Time and time again when we present websites and online projects to clients we are met with blank stares and questions when we begin talking about the more technical aspects of what we do. From these questions we have developed a few examples of our practice that helps our clients understand why we do what we do.

Why design for 1024×768?

The truth is, this is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a general standard that has emerged based on the quality of resolution of the majority of viewers’ monitors and equipment. While ever-changing, we want to be sure that by designing at this scale we are appealing to the greatest audience and allowing the design to be viewed on multiple platforms by the most viewers without alienating anyone. Designing for this resolution also allows important content to be viewed above the fold and begins to generate a natural form of visual hierarchy. Thinking about how content is displayed is crucial for allowing a user to understand what a website is saying, to navigate intuitively, and how to get to them the information they are looking for efficiently. As mentioned, audience assessment is criticaI in design, and there are other ways to approach this same issue. Notably, responsive web design shifts the one-size-fits-all approach allowing sites to scale infinitely and to automatically reconfigure based on the device it is viewed on. In all cases, we must always prioritize information and balance its placement based on user requirements.

What is a design grid?

Whenever we start a web design project we develop a design grid to set rules and generally try and stick to them. This keeps spacing throughout a site design consistent across multiple pages. Since websites consist of multiple pages and sometimes multiple templates of pages, it is important to set up an underlying structure so that the design stays consistent from page to page and users are not confused or challenged when navigating the site.

Not all successful websites have flashy graphics or intense imagery. Some of the best designs of content rich websites follow a grid structure that organizes, compartmentalizes and allows users to access information as easily as possible. We work with design grids because setting rules is important for achieving consistency on the web, and for a brand.

What is experiential design?

Thinking about the experience a user will have when visiting and navigating your website and designing to maximize that experience is critical to its success. We constantly try and improve on the ways users interact with an online resource or website by researching and anticipating the information they will want when coming to the site and how easily they can navigate to get that information. We research into best practices for UX (User Experience) and UI (User Interface) to allow for an intuitive and fluid experience. The simplicity of finding information and navigating the website are key to maximizing its effectiveness.

Why content is important.

Content is what Google looks at when searching a website. When the content of a website is strategically thought about it can launch a website to the top of a google search based on the ‘keywords’ that people use to search. This is called SEO (Search Engine Optimization). Allowing your content to be optimized to your target audience is crucial in allowing them the best chance to find you. It is important to have a look at the content that is being displayed in the navigation, the headlines and in the content of a website since it can determine whether the site will rank well on search engine results pages on google and other search engines.

Why we design with rules.

Once a rule is mastered, it is time to strive to break it. By having an understanding of what’s possible we can effectively challenge these ideas and create new design boundaries, and push bravely past them with confidence.

I was recently asked to be a presenter at PechaKucha Toronto. Of course it was an honour and, telling myself that these sort of challenges lead to discovery and reward, I happily agreed. As the day grew near I started to fret—OK, I was freaking out a little. Not only was I struggling to find a topic suitable for the evening’s theme of “Design + Think + Passion”, but I hadn’t ever done a PechaKucha talk before and found the format surprisingly challenging. I was nervous.

For anyone unfamiliar with PechaKucha, it’s a presentation format where each speaker is permitted exactly 20 slides, and allowed to speak for 20 seconds per slide before it automatically advances to the next—whether you’re ready or not. It’s a terrific platform which forces speakers to make their point quickly, resulting in succinct, on point presentations the audience can digest easily.

I’ve done plenty of public speaking in my career, and I love challenges that scare me (it forces growth), but I found the restrictive parameters of PechaKucha uncomfortable. Anyone who knows me can attest to how much I enjoy talking and storytelling, but when you have less than seven minutes to take a crowded room full of strangers from “Hi my name is Mark…” through an entire story arc leading to an intelligent final point the audience will remember is a hard thing indeed. But beyond the confines of the format, I still had no clear topic idea and needed help. That help came from an unexpected source.

The week before my presentation, I joined my friend Ryan for a drink one evening. As we hadn’t seen each other in a while, he asked how life and business were these days. I described my PechaKucha woes briefly, but then found myself surprisingly whining a little about worries over the economy, sales and revenues at work, my income and poorly performing investments. One of my smartest and more successful chums, Ryan neither suffers fools nor tolerates whining, so it wasn’t out of character when he brazenly told me to “Give your head a shake!” But I was caught off guard when he leaned forward and asked, “What did you invest in last year?”

Not seeing an obvious connection to our previous conversation about my presentation, I thought for a minute and struggled to form an answer. Between the umms and awws, I said something about a GIC, RRSP and TFSA contributions, and was starting to bitch about crappy mutual funds and the insane real estate market in Vancouver when he stopped me abruptly, shook his head, and said he wasn’t talking about money at all. What the what now?

He then told me about a friend of his who, after a particularly good year with his business, instead of putting a chunk of money into savings or investment vehicles like real estate or the stock market, decided to invest in friends, relationships and community this year. To his accountant’s chagrin and disbelief, he had chosen five people he believed in and was spending his money to go visit them, travel with them to conferences and seminars, and set up meetings with influential people and potential mentors. His theory being that these people were on career trajectories that he could not only positively influence, but benefit from in the long term. He believed that spending his time, energy and money on them would open doors otherwise not opened and be far more profitable (for both parties) than conventional investments. A fascinating story leaving me feel a bit humbled, but I was still confused about the connection to my PechaKuchasituation.

“It’s simple,” Ryan continued, “you may not have the financial means to invest thousands of dollars the way my friend did, but you’ve been making similar investments all year long—and these pursuits will be profitable for years to come. You have significant reach and influence via social media, you volunteer for various community groups doing excellent work, you’re an active member and leader of various industry associations, and you frequently either attend, host, or speak at events and conferences each year. There’s your PechaKucha topic—a new way of looking at investments that others can consider and be inspired by.”

These certainly cost me money, but that wasn’t what he was driving at. As I sat there and listened to a friend’s objective perception of me and my activities, I started to understand. He was arguing that where I spent my time and energy was as (or more) important than where I invested my money, and could equally produce profits in social currency and capital. I started feeling mildly foolish and arrogant for whining about money, but also better about myself as I considered this line of thinking.

