We designers make our living designing things like logos. Obviously if you’re a hobbyist or don’t make a living, one wouldn’t care so much. It’s been done before, but iStockphoto carries a lot of weight in the stock arena, and I for one hate to see them go down this path.

From their announcement:

We’re excited to announce a whole new product coming to the iStock collection. Clients will soon be able to download a unique logo to brand their business or organization right here at iStock. This is a huge opportunity not just for existing iStock contributors, but for our community of designers as well. If you’re a designer, you’ve probably created hundreds of different logos over the course of your career and we’re offering you an outlet to start selling logos to the world’s largest community of creative buyers.

What is lost
That all sounds well and good, but removing the thought processes and creative background work that designers do for logo design customers is a disservice. It’s not like we just plunk down a logo; no, we talk to the client and solve the brand problems unique to their business.

They’re turning a valuable service into a cheap shopping-cart knick-nack.

Josh Taylor at Borshoff says it very well:

iStock is a valuable source. When you simply can’t afford to pay for professional photography, it’s a viable option. But. Let me say it again. But. You are not getting the same quality of product. As professionals we know this, but it seems like more and more folks are starting to believe that the quality is the same. The reality is a quick five-minute browse comparing the images at iStock to the images at Getty will quickly dispel any notion of parity.

So if photography can be replaced, what’s the big deal with logos?

It removes the design.

Design is not simply making things look pretty. It is visual communication. Designers are hired to make images speak, not just to make them look good. The purpose of our industry is to tell stories with visuals. Our job is to make the image tell the right story.

Follow the money pie
Rather than protecting and standing up for designers, iStockphoto is out for profit (which I don’t have a problem with.) Instead of designers charging their clients the fair market value based on the time and effort spent, you get iStockphoto setting the royalty to the designer at 50% right now, to be dropped to something undetermined in a few months. It’s cost is set from 100-750 iStockphoto “credits” by some cog in the iStockphoto machine.

iStockphoto is owned by the stock giant, Getty. Geniuses that they are, they saw an opening into the stock logo business and wanted a slice of the pie.

I almost fell out of my seat when I got the official notice from iStockphoto a few days ago. “$5 bonus” for a logo design is literally a slap in the face to the hard work and effort of all genuine designers out there.

Some interesting responses:
Most of the masses on iStockphoto’s forums respond with thoughtful comments like “Wow, sounds exciting!!!” but one comment caught my eye:

“Thanks iStock for thinking ahead and I look forward to receiving the logo training manual.“.

Ladies and gentlemen, iStock is going to be selling you logos from “designers” who need a “logo training manual.”

Why we’ll be OK
I know I’m technically complaining here, so let’s do a reality check and have a bit of optimism. I’m an unabashed capitalist – I work to make money and I think everyone should. Sure, iStockphoto’s logo conveyor belt idea cheapens the whole industry, but there should always be businesses who see the value in working directly with a human being for something custom-made to fit their needs.

Just like cheap Chinese furniture didn’t stop the Amish from selling handmade, quality pieces, iStockphoto’s logo chute won’t stop real designers from successfully selling the real deal.

This modification makes ImageManage use valid css for alignment.
Also removes padding, border, and other depreciated controls from ImageManager popup.
Also contains the “What you see is what you mean” CSS that makes xinha show you the block-level elements, as well as the proper image floating CSS that updates the image position right in the editor.

This mod only includes the files needed for the update and assumes you aleready have Etomite 1.1 or greater and are using the latest release of Xinha for Etomite.

Download file:
xinha_valid_image_align.zip

To install:
Extract contents of zip file into /manager/media/xinha

To activate:

1. Assuming xinha is already enabled, enable “Stylist” in the main Etomite configuration’s “Interface & editor settings” tab, and change the stylist css file to /manager/media/xinha/xinha.css
2. Save the Etomite config.
3. Next, go back into the Etomite config and turn off stylist. (You need to do this because you don’t want the actual stylist “addon” as it’s worthless, you just want to tell xinha to use the css file in it’s display.)
4. Save the Etomite config again.
5. In your website’s main CSS, you’ll need to add a couple of styles, here’s what I use and recommend:
   img.imgright{float: right; clear: both; margin:0 0 .5em .5em}
img.imgleft{float: left; clear: both; margin:0 .5em .5em 0}

etomite xinha editor imagemanager css xhtml valid modification

Or has it really been solved?

