Away for Two Weeks

Time-suck mode on.

I'll be gone for a full two weeks out of town. Unfortunately, that means zero blog posting, zero Free Software work, and zero of just about everything else. I'll be bringing along my Derwents and some fine grain with the hopes of perhaps getting another pencil piece done soon.

The unfortunate news is that Jos Buivenga has decided to avoid the license issue for a while. Looks like the Mythbuntu interface I have been working on will need to fall back to another typeface. Sad day indeed.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with some reading / viewing material:

Anand talks about BumpTop. The real world physics certainly feel like a step in the right direction of computing environments. Perhaps overly implemented and rather bland in terms of overarching aesthetics, but is there something within Anand's BumpTop to elevate an audience's sense of immersion? Is there something that real-world mentality brings to computing that drags it out of the gutter of dated Modernism?

What can I say? Many years of thinking about Free Software art, design, presentation and aesthetics have led me in a wide search for all things relevant. Sometimes those searches land right in your lap. Smashing Magazine has a wonderful article on the difficulties of design in a culture mired in strict logic. Sound familiar? An insightful read with some interesting implications and further reading at the footer.

It took years for video games to realize that, in the end, they were aspiring toward the same goal that the motion picture industry has executed for years - immersion. I firmly believe that computing environments are heading that way too, although if we keep using the "Apple doesn't do that" or "Microsoft doesn't do that", the world will be waiting far longer than it should. The presentation of the medium is a critical component of the use of day-to-day things, and immersion is a key component of that. UIGarden has some excellent articles that I can't normally read as they are in another language. Here is one on video game immersion.

Many readers of this blog are aware that I firmly believe the audience should govern all. Global culture? Marco van Hout writes a piece covered at UIGarden as well. I have mentionned it before, but I thought I would give it centre stage for a moment. The article rather adeptly dismantles the notion of a global culture by looking at several interesting and rather funny examples. The next time your Free Software friend chirps off about a global cutlure and accepted 'middle-grounds', you might be better armed...

We continually hear the blow hard community types saying we don't have enough art and design talent. "We don't have money so real artists won't contribute" I've heard. Aside from the rather obvious statement that money can't buy you solid design, art, etc., I'd like to show you a few examples of solid talent in our world. These are real folks sitting next to you and I. First, the fellow who created the Dust theme -- Rico Sta Cruz -- is an exceptional talent with wonderful aesthetic stylings. His blog has several links, not the least of which is probably this one. Again, as noted in another of my blog postings, I'd hope you all took a look at Julian Oliver's rather amazingly designed and innovative video game levelhead. Only two little examples for now, but I'd be rather certain you will be as impressed as I was.

Hopefully that will be enough food for thought to keep you contently full for at least a few moments. Looking forward to your continuing comments and email. I am, again, but the sum of your clicks...

Ubuntu Design Part 1: Who Should Be Ubuntu's Audience?

Well, a timely email from Thorwil has resulted in an evaluation as to how I was going to go about my next series of posts.

I fully expect no one to really care about the proceeding discussions, but I am quite interested in the opinions of anyone who frequents this blog -- this is entirely about you people. I value each and every returning visitor, and as such, I'd love to hear your comments before I offer up my opinions on the matter.

Although the question appears simple, it will yield diverse opinions. It could even result in a flame war. It would be spectacular if there is some discussion in earnest on the subject.

What I am seeking is a simple answer to "Who do you think Ubuntu's audience should be for the default presentation?"

Bear in mind that this offers up many more questions than purely artistic and aesthetic. The answer will have far reaching implications ranging from audience usability to potentially overarching design patterns for applications.

While we would like to think that our Free Software culture is politically correct we suffer from many biases. We are gender biased (Where is the parity of women to men ratios?), Western computing biased (The bulk of computing comes from the two forces out of the West -- thanks again to Apple and Microsoft!), language biased (How do you fit top to bottom languages into a GTK button easily? Why does our icon architecture insist on a single metaphor for all cultures while translations have individual targets?), we are needs biased (How does someone with complete motor impairment fix a bug that prevents them from booting?), probably culturally biased (This is an assumption, but I'd say it is a relatively safe one.), and perhaps the worst bias of all - the one we aren't immediately aware of.