Ryan continued, pointing out the various industry events I’ve helped produce or host in the recent past, such as Salazar student design awards, Practivism sustainability speaker series, Graphex national design awards, and Icograda Design Week Vancouver.

He asked me how many pro bono or charity projects I’d participated in, bringing to mind many examples, such as Canstruction (benefitting Vancouver  Food Bank), Half The Sky Foundation (helping orphaned children in China), Dodson Neighbourhood House (providing safe, affordable housing for DTES) and Room To Read (building libraries in developing countries). I hadn’t really considered how participating in charity work could be viewed as a profitable investment.

Ryan went on talking about the leadership and organization skills I lend organizations like DOXA, SIGGRAPH, and Barcamp Vancouver, reminding me also of the various informative articles I’d published, the teaching and lecturing I do for various design programs and professional associations, and the mentoring I provide for students and young design professionals. He complimented me for being the driving force behind inclusive business networking groups such as Likemind Vancouver, which brings creatives together for coffee once a month, Interesting Vancouver, an annual “unconference” featuring interesting people talking about their hobbies, passions and obsessions, and Foodists, a collective of like-minded food worshippers I co-founded with some foodie friends.

Ryan wrapped up his argument by expressing appreciation for the way I volunteered my time and energy to serve as leadership with the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada, and for bringing the breakfast lecture series CreativeMornings to Vancouver, reminding me how many friends, collaborators, staff—even clients–had emerged as a result of all of these efforts—not to mention the positive impact it had on my reputation, network and influence.

My friend’s point was more than suitably made, and I felt great. I had never really considered all the various activities that I engaged in terms of an investment, but he was right: I had muddled the meaning of words like “investment” and “profit” by confusing them with money.

The truth is, beyond any feel-good sense of fulfillment, I was indeed profiting from my investments of time, energy, creativity, leadership and unpaid hard work in ways that easily outstripped most financial vehicles available. And in practical business terms, my company receives numerous inquiries, recommendations, new clients and projects, and in fact PROFITS from all of these indirect investments.

So how’d my PechaKucha presentation go? Well, it was still a challenge to put together and delivery succinctly, but as usual the challenge motivated me to step up and overcome my own fear and I think it went OK. According to coverage of the evening, the event was a success and my presentation was well received and memorable. Here’s a link to the audio and slides, so you can judge for yourself, but I feel like the effort was a good investment.

So now I ask you, what are you investing in this year?

Used in situations where two adjacent characters would bump into each other, there are two types of ligatures, standard ligatures and discretionary ligatures.

Most people are acquainted with the ampersand, the celebrity of the ligature world, but that is comparable to the ability to identify Jim Morrison–it doesn’t mean you know the entire Doors discography nor the history of Classic Rock. Knowledge of design holds a certain amount of cultural capital in our society, and although some seem to have a certain proclivity for it, for most it takes effort, training and practice to speak it fluently.

We had a recent situation where a client wasn’t versed in design language and we failed to interpret. In this particular situation, the kerning (space between letters) came into question. Actually, the design had been kerned, but it was re-kerned and resubmitted only to have it returned with the same comment. As a designer being able to take criticism is a required skill, but there is no guarantee that a client has the vocabulary to communicate the issue. Resolution finally came when we switched to the telephone and were able to ask the client to point out the problem, it turned out that the “letter spacing issue” was that the “f” and “i” were touching.

It was a ligature.

To us, it was design love and attentiveness; to them, it looked like an error. We were speaking different languages. The fact that the client did not know what a ligature was flew under our radar, but had we stepped back from their initial comment and considered its context we may have saved time and irritation for us all.

So why hasn’t the ligature passed into the realm of common visual vernacular? Why don’t they feel as natural to clients as layouts designed with the golden ratio? One reason ligatures have not saturated the designscape is that in recent history many typefaces did not included them, so the designer had to choose to change faces, or create them by hand. However, with the dominance of OpenType, this seems to be a problem of the past as many typefaces are equipped with a large variety ligatures. Another force working against the pervasiveness of the ligature is the designer’s nightmare–the dreaded word processing program. Fortunately, fixes have been created for Pages and you can now choose to “use ligatures” and Microsoft Word 2010 has added support for OpenType ligatures, (for help enabling them you can find a tutorial here).

Technical functionality is not the only hinge when it comes to ligature use; personal taste is also a factor. To some, the use of ligatures is on par with the choice of serif or sans. With roots in early writing, some see ligatures as carrying a certain rare elegance, adding class and refinement to text. On the opposing side, some view them as antiquated, traditional and superfluous. Lovers of the ligature will argue that they are not merely ornamental, but efficient, replacing two letters with one and simultaneously increasing legibility–exuding the modern ideals of form following function.

Ligatures are a decision that every designer must make for themselves. To me, they are something special; so efficient, so thoughtful, so graceful, so salacious–and when I come upon them in life, I can’t help but smile, as I imagine two letters making love.

So we pose the question to you, are ligatures an element of typographic style you cannot live without? Should we as designers come together and create guidelines for their use? Or, are they archaic and a tradition that needs updating or better yet, to just go away?

Speaker Elliot Jay Stocks at the Interlink Conference. Photo by Steve Mynett

An edited version of the following article was published on DesignEdgeCanada.com on June 7, 2011:

Walking into the Interlink Conference felt a bit like witnessing two worlds collide. Half the audience was the hardcore designer set, with their retro haircuts and designer eyewear, the other half developers, with their nerdy t-shirts and techno-gadgets. Or was it the designers with the tees and toys and the nerds with the hipster fashion? The crowded auditorium at Capilano University was a sea of glowing Apple logos, and the line between designer and developer was so blurry it didn’t seem to matter anymore. In fact, perhaps that was the point. All of the more that 300 attendees and 15 speakers that came to Interlink Conference June 2 to 4 were there to share and learn from each other about how to make the web a better place and help people make their lives better.

Being the first ever edition of this conference format, rookie organizer Shawn Johnston opened the day by sharing his vision for Interlink, explaining that his intention was a “peer-to-peer discussion both among the attendees and between speakers and workshop leaders and the audience”.