Typekit released a blog post on May 27th introducing their solution which is supposed to revolutionize the way fonts appear online.

Looking at their promo image, I am initially and admittedly thrilled to see the words “Simple, Fast, Bulletproof.” because… if that’s true, then we’re in for a treat. But let’s think about this for a minute. As designers, most of us know how marketing works, and we know not to take it at face value. Upon further inspection, it seems to be without substance.

While most of the reactions I’ve read online have been “Hallelujah!” and “You guys will be rich when this takes off…” I’m glad to see some more intelligent, thoughtful reactions to this. With any vaporware (yes, this is vaporware right now) We shouldn’t buy the hype till it’s working. Making baseless statements like “it will change everything” should be something that people know better not to do by now when it comes to trumpeting software releases on the web.

I see several problems with this, many of which have already been touched on in the last 24 hours. From the description, this obviously has some sort of DRM. That’s not good no matter how you slice it. Just like a certain popular president, He’s saying one thing about DRM and describing the very opposite in the same breath.

“That’s where Typekit comes in. We’ve been working with foundries to develop a consistent web-only font linking license. We’ve built a technology platform that lets us to host both free and commercial fonts in a way that is incredibly fast, smoothes out differences in how browsers handle type, and offers the level of protection that type designers need without resorting to annoying and ineffective DRM.”

They just can’t have it both ways. Don’t be fooled… Digital Rights Management comes into play in the above statement: “a consistent web-only font linking license.”

The problem seen with Typekit’s proposed solution is obvious to folks who don’t jump so quickly onto hype wagons. It’s hard to discern the exact details, but we’re looking at a centralized library of sorts with DRM-enforced font files served up to websites via extra javascript. Is reading a page in a special font so much better than reading it in one of the commonly available ones so much of a benefit that designers and web developers are willing to spend money and add more encumberances to their website? Will the cost be passed on to the site owners? I don’t think that I could sell this “benefit” to the majority of my clients, and I sure wouldn’t use it for my own purposes.

If you must force a certain font on your viewer, making them download a bunch of code or some other encumbrance, and have to pay for it in the process, then you’ve put a speed bump into the simple and clear communication that should be happening online.

And that’s what it’s all about – communication.

commercial_fonts css drm drm_fonts font fonts font_use hype vaporware web_design

Occasionally I get domain renewal requests in the mailbox- the real one out by the street, not my e-mail. These come in official-looking paper envelopes branded by some company with an official-sounding name.

The problem is this: I register my domains online with a common registrar, such as Godaddy, Register.com, or Namecheap, and renewal costs a lot less that the paper notice is asking for. The other day I received one asking for me to renew domain names for up to $50. Normal domains run about $10-$15 online per year.

So if you get one of these, and even if it seems official, throw it away. It’s a scam.

• Increase website load times
• Save bandwidth (bandwidth costs money)
• Help the website look more professional
• Help visitors have a much better experience

Here are some general image-use guidelines:

1. Never re-size images in the content manager.
   The image must be sized properly in a graphic program such as PhotoShop before it is uploaded into a website. The reason is that when you scale down an image that is too big, the user still has to download a big image even though they only see it small. This slows down the website and harms the user experience. In addition, the image will appear “jaggy” and looks unprofessional.
2. Don’t use a transparent image saved in “24-bit PNG” format.
   A lot of people still use Internet Explorer 6, and it doesn’t support that image format. Images saved in this format also tend to have a large filesize. Unless you are a web developer and know what you’re doing, don’t use this image format.
3. Compress your images properly.
   No normal image should be over 100K. If it is, then you can usually optimize it by compressing it a bit more. This is often seen as a percentage slider when making JPG files – set this to 80 or less. There are exceptions to this rule, such as showing a large photograph.