That said, the core of design comes down to audience, and with that, our ability to garner massive numbers is critically dependent upon our ability to deliver the goods to a diverse number of audiences.

Pick an audience. Is it an age range? Why? Which culture? Why? What technical aptitude? What general mindset regarding technological direction? How can we more swiftly make developing Free Software remixes for audiences more effective? Give me some reasoning. Give me your visceral thoughts. Give me anything that you feel is relevant.

That's it.

I'm looking forward to your opinions. I fear there won't be many, but our Free Software culture never ceases to amaze me.

Thanks again for reading. Even more thanks for commenting. I am but the sum of your clicks, and hopefully, keypresses.

FLOSS Branding - More Misinformation

What is branding? We hear about it in FLOSS circles time and time again. Branding is possibly the most overused word next to usability when it comes to the game of dancing around issues in FLOSS design.

Let's turn to the venerable Wikipedia for a quick definition:

"A brand is a collection of images and ideas representing an economic producer; more specifically, it refers to the concrete symbols such as a name, logo, slogan, and design scheme. Brand recognition and other reactions are created by the accumulation of experiences with the specific product or service, both directly relating to its use, and through the influence of advertising, design, and media commentary. A brand is a symbolic embodiment of all the information connected to a company, product or service."

Note how the wiki article clearly states that a brand is an accumulation of experiences.

Any individual with a shred of knowledge and understanding in art and design is aware that an artist / designer cannot create a brand.

In our world of FLOSS, the meritocracy has created individuals that we, as a culture, trust in. With the distinct vacuum of personalities trained and focused on art and design issues, the meritocracy has given credence to notions and ideals spread by individuals without an analysis of the language and concepts perpetuated.

This has led to a good number of individuals in our community bandying terms such as branding around with the implied knowledge of formalized training in art and design. Sabdfl has been guilty of this -- often resulting in other people reusing the term in completely ill informed instances.

I'd cite Launchpad's logo legal news as a byproduct of this perpetuation of misinformation:

"The Launchpad Logo, previously unlicensed, is now licensed as “Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales”. “No Derivative” was chosen to preserve our branding integrity." -- Launchpad News

Yet again we are led to believe that the design of the logo is somehow branding. I would hazard a guess that locking down the artistic and design aspects of a FLOSS project might be more detrimental to Launchpad's 'branding' than the poorly kerned wordmark of their new logo.

Getting down to the essence of branding is no easy task. Many consider branding the sole creation of an artistic design team. While this is a critical component, all a design team can fundamentally achieve is the laying of a groundwork -- an arena -- for an audience to experience. The combined accumulation of experiences with a project creates the brand.

A solid analogous example of this might be to look to the automotive industry. Many car designers chase after critical terms for their given audiences. Luxury is one of those terms that many car manufacturers attempt to create with their brand experience. Consider the following listing:

• Ford
• General Motors
• BMW
• Hyundai
• Mercedes

Despite the fact that nearly every automotive manufacturer strives to create a sense of luxury with their products, how many of the above auto manufacturers would you attach the term to? Clearly, given massive quantities of resources as with the above vendors, all of them should be able to have luxury penned next to their names, no?

Thus in the end, the notion of 'branding' yet again falls upon the audience. The company creates the playing field, the audience creates the brand.

I'll leave you with the very astute quote from the Logo Design Workbook:

"The identity is not a brand. The brand is the perception formed by the audience about a company, person, or idea. This perception is the culmination of logo, visuals, identity program, messages, products, and actions. A designer cannot 'make' a brand. Only the audience can do this. The designer forms the foundation of the message with with the logo and identity system. A logo is not a brand, unless it's on a cow."

Perhaps the next time you hear a PHP script author-cum-art-director or bash-shell-wizard-cum-designer start flaunting branding and brand identity around, give it some serious thought.

Once again, thank you for reading. I am but the sum of your clicks.

Why Audience and Goal?

Why should we care about audience and design and what are the practical real world benefits of striving toward this pattern?

Design should be a road. Design should be an envelope. Design should connect an audience with a destination and wrap them in a seamless experience. In short, the design of a work should be a solution to a given problem. Design should be the enabling device for a particular audience to engage, experience, and emotionally attach themselves to a project.