The topic of inspiration sometimes seems ubiquitous at design conferences, but web industry veteran Denise Jacobs kicked off the conference by sharing practical tips for embedding this often elusive muse into a creative process “on demand”. Jacobs countered basic ides like ignoring our inner critic or giving ourselves permission to produce bad ideas with examples of strategies, habits and tools a web designer can use in the daily pursuit of creativity and inspiration.

“It doesn’t matter how much you like some ideas, as they may not like you back.” explained Portland’s popular and well-spoken design guru Frank Chimero. Stunning the audience by declaring he’d scrapped his planned presentation, instead talking about his personal journey, and the frustrations and revelations he encountered in his design practice. Using the metaphor of the painter stepping back from the canvas to evaluate the process itself, Chimero discussed the difference between the “how” of design (the techniques and tools we use) and the “why” (the choices we make). Chimero presented an argument that it was where these overlap that real design happens. Referencing the continuing rapid changes on the web, Chimero challenged the audience to consider that designers “don’t actually solve problems, they produce design responses” with a myriad of possibilities for most design challenges. “If we solved design problems, there would be only one Twitter client app.” joked Chimero to chuckles from the audience. “There’s a different between good work and valuable work, and we don’t have to choose.” Chimero continued “But valuable is how you get to good. The point is to make stuff to help us live better.”

The first of many UK designers was Elliot Jay Stocks, who used humour to challenge the audience to move past established Web 2.0 aesthetics with a straight-talking rant about “cheesy effects” and illogical choices so commonly made by web designers. Refreshing was Stocks’ contention that it was the obligation of serious web designers to learn the fundamentals of traditional graphic design and apply it online. “Bogged down by web design?” asked Stocks cheekily, “Then go do some print design—it’s so liberating.”

“Good design does not necessarily mean good experience”, argued New York-based designer Whitney Hess, as she explained her user experience philosophy and introduced the audience to a set of ten design principles anyone could apply in their own practice. The foundation of Hess’ approach was the notion that “user experience is the establishment of a philosophy about how to treat people,” echoing Frank Chimero’s earlier sentiment that good web design is about making people’s lives better, not just creating pretty graphics or cool effects. Through creative use of striking photography and a charming presentation style, Hess inspired many in the audience to frantically jot notes, a sure sign of a compelling conference presentation, and more than a few attendees posted tweets about how they planned to initiate a set of design principles themselves.

Still reeling from Hess’ inspirational talk, the audience next met UK-based mobile interface designer Sarah Parmenter, a straight-talking (and striking) Virgo perfectionist who claims she started designing iOS apps “because she likes surrounding herself with aesthetic things.” From the benefits of an application definition statement to a series of examples and techniques, her glossy presentation included practical tips and tricks for any web designer wanting to make the leap to designing interfaces for mobile devices—something she claims is inevitable for anyone in the web design field these days. Parmenter also emphasized the importance of respecting the user experience, a theme woven throughout the entire conference.

The most technical presentation of the day, Yahoo designer (and one of only two Canadian speakers) Jonathan Snook walked the audience through an overview of the evolution of CSS and demonstrated a series of useful techniques and tips. While not everyone in the auditorium were as engaged by this code-heavy presentation, Snook’s talk reminded all that using technologies such as HTML, CSS and JQuery is an important part of being successful as a web designer—and not nearly as daunting or awkward as in years past.

“At less than 15 years old, our industry is still young—it hasn’t even had sex yet.” began DIBI Conference producer and English web designer Gavin Elliot. He certainly got the attention of those in the auditorium, but it didn’t get much better unfortunately. His presentation, called “A Better Process” was billed as an intro to web design process which we could put into action to make our own work better than ever. “We don’t build websites, we build systems” was the most memorable statement in his slick presentation, while the core of Elliot’s talk lacked much practical or applicable learning suitable for this well-informed audience.

The final conference presentation was by yet another Brit, this time web designer Simon Collison. His presentation was arguably the most academic, rooted in the fundamentals of visual language as he discussed applying a more analytical approach to content and structure and how they affect the choices we make as designers. “The influx of type choices online requires us to think smarter about type design choices” argued Collison, echoing the sentiments of Ethan Dunham and others. His contention that static web design, versus adaptive or responsive web layout resonated with numerous attendees who could be overheard discussing ways to make their own interface designs more flexible.

Still buzzing from a jam-packed day of conference presentations, attendees returned to Capilano University on Saturday for hands on workshops by industry experts. Simon Collison continued his theme of the importance of visual language with his “Analytical Design” workshop, explaining some of the science and meaning behind the decisions we make and offering ideas and methods for improving design process. Canadian Steve Fisher, who argued that there isn’t any fundamental difference between UX and design, gave attendees practical tips on how to spend more time examining the reasons and motivations behind the functions and interfaces we create. “I’m in the process of blowing out at least 30% of my process because I think it has been lying to myself, stakeholders and other team members.” Fisher explained. “Things like static wireframes essentially lie.” Wrapping up the workshops was a pragmatic, no-hype introduction to HTML5 by Manchester-based developer and Opera Web Evangelist Patrick Lauke. ”HTML5 is a huge topic.” says Lauke, “People use it to refer to “really cool shit” for everything that is out there.” explaining that HTML5 is still basically a proposition under development, but in the final stages of review for W3C recommendation. “What people think of as HTML5 is most often javascript or CSS3.” explained Lauke. Attendees were treated to an overview of this new specification along with some useful training in new syntax/semantics, improved form interactivity, and the “flash-killer” features like native support in browsers for video, audio and canvas.

Aside from a few comments about the inconvenience of the venue location in North Vancouver, and the mayhem of the Stanley Cup playoffs (go Canucks!) interfering with some social activities, Interlink successfully delivered on its promise of bringing thought leaders together from all over the world to spark discussion and debate regarding the evolving and constantly changing face of the web. One group of attendees chatting over drinks on Saturday night discussed a longing to see more real-world project case studies and panel discussions next year. ”Apart from a few hard to follow and slightly obscure talks, I was thoroughly impressed with the level of quality of the discussions.” offered Calgary-based designer and developer Matt Trienis. ”Lately, I’ve been feeling like I need to step up my game, and Interlink really confirms that.” said Vancouver web designer Catherine Winters.