Here is a general guideline to help you decide what image type to use:

• JPEG: Good for photos, bad for logos, text and artwork with hard edges
• PNG: Good for text, logos, and images with hard edges or solid colors, bad for photographs. Also the preferred format for images with transparency (PNG-8).
• GIF: Good for small animations, text, logos, and hard-edged artwork.

artwork bandwidth_costs_money format_images image_format image_type png_format transparent_image web_images best_practice

It’s much easier and more cost-effective to hire a professional freelancer rather than hire an employee. All it takes is a bit of communication and an IRS form 1099 a year later.

Let me state the benefits of going with a freelancer:

1. Freelancers have less overhead.
   Skip the red tape and the layers of bureaucracy. We’re leaner, faster, and better. On average, you’ll spend about 60% of the cost of going with a web firm.
2. Freelancers have a greater desire to excel.
   I’m a freelance- and my livelihood rests on doing a great job. When you call, I am the one who answers. Going with a larger firm, your project might be handed to an intern with nothing on the line.
3. Freelancers provide a wide range of services.
   Anything a media firm can do, a qualified freelancer can do. This is because most freelancers are entrepreneurial go-getters who used to work for those same media firms.
4. Freelancers are cool.
   Well, some are nerds… but I digress.

So, just because you have to be careful with your marketing dollars, doesn’t mean you can’t get some quality work done. Contact an independent contractor (such as myself) and we’ll fix you up good.

business_trends economy freelance freelancer independent_contractor job marketing media_firm small_business web_firm

While I’m not privvy to the conversations that were had with my various competitors and their clients, I hope the clients aren’t being fooled into thinking that they are buying custom design.

While using a pre-made web design templates is a good idea when the client wants to save money, taking credit for these designs and removing the original credits is usually illegal and unethical, as it can violate the original designer’s terms of use.

Let’s go ahead and review some basic ethics:
When using a ready-made template,

• Notify the client
• Don’t call it custom design
• Pass the savings on to the client
• Don’t claim the design as your own
• Stick to the copyright obligations regarding the display of original design credits

Tags: web_design web_development custom_design design design_fraud ethical ethical_practices ethics fraud template templates copyright

A whole lot has been said about Web 2.0 as a design style, and I won’t go deep into that or try to rehash all that has been said.

The Smashing article in question was written a full year ago, so that is a factor in this conversation.

Web 2.0 is certainly running it’s course, and may be heading out to some degree – but “Web 2.0″ as a style is mostly a misnomer.

Good information design will never go out of style.
Simplicity, clarity, lack of clutter, and accessibility – all hallmarks of the “Web 2.0″ style – are cornerstone factors of good information design. When it comes to web design, students should first learn something about good information design for communication’s sake, THEN learn about design for art’s sake… in that order.

“Web 2.0″ as a style is becoming more and more diluted as us web artists ache to go exploring into rougher, more exciting terrain again.
Real grunge (distressed typewriter text and splatters and other such stuff from the 90′s) was completely played out around 2001. We had a waves of tech and uber-tech-splatter-grunge in there, then grunge resurfaced in the form of “coffee house” type stuff. Hallmarks of the coffee house style are floral shapes, hand-drawn elements, swirlies, and “starburst” radiation backgrounds. This stuff has been popular with CD covers and t-shirts for years now.

About the time Web 2.0 started, this “coffee house” grunge was close to full stride.
I even recall conversations about this very thing with my wife (she’s a designer as well) which we had a two years ago. We talked about how popular the “coffee house” style was getting, and wondered how long it would remain in stride.

I still see this “coffee house” grunge a lot, but not in any amounts I’d call a resurgence. I would even say go as far as to disagree with the article and state that what they’re calling “grunge” was starting to fade even a year ago.

Thoughts? comments? feel free to share :)

Since the economy is chugging slower now, as things slow down for me (IF they do) then I’ll probably get more time to write.

The Colts horse logo design project seems to have been abandoned. The page of finalists still exists, but no update since April.

What a weird “contest” it was. If anyone knows what happened, I’d love to hear about it…

indianapolis design colts logo contest