Design should not be an accident. Design should not be the path of the most options. Design should not be a second class afterthought. Design should not be driven by random audience opinion. Design should not be the culmination of a mob, no matter how apparently organized they may appear.


Why should we start with the keystones of audience and goal? First, they allow us to get something done.

Given an infinite number of options mixed with an infinite number of driving reasons, we will wallow in an infinitely deep bog. FLOSS culture cannot afford to waste effort and time. Defining an audience and goal establishes firm boundaries that permit creators to focus on the tasks at hand.

A second driving force behind these two keystones is that by clearly putting audience and goal first, we prioritize the most important part of any design -- the person. This is an absolutely critical component when it comes to creating satisfaction, emotional attachment, and adoption. In real world measurable dividends, this assures a healthy FLOSS project with a loyal following and the potential for colossal development.

While the foolish byproduct of ignoring these two important principles should be obvious to all readers of this blog, Mark Oldach summarizes it quite nicely:

Often a client presents you with a project or problem that has multiple audiences, varied messages and unfocused objectives. This leads to confusing and unfocused design and the need for excessive text and complicated images. (This is, of course, always the designer's fault when it doesn't work rather than the client's fault for being unfocused.) Often the message contains too much information for the audience to even comprehend. A single communication piece can't be all things to all people. The more specific the message and the more focused the audience, the more effective the results.
-- Creativity for Graphic Designers

Sound familiar?

Oldach cites two important factors when defining a goal:

A single, clearly defined audience. It is difficult to persuade both a sixteen-year-old and his seventy-five-year-old grandparent in the same communication. Each uses a different language, lives within a different culture, and brings a different set of experiences to the situation.

A single message. If the message to be communicated cannot be distilled down to one or two sentences, you are saying too much. How much is too much obviously varies from project to project. A book can communicate a longer, more complicated message than a postcard. But as a rule, the message must be understood quickly.
-- Creativity for Graphic Designers

While the above quotations have been largely directed at graphic design, the overarching are also extremely relevant to more general design of interfaces and like areas. One could easily replace 'message' with 'goal' when it comes to designing a particular interface.

In closing, I ask you, what are we doing with FLOSS design, and in particular, Ubuntu design? Who is our audience? What is our goal? If it biased toward aesthetics, what should the emotional resonance be in our audience? If it is interface or architectural design, what is the goal of the project / application / interface from the eyes of our audience?

Once we have considered both audience and goal, we will have restricted and limited our creative options available to us. This limiting allows our creativity to truly flourish with a clear direction. I'll leave you with the following quote out of Oldach's book:

Don't look at boundaries and parameters as limitations to your creativity. They actually narrow options to a manageable level. You can easily be overwhelmed approaching a situation with too many creative options available. Let boundaries serve as opportunities, but make sure they are fixed from the beginning.
-- Creativity for Graphic Designers

The next time you fire up an application, use an interface, or examine the aesthetic leanings of a FLOSS project, ask yourself:

1. Is there a clear intended audience or a hodge-podge of elements that might appeal / dismay several different audiences?
   
2. Is there a clear message / goal / communication or a wash of tepid ideas / styles?
3. With the above two questions in mind, what might help to further a project / presentation along? Who might the project / presentation be most useful for? What could the current design do to better serve that audience?
   

By clearly keeping our goal and audience in front of us, complicated questions such as "What typeface should we use?" "Should we code feature zzz into this application?" "Should we commit branch xxx or yyy?" "How do we present feature vvv?" might be easier to answer and explain without exploding into a flurry of irrelevant opinion and bikeshedding. Under exceptional circumstances, a focusing on audience and goals might even help to prevent development communities from dissolving in emotionally charged spurts of venom.

Let's start putting our audiences first. There are a lot of them out there.

Thanks again for reading. I am but the sum of your clicks.

A Brief Example of Why Voting Doesn't Work

*** Update: ***
For some reason Blogspot shifted this to drafts. Sorry if it adversely affected anyone. Shifted back and re-added the images. Weird stuffs. Apologies to the folks who left comments and didn't have them appear. Apparently Blogspot was dun busted. Feel free to try and add them again. Thanks for all of your support.
*** End of Update ***

Voting doesn't work.