Congratulations to Shawn Johnston and his volunteers for hosting the first of what will surely be many more successful Interlink Conferences.

Photos from the conference can be on Flickr.

The Interlink Conference started with designers dodging balls

The following article was published on DesignEdgeCanada.com on June 2, 2011:

Web design veteran Shawn Johnston was frustrated by a lack of local forums for progressive conversation and collaboration aimed at propelling the web from a new industry into a mature and self aware craft. His response to this angst was the Interlink Conference, which launched this week with a dodgeball game. That’s right, dozens of the best and brightest in the field of web design and development from around the world kicked off what Johnston calls “an adult conference for serious adults” by throwing rubber balls at each other’s heads.

Taking place June 2 through 4 at Capilano University  in North Vancouver, the Interlink Conference website promised “discussions to inspire the web we imagine”. But aren’t there already a bunch of conferences with a similar mandate?

“SXSW was a disaster for me,” said Steve Megitt, a web designer from Toronto. “To me most conferences like SXSW or HOW feel more like hero worship with designers on stage showing off portfolio work more than a real learning or dialogue and debate opportunity.” This sentiment was echoed by others at the conference who felt that many large conferences have evolved into big parties better suited to industry juniors than anything suitable for a seasoned professionals seeking new connections and paradigms.

“My body is sore all over from dodgeball last night,” said designer Dan Rubin who kicked off the workshops on a rainy Thursday morning with a presentation about hands-on prototyping and user testing. The primary takeaway of this case study-based presentation seemed to be a focus on designing for user goals before company goals as an approach. In another popular workshop, Washington DC-based designer Samantha Warren lead a group through her approach to working successfully (and efficiently) with web clients. “She presented really well and gave awesome advice & tools” said recent interactive design grad Stephan Rosger. One notable example of this was Warren’s “style tile” approach of rapidly creating multiple examples of colour options, patterns, button styles, navigation treatments, and typographic possibilities on a single browser page. Inspired by swatch boards commonly used by architectural and interior designers, these early conceptual style tiles allow a client to consider and approve early expressions of mood, tone and style for their website design before much time has been invested in a particular interface design, essentially eliminating the need for multiple design mockups.

In another classroom across the beautiful Capilano University campus among the trees, a packed room of eager webbys hung on every word from Brooklyn-based designer Meagan Fisher. Attendees to Fisher’s workshop were treated to a peek into a master’s CSS toolkit, showing the power and capabilities of CSS beyond common simple effects. Fisher, who famously argues that web designers should literally ditch Photoshop (gasp), demonstrated in real time how to design rapid prototypes directly inside a web browser, where changes can happen quickly and evolve to better suit user needs or project parameters as they come into focus. Her argument is that not only is it faster with some practice, but leaves your developer with a solid framework for production without needing to slice and dice pixels.

As the gloomy rain gave way to a beautiful Vancouver sunset, webfont expert Ethan Dunham  closed the day with a workshop called Web Font Revolution. Dunham, who is the man behind
FontSquirrel.com and FontSpring.com, presented a three-hour crash course on the history of webfonts and demonstrated that web designers have essentially run out of excuses for bad type online, with nearly 100% support for webfonts and the technology to deliver and create them. Even so, he explained why it is continues to be a challenge to render fonts well in Windows, and encouraged attendees to join him in pushing the boundaries of what’s possible and demanding greater simplification of the current fractured licensing landscape. Shocking to many in the audience was Dunham’s disdain for fonts-as-service providers such as Fonts.com and Typekit. “Users should be trusted and offered webfonts the way desktop fonts have always been sold” argues Dunham. Dunham concluded with a challenge to the audience to take the time to learn the art and rules of beautiful typesetting and apply them to the web better than has been the recent norm.

“My goal with Interlink was to connect peers to peers rather than teachers sharing their wisdom with a room full of students.” says Shawn Johnston, “No craft is ever mastered.
We are all students.” Perhaps this youthful perspective is what motivated Johnston to kick off the conference with a game of dodgeball. Will the main conference day of presentations truly break down this teacher/student paradigm? We’ll see in the coming days. But the theme seems to have been embodied in the first day of this new conference with ideas and techniques delivered like a dodgeball thump to the head. Only in this game, everyone goes home a winner.

For more on the Interlink Conference.

I’m basically a print designer, and even though I have done web design I worried that they would be “talking in code” and I’d be lost. I was pleasantly surprised—the presenters who showed some code did it in a way that I could understand. Even Eric Meyer’s chat on “CSS for evil” was presented in a way that made sense to the print designers like me!

Monday morning started with AEA founder Jeffrey Zeldman giving a history of Emoticons. From the simple smiley face to winking emoticons with hats and mustaches to the difference between eastern and western styles, we were impressed with Zelman’s vast knowledge.

Just joking :)

Seriously, you know that the next two days are going to be great when you hear things like “Beautiful no longer means flash-based.” Zeldman’s passionate opening on the history of the web—Web 2.0—set the tone of the conference. He kicked off AEA by showing inventions from history that led to the web, and showing why we stand at the dawn of a newer and more mature web powered by standards.

Following Zeldman, we heard from Sarah Parmenter on Crafting the User Experience. She discussed principles from human psychology, such as speed, simplicity, surprise, social behavior and stirring emotions, and she gave practical advice for using psychology when thinking about web design and user experience.

Rounding out the morning was Jason Santa Maria’s session On Web Typography. He began by talking about what makes a good web typeface and major typography considerations, such as dimensions, special features, prolonged reading and internationalization. “Good typography is invisible. Don’t make me think about reading, just let me read!” Then he talked about the advances and choices we now have with web fonts. Even though those advances are exciting, he cautioned, we still have to use good design and web standards.

The afternoon started with Scott Berkun talking about Why Designers Fail and What to Do About It. He gave us his thoughts on how we’d never learn and move forward without failure. He said all designers fail 95% of the time, but design suffers from a lack of failure analysis—how to look at the reasons we fail and what to do about it.

