unifying elements of the Free Software culture but it still has monumental distance to cover.
   

[1] Reference quote taken from the IRC archives during a recent Community Council session regarding the art and design direction of Ubuntu. Mark Shuttleworth:

"sabdfl: staying distinctive, but aiming for... beautiful"