Voting and art, design, presence, and aesthetics particularly do not mix. They never will.

The reason is simple. If you have followed this blog for any given time, you will have seen the question of audience come up again and again. Without a point of perspective, everything is completely paradoxical and irrelevant. Without an audience, we wander down an aimless path filled with worthless vacuous words such as 'usability', 'beautiful', 'ugly', 'good', 'better', 'bad', etc.

Thus, in the end, voting without having an audience merely samples a cross section of audiences and ends up in a nightmarish soup of opinion. Where does this leave us? If you ever needed concrete proof that voting does not work, look no further than the highly frequented sites such as http://gnome-look.org or http://kde-look.org. Your honor, I offer you exhibit A and B from Gnome-Look. These are, as of this printing, the two most highly rated wallpapers available:

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Now your honor, please consider exhibit C and D from KDE-Look.

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

The net sum of the above four images should be proof alone that voting doesn't work, especially in diverse systems with countless members. If the samples fail to convince you, I would ask you the following questions:

1. Where do the above images take an overarching design?
2. Are any of these images inherently beautiful, ugly, perfect, or otherwise?
3. Can you identify an audience that the images might be appealing to when examined on an image by image basis?
4. Would any one of the images alone be a sure-fire solution to an existing design problem as it exists within Ubuntu or another FLOSS project?
   

If one can loosely accept the reality that voting will not lead us to success, we must then question the idea of the premise behind the Ubuntu Brainstorm site. One could easily argue that again, when faced with a disparate and diverse audience, the results of voting will yield useless information or statistics.

What's worse is that we find samples of compelling ideas such as:

1. "Idea #290: Make Ubuntu look nice"
2. "Idea #1231: Drop the brown"[1]

In parting, I'd like to summarily dismiss the idea that we can achieve any degree of solid design with a backbone of democratic voting. Design-by-amoeba, where the design moves along toward food / pleasure and away from pain doesn't work either, of course. If this were a journey along a path toward a location, we can quickly see how both approaches are going to fail us. We have neither a location to travel to nor know who we are going to take along.

If we seek to really push Ubuntu and FLOSS into the new era, we are going to need to accept some of the fundamental realities of design. Our culture has created a fresh new approach to development and community driven collaboration, but it has a long way to go and learn regarding the next evolutionary step of designing lauded interfaces and presence.


[1] What I find amusing is a quote such as "Estesark wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:06 - Brown isn't a particularly fashionable colour." How could you be more ill-informed in today's day and age? Is it possible? I challenge anyone who reads this blog to type the words "Prada Brown", "Gucci Brown", "Adidas Brown", "Nike Brown", "Vans Brown Shirt", or like phrase into Google. The result should systematically dismantle the idea that there are innate 'avoid-at-all-costs' colour schemes in our world. Again, this discussion is about Context, Audience, and Communication. Heaven help us if someone actually votes such an ignorant statement up and we, as a culture, suddenly believe it.

Uninspired

I have been attempting not to post to keep focus on the typography posting. If you care and can take the five seconds to email Jos, please continue to show your support and politely request that he license the work according to a Free Software compatible license. Read more about this here.


In the midst of getting frustrated with MythTV theming, I dove into Inkscape and came up with some completely uninspired dribble rather akin to the stale bread in this post.


Additional menu buttons are in on the Mythbuntu theme now, indicating more menu elements. Boring, but took some twiddling. Now if I can get Schedules Direct to behave, I might be able to get the blasted menu tails designed.

On my todo list, in no particular order:

• Get an article up regarding a default presentation audience for Ubuntu. Who might a good audience be? What design concepts might we want to pursue? Why?
• Continue to flog along on the Mythbuntu theme when time permits. If any of the crowd out there knows how to stop the Schedules Direct "Internal Server Error 500", please enlighten me. Double checked my password and such.
• Get the first series of five or six Memorial photographs out the door. Post processing and publish to the blog.
• Try to make some progress on an Ibex wallpaper. Still completely disgusted with the state of affairs regarding our beloved operating system, but alas, plodding forward with those who are interested and like minded.

Once again, thank you kindly for supporting this vile pile of delusional ranting. It is rewarding to know that there are people out there who care about the issues.