One of my favourite sessions was A Content Strategy Roadmap with Kristina Halvorson. She provided valuable insights into how we spend a lot of time on strategy, wireframes and design before obtaining content for our websites. Content often comes last, when it should come first. The bottomline: “Start designing from the content out, rather that the canvas in,” she said.

Finishing off the day was Luke Wroblewski, whose presentation Mobile Web Design Moves left me eager for his full-day mobile web design course. It was exciting to hear about the huge growth in mobile usage, the immense possibilities of mobile web design and how we need to think differently when designing for mobile devices.

Day two started off with Eric Meyer and his talk The CSS3 Anarchists’ Cookbook. Basically, he gave us tips and tricks on how to use CSS for “evil”—how to mess with your co-workers by changing up code in their browser’s user stylesheets. I was a little scared of this talk, but whenever Eric showed the code he showed examples of what it did so it made sense. It was a cheeky way to show the new tools in HTML5 and CSS3.

Jeremy Keith followed with a discussion of Design Principles. He talked about how your principles and design should match, and how this will help you reach your goals—“The more you can boil down your design principles, the better.” Aarron Walter then did a presentation titled Idea to Interface. It was great to learn how those iPhone apps you have in your mind would translate from just an idea into actuality. He said you need to give yourself permission to be the person with the idea, and he outlined how you would carry it through.

The afternoon continued with Andy Clarke and his presentation Smoke Gets in Your Eyes about CSS3 web animation. We learned about the latest CSS animation techniques, and he showed some entertaining videos, such as the Flash vs. Web rap battle.

Alexa Andrzejewski, the founder of Foodspotting, followed with an intriguing presention The Dimensions of a Good Experience. She talked about evaluating experiences using 10 principles from urban planning, and how these same qualities could be applied to digital experiences—“Design influences our experience of the world.” It was the process that led her to create the Foodspotting app.

Finishing off day two was the humourous and incredibly passionate Tom Coates talking about Everything the Network Touches. He reminded us all about how exciting and powerful the web is and how the network is not only extending to people but to objects and places. His final thought: “I am going to say something controversial: I don’t think we should have web standards. It’s only with the ability to explore and not be bound by rules and regulations that we going to create and discover new realms.”

With our minds on overload from these two days we headed into day three, Mobile Web Design with Luke Wroblewski. Again, I had no reason to worry that we’d be doing something super techincal. It was all digestible information. Talking to a crowd of 300, Luke did a great job of getting us to interact with him and each other. He started by asking the audience what we’d like to learn. We also did a few interactive projects by sharing in small groups. Throughout the day, Luke took us through the major considerations when designing for mobile: what the constraints are, stats on usage, what behaviours drive the use of mobile devices and how they are used.

AEA, you know how to throw a conference: 12 exceptionally fantastic speakers, a live Twitter feed, three parties and a soundtrack! If you’re looking to attend a fun web design conference that runs seamlessly with loads of exciting and passionate people, check out An Event Apart. Having attended many design conferences I found AEA to be among one of the best experiences I’ve had. I went from not knowing anything about this conference to coming back with practical experience and tools ready to be put to use in our office.

Further reading:
A List Apart
World Wide Web Consortium
Luke Wroblewski’s Notes on AEA Presentations

Move beyond the RFP to evaluate and hire the best design firm

I have responded to numerous Requests For Proposals (RFPs) in the two decades I have been managing a design studio, and we have developed a point of view that makes some business people uncomfortable: RFPs are an expensive and inaccurate process when hiring design services.

RFPs are a flawed mechanism

While graphic and communication design is increasingly considered a critical component of business success, expert business analysts and chartered accountants are advising their corporate clients to avoid this antiquated method of evaluating and selecting design vendors.

In his excellent article in CA Magazine A Decent Proposal, Cal Harrison argues:

“buyers have the opportunity to create strategic advantage for their organizations when procuring a professional services firm. However, they must first abandon their reliance on the constraints of the traditional RFP process.”

RFPs were born in the manufacturing sector, where project parameters were often clearly defined. Such is rarely the case with professional services like design. Expertise, budget and timelines should be expected in any project description, but RFPs too often score based on issues like hourly rates, process description, sustainability policies, even creativity—all reasonable issues to consider, but not a good basis for evaluating solid candidates for solving your business needs.

Most RFPs score hourly rates or total project price as only one component of a proposal, but all RFPs try to commodify that which is not a commodity, generally attracting those most eager to win the work despite not having clearly defined project parameters—in other words, the lowest bidders who are also often the least qualified or suitable.

What is the difference between one design firm and the next? It may very well be the reduced uncertainty they bring via experience, process and motivation to meet the agreed to goals and budget. The adage “you get what you pay for” absolutely holds true in this context.

RFPs often do little more than create artificial optics of fair market evaluation, instead of producing terrific results. By their nature, RFPs can only yield ideas based on conjecture and loose, arbitrary budget guesses.

The bottom line is that the RFP process is counterproductive to a good design process. It doesn’t fully allow designers to bring their outside perspective and critical thinking to bear. The best graphic and communication designers work as consultants WITH their clients to analyze, diagnose and create strategic solutions from the inside that address problems and meet goals, not toss about random ‘best guesses’ based on incomplete RFP information. The most progressive and admired companies in the world understand that design isn’t a commoditized output well suited to an RFP process.

So how do you choose the best design team?

A quick Google search offers a dizzying array of design firms of all kinds and sizes, some offer general graphic design and production services, others specialize in strategy, branding or digital and interactive technologies. But what criteria should you use to compare one experienced firm to another and choose the best design firm?

Hire an expert in their field and yours. There is a distinct advantage to hiring designers who have superior educations and professional designations, such as certified graphic designers (CGDs). Additionally, consider design teams that specialize in producing solutions for your particular industry. Specialization can result in beneficial insights that can work to your advantage, but consider that it could also be something to avoid if what you are looking for is a fresh set of eyes. Whatever your starting point is, seek out designers who utilize a process that allows them to identify critical elements and uncover key insights and ultimately customizing a communication design solution.

Evaluating a design team’s portfolio and process is crucial, but look beyond the pretty pictures and ubiquitous descriptions of process and request comprehensive case studies that outline goals, context, approach, results and testimonials. Case studies will demonstrate if their process is results-driven and show you what steps the design team will take, giving you a good idea what you can expect and whether you’ll like working with them. If they don’t have any, move on.

It’s important to realize that the real value of a relationship with a designer is in their repeatable process, applied to your specific problem, not merely the final product. The value of this relationship often emerges over time, so look for indications that the design firm has been and will be around for the long term.

A beautiful website, portfolio or even proposal will never tell the whole story. It’s critical to hire a likeminded company that shares your goals and ethics. Invite design firm candidates to interviews and judge fit in person with dialogue. You don’t need to become friends, but remember, the design firms you really want to work with are also concerned about fit and are evaluating you too. Both parties will be defined by the other.

Look for thought leaders in the design field who are highly respected by industry and peers. What evidence can you find that they are leaders in their field? Do they participate in the leadership of professional associations? Are they involved in teaching or mentoring? Do they publish opinions on industry issues? This can be very telling about their perspective and abilities.

Choosing the right design firm can be a critical moment in the growth of your business and it can be equivalent to hiring a senior employee or taking on a partner. At Industrial Brand, about 20% of our business comes from clients who have ineffectively hired a design provider and have to completely redo their identity systems or websites, didn’t understand what they were actually paying for, or found themselves with limited options after their designers vanished.

As you evaluate candidates, try not to get too distracted by hourly rates or final deliverables. Instead focus on the more valuable diagnostic, strategic and creative thinking being offered. Experience shows that those who can provide the best results in the shortest amount of time charge higher rates.

Make sure you understand what is and is not included in the project fees. It’s normal for the cost of images, photography and writing necessary for a project’s success to be supplementary, but discuss what budget should be expected for a project of your scope. If the company is experienced, they will be able to at least offer you a budget range so there are no surprises. Don’t forget to also clarify the form in which the work will be delivered and ownership/copyright terms surrounding the finished work. Will they provide working files? Will the website use a content management system? Is there any licensing involved?

Once you have found an experienced design firm you like, the rough parameters of the project are clarified and a basic understanding has been reached, a written contract is an important step in solidifying the agreement. Good designers employ comprehensive contracts. But demanding written proposals up front isn’t going to get you the best talent. A complete project proposal often can’t even be created until the design firm has been engaged and initial assessments made—and paid for their time of course.

The best designers don’t give away strategy and ideas to prospects—certainly not before engaging in the research and diagnostics required to fully understand the situation—so don’t ask for it before hiring a design team. If the results of the initial research and discovery phase don’t impress you, or you truly dislike working with them, discontinue the relationship and move on. Blair Enns, a sales and marketing consultant who specializes in creative services, even suggests to his design firm clients that they offer prospects a money back guarantee for this first phase. Now that’s bold.

Cover your bases, not your ass

Many argue that RFPs bring transparency, objectivity and accountability to the procurement process, increasing competition that results in competitive prices, but more often than not the RFP process itself lacks integrity, prohibits the designer from acting as a consultant, costs the design buyer more in the end, and results in nothing more than something to hide behind when the wrong choice was made—and by then it’s too late.

So next time you’re seeking a professional design firm, instead of relying on a poorly considered RFP that imposes process, articulate your problem, goals and budget and ask qualified candidates smart questions to determine who can bring their experience, critical thinking and design process to bear to best create clever solutions for you. Instead of becoming fixated on the deliverables and costs prior to choosing the right design partner, remember that what you really pay for is a well-considered process, so use this opportunity to start a long term relationship with a design partner you can trust.

Tips for evaluating a design firm

• Consider a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) that includes project goals and budget as an alternative to an RFP
• Consult with design industry associations like GDC.net for guidance in selecting designers
• Consider whether specialization in your industry will be an advantage or not
• Avoid meaningless descriptions of process by asking to see relevant case studies that show goals, context, approach, solution, and results
• Encourage discussion and questions by respondents and meet with most qualified candidates in person to judge fit, but choose talent over fit
• Engage a design team to evaluate and diagnose solutions before requiring a project proposal
• Ask what happens if after the first phase you are not comfortable working together
• Clarify what you will actually get in the end and who owns the working files
• Formalize a written proposal or contract only after an agreement has been arrived at

Have you ever hung out with people who all belong to a different professional circle than you and they crack ‘industry specific’ jokes? You can feel clueless and a total ‘div head’ (English slang for a rather slow stupid person) for not getting the joke. In the same way I am also sure we have all been involved in conversations even within our own companies where people are talking about something that we don’t understand. Even though we may never admit it, we have probably played along with the conversation pretending to be in the know, nodding with a sense of confidence backed with extreme fear that we may get caught out.

This is one reason I decided to take the ‘Introduction to Web Development and Design’ course at BCIT. As a designer in my 30′s I was trained and bottle-fed on print design and not web design (the web will never smell as good as a freshly printed ink drenched brochure). My lack of knowledge and understanding for coding and web standards was starting to be a hindrance. Sure I may have nodded my head with understanding as our web guys talked about divs, WC3 and some guy called Zeldman, and as Art Director in a company that focusses on web and print design my knowledge was lacking, so it was time to go back to school.

I have a successful career, am married with a kid and I can afford more than just plain pasta for dinner and here I am at 37 being a student again. I know this is all in my head but it was for sure a little bizarre going off to class once a week. I was also concerned before the first class  that I would be the ‘old fart’ in the corner trying to keep up with all the young ‘whipper snappers’. In fact there was a great diversity of people there, from younger people who were just starting their careers; people who were hired by their companies to maintain their corporate website (and needed training) and people like myself.

The course was hard work. It was like learning a new language, something that doesn’t come easily to me. Remembering when to use absolute, float or relative positioning sometimes ‘mashed’ my brain but at the same time the problem solving part of my brain enjoyed figuring-out solutions to why the code I just wrote didn’t do what I had expected (damn those closing tags).

I procrastinated (well actually avoided) taking this course as I had to admit to myself that I was not perfect, or that times had changed and that I needed to ‘catch up’ a little. But I am glad I did. I can now participate fully in conversations, give better strategic direction to my entire team and am able to challenge my web guys and know what I am talking about. I don’t pretend to know everything about web and programming, but investing in this new knowledge has given me new tools and confidence.

One unexpected bonus of being in college for me was receiving a student membership card where I got a killer discount for trendy clothing shops selling 80′s style clothes (that I unfortunately remember wearing the first time I went to college).

In conclusion, I would invite you to ask yourself if there is room for you to improve or to be better in your job. It’s OK to go back to college or seek private one-on-one training when the opportunity arises. Don’t be a ‘div head’ and let your ego or some other reason prevent you from growing in your profession.

Our firm is entering its 15th year, and despite being frequently hailed as successful design industry veterans, my partner Ben and I often feel like we have much to learn—both personally and professionally—hence our recently joining The Association of Professional Design Firms (APDF). The Leadership Forum in Santa Monica was our first exposure to the group, and we were uncertain what to expect or even how we’d fit into this established community.

The warm weather and beautiful hotel near the beach made for an idyllic setting for this type of event, requiring us to step out of our reality and objectively consider our business situation and personal leadership styles and management approaches. From the moment we joined the group for cocktails on the first day and met the group, we knew we were among like-minded peers.

The materials presented by Dr. Henry Cloud and the discussions during breakout sessions can be classified into two categories for us. The first being things that re-contextualize how we look at situations/people/ourselves and our company. The second being tools or strategies that we can apply that will allow us to more effectively manage our people, company—even ourselves personally.

Considering how our past experiences contribute to how we react to situations, and the notion that consideration of the wake you leave behind (like a boat) forces you to make adjustments as you move forward seems mildly obvious in hindsight, but it was a good reminder for us. And the idea that only by making colleagues understand that you understand (them and the situation) will you create trust and establish credibility with people was a terrific reminder that a human approach, including really listening and acting with humility, are key characteristics of successful leaders. This, combined with the idea that highly successful leaders spend a considerable portion of their time training and coaching team members and not only encourage failure in their staff, but require it of them, left us wondering how we could incorporate this into our own studio management practices.

The lessons surrounding differentiating between “urgent” items versus “vital” ones hit home for both of us, as we both tend to get caught up in the daily distractions as critical tasks gather dust on our to do lists. Similarly, the analogy of “pruning” in business, the leadership trait of successfully removing stuff getting in the way of results like pruning a rose bush so it can flourish, was something that excited us. This idea, combined with every leader’s need to fight the natural urge to avoid confrontation and negative issues, choosing instead to deal with them more proactively are aspects of our own management styles that we’ll want to spend more time considering and improving.

Dr. Henry Cloud’s sessions reminded us of the wisdom of another wise management guru, David C. Baker, who encourages firm leaders to work ON their businesses as much as working IN them. But Dr. Cloud’s wisdom was timely and poignant, reinforcing for us that beyond the cunning business strategies and due diligence available to us as entrepreneurs, our leadership styles could include more human expressions of love and appreciation for our team, involve more one-on-one communication and coaching, and involve a renewed dedication to taking appropriate risks and action when necessary as we steer our business forward. In some ways it was a shame that the leadership forum couldn’t be over a full weekend, allowing more time to discuss strategies and learn and practical tools that could be applied in our business back home.

We stayed an extra day to explore Santa Monica and visit a couple friends in the area, which turned out to be a smart choice as the forum left our heads spinning a little, and we never actually spoke about the topics discussed and lessons learned until we returned home.

As our first APDF exposure begins to fade to memory, both Ben and I feel great about the experience and satisfied with the value and outcomes. Besides enjoying a much-needed break and the pleasantries of being welcomed into the group by friendly, experienced professionals we can certainly learn from, it was nice to connect with many design professionals in similar situations to ours that we could share our experiences with and perhaps even assist ourselves. As they say, you often only get out what you put in, so we’re looking forward to contributing to APDF as much as benefiting from it.

Over the years as a design director, design association executive, and design instructor, I’ve been asked by innumerable potential students about the merits or shortcomings of the various local design schools. It seemed time to put these thoughts down in writing once and for all, hopefully saving me some time in the future.

When considering design schools in BC, most think first of schools like Emily Carr, Capilano, and Kwantlen. But what about Langara, Vancouver Film School, Malispina (now called Vancouver Island University), The Art Institute of Vancouver, or Vancouver Community College? They may not be the first that come to mind, but each have design programs that may be well suited for you. Though perhaps not at the top of your Google searches, the students and faculty at these lesser-known schools can be as talented and passionate about design education as their counterparts in the bigger schools.

Design schools differ in size and location, embrace varying philosophies and program lengths, employ instructors of all kinds with various backgrounds and experience, and range from inexpensive to rather pricey. But which one is for you? Unfortunately, the answer is the all-to-common “it depends”.

“After finishing my undergraduate degree in Alberta, I was seeking a particular kind of intense, shorter design program with real-world emphasis to take me to that next level,” says VFS Digitial Design student Joshua Michie. “What I didn’t realize until I really investigated and spoke with recent graduates and industry professionals,” says Michie, “was the variance between the programs offered.”

There are currently six post-secondary institutions in BC that offer a Bachelors degree in the design field. They include Emily Carr University (Bachelor of Design in Communication Design), Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Bachelor of Applied Design in Graphic Design for Marketing), Thompson Rivers University (Bachelor of Design), Simon Fraser University (Bachelor of Interactive Arts and Technology), Vancouver Island University (Bachelor of Arts in Graphic Design), and University of the Fraser Valley (Bachelor of Fine Arts, Extended Minor in Visual Arts).

Several other schools, such as Capilano University, Langara College, Malaspina College, The Art Institute of Vancouver, Vancouver Film School, among others, all offer diplomas in various design fields, with a few of them currently restructuring their programs to offer Bachelor degrees in the coming years.

Here are a few tips when considering which design school is best for you.

1. Do your homework. Determine which schools work closely with local industry and what efforts they make to get their graduates hired. Do they offer internships, co-ops, or job placement assistance? Do they invite industry advisors to engage with their program? Do they participate with local industry associations? Do they have any real evidence of their success, such as percentage of students who land positions after graduation? Considering the investment you are about to make, any school worth more attention will easily be able to answer yes to all of these questions. But your investigation should not end there. Ask to speak directly with one or two of their top faculty about the program—this could actually have positive results if you enroll at their school too as it says something about you, your process, and how serious you are about your education. Also, consult the Society of Graphic Designers’ website at gdc.net/education, or contact your local chapter’s Education Chair for some perspective and advice.

2. Consider your goals and what you are willing to do to get there. It’s important to consider what your dream job is and work towards that. What credentials will you require to get your foot in the door? There are numerous end results of a design education, with better schools offering Certificates, Diplomas, Bachelor degrees and some Masters degrees (even beyond at some schools, but not in BC). Some schools offer an intense multi-disciplinary education into one or two years, others have programs spanning three years, while the Bachelor degree programs involve a four year commitment. The important thing is to consider where you are now (perhaps you already have an undergraduate degree and experience in the design field), where do you want to go (do you want to be an Art Director or a production designer?), and how much time and money can you commit to your education? It’s about fit for you, but do consider that there really is no substitute for a comprehensive education and a field as competitive as design has little room for short-cuts.

3. Seek out a balanced program. There are numerous choices for potential design students in BC, so one way to evaluate a program would be to look at the curriculum and consider how much hands-on studio time is involved. Criticism of some programs include too much theory versus practical, or too much emphasis on the electronic tools of the trade versus creativity, ideation, and the craft aspect (hand skills) of the trade. Some programs stress the importance of art and design history, and so they should, but you also want to find a school that embraces the cultural and technological changes that occur so rapidly these days and is committed to teaching current thinking and practical skills. What you’re looking for in a design program is a balance between these elements.

4. Look at the results yourself. Perhaps the best evidence of a school’s success and suitability is to evaluate their graduates yourself. Treat it like a design project and evaluate the competitive landscape among the graduates of various programs. Look at designers’ websites, portfolios, employers, and see if you can identify any trends among your findings. Which schools produce the students winning the most design competitions, such as GDC’s Salazar, Rock, or Graphex Awards? But don’t stop there, identify a couple Art/Creative Directors you admire or design firms you respect (or would like to work for) and pick their brains and ask them where they have hired their best young designers recently. The bonus is that once you make that connection you are on their radar, and that’s powerful fuel for a new graduate shopping a shiny new portfolio around looking for work.

5. You get what you pay for. Obviously a key consideration when choosing a design school is cost. We’re all restricted by the budgets available to us and often public schools are more affordable compared to private schools. More expensive design programs in BC—intensive year-long programs can be as much as $30,000—include some outstanding programs, opportunities and extras (some schools even provide laptops loaded with software when you enroll). Each school has different facilities and you should investigate what they offer, where they’re located, and what tools you get access to. But remember also that there is more to any particular program than can be reflected by tuition costs, so consider all the other factors above and make your choice knowing you did your homework and understanding what you’ll get in return for your investment.

6. Evaluate the vibe. One important aspect of choosing a design program often missed is the culture or “vibe” of the school. Get into their space. Walk the halls, listen to the students talking, check out a grad show. A huge part of your educational experience will be the feeling that the school, program, students—even the space itself—is a good fit for you. Do you sense creativity and passion? Do the students and faculty seem enthusiastic about learning, debating, and exploring design and visual communications? Will you feel excited about going to school each morning? If the answer isn’t yes to those questions, think again.

7. Be ready to fill in the blanks. Obviously choosing a good design school is an important step in your education and career, but remember too that many remarkable designers have emerged from lesser-known design programs. While not an ideal situation, young design students sometimes find themselves enrolled in shorter programs only to realize they are missing key components of their education. The reality is that a designer never really stops learning and the good ones always overcome by filling in the blanks themselves. In many ways, your design education begins the day you leave school and start working as a design apprentice.

“This is an industry filled with people that are working their dream job, making it an incredibly competitive industry to break into,” explains Joshua Michie, “I chose VFS because that gave me access to an international network that was connected to some of the biggest players in the industry.”

In the end, the most important thing for someone considering a career in the design field is to pick a school you’ll be happy with. So, with that in mind, spend the time to do due diligence as you examine your options thoroughly. Be relentless in your investigation of each school. Interview the school as much as they might interview you—but remember that they want you to choose them, so take their answers with a grain of salt and look for real evidence that they provide what you’re looking for. Many of the better design schools maintain blogs, student forums, portfolio and grad show pages, social media pages on YouTube, Flickr, Facebook and Twitter. Check them all out with a keen eye for clues that this is the place you want to be associated with. Seek out the information you need to validate them as your top choice, and then prepare yourself—be it a one year or four year program—there is hard work ahead.

Graphic Design Degree Programs in BC (these are changing, so if you know of updates to this list, please add send them to me or post them in the comments below):

Emily Carr University
Bachelor of Design in Communication Design
Bachelor of Design in Industrial Design (includes courses on sustainable design)

Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Bachelor of Design in Graphic Design in Marketing

Simon Fraser University
Bachelor of Interactive Arts and Technology

Thompson Rivers University
Bachelor of Design

University of the Fraser Valley
Bachelor of Fine Arts. Extended Minor in Visual Arts

Vancouver Island University
Bachelor of Arts in Graphic Design

Diploma:

Arbutus College, Vancouver
The Art Institute of Vancouver
Canadian Community College, Abbotsford
Capilano University, Vancouver
Centre for Arts and Technology, Kelowna
College of New Caledonia,
Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo
North Island College, Courtenay
Oxford College, Vancouver
Pacific Audio Visual Institute, Vancouver
Pacific Design Academy, Victoria
PCT, Kamloops
Prince George, Prince George
Pro-soft Training Institute, Surrey
Royal Oak College of Design, Vancouver
Selkirk College, Castlegar
Surrey College, Surrey
Thompson Rivers University, Burnaby
Trend College, Kelowna
University Canada West, Victoria
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
VanArts, Vancouver
Vancouver Career College, Vancouver
Vancouver Film School, Vancouver

Certificate:

BCIT/Emily Carr Joint Certificate, Burnaby
Lasalle College International, Vancouver
Northern Lights College, Chetwynd
Vancouver Community College, Vancouver