I found this on another blog, and traced it back to its origin here.
I think there are some great insights here, which is why I'm reprinting it. But I plan to post my own Creative Roadmap sometime soon.
Incomplete Manifesto for Growth
Written in 1998, the Incomplete Manifesto is an articulation of statements exemplifying Bruce Mau’s beliefs, strategies and motivations. Collectively, they are how we approach every project.
1. Allow events to change you.You have to be willing to grow. Growth is different from something that happens to you. You produce it. You live it. The prerequisites for growth: the openness to experience events and the willingness to be changed by them.
2. Forget about good. Good is a known quantity. Good is what we all agree on. Growth is not necessarily good. Growth is an exploration of unlit recesses that may or may not yield to our research. As long as you stick to good you'll never have real growth.
3. Process is more important than outcome.When the outcome drives the process we will only ever go to where we've already been. If process drives outcome we may not know where we’re going, but we will know we want to be there.
4. Love your experiments (as you would an ugly child).Joy is the engine of growth. Exploit the liberty in casting your work as beautiful experiments, iterations, attempts, trials, and errors. Take the long view and allow yourself the fun of failure every day.
5. Go deep.The deeper you go the more likely you will discover something of value.
6. Capture accidents.The wrong answer is the right answer in search of a different question. Collect wrong answers as part of the process. Ask different questions.
7. Study. A studio is a place of study. Use the necessity of production as an excuse to study. Everyone will benefit.
8. Drift. Allow yourself to wander aimlessly. Explore adjacencies. Lack judgment. Postpone criticism.
9. Begin anywhere. John Cage tells us that not knowing where to begin is a common form of paralysis. His advice: begin anywhere.
10. Everyone is a leader.Growth happens. Whenever it does, allow it to emerge. Learn to follow when it makes sense. Let anyone lead.
11. Harvest ideas. Edit applications. Ideas need a dynamic, fluid, generous environment to sustain life. Applications, on the other hand, benefit from critical rigor. Produce a high ratio of ideas to applications.
12. Keep moving. The market and its operations have a tendency to reinforce success. Resist it. Allow failure and migration to be part of your practice.
13. Slow down. Desynchronize from standard time frames and surprising opportunities may present themselves.
14. Don’t be cool. Cool is conservative fear dressed in black. Free yourself from limits of this sort.
15. Ask stupid questions. Growth is fueled by desire and innocence. Assess the answer, not the question. Imagine learning throughout your life at the rate of an infant.
16. Collaborate. The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife, exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential.
17. ____________________. Intentionally left blank. Allow space for the ideas you haven’t had yet, and for the ideas of others.
18. Stay up late. Strange things happen when you’ve gone too far, been up too long, worked too hard, and you're separated from the rest of the world.
19. Work the metaphor. Every object has the capacity to stand for something other than what is apparent. Work on what it stands for.
20. Be careful to take risks. Time is genetic. Today is the child of yesterday and the parent of tomorrow. The work you produce today will create your future.
21. Repeat yourself. If you like it, do it again. If you don’t like it, do it again.
22. Make your own tools.Hybridize your tools in order to build unique things. Even simple tools that are your own can yield entirely new avenues of exploration. Remember, tools amplify our capacities, so even a small tool can make a big difference.
23. Stand on someone’s shoulders.You can travel farther carried on the accomplishments of those who came before you. And the view is so much better.
24. Avoid software. The problem with software is that everyone has it.
25. Don’t clean your desk. You might find something in the morning that you can’t see tonight.
26. Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. It’s not good for you.
27. Read only left-hand pages. Marshall McLuhan did this. By decreasing the amount of information, we leave room for what he called our "noodle."
28. Make new words. Expand the lexicon. The new conditions demand a new way of thinking. The thinking demands new forms of expression. The expression generates new conditions.
29. Think with your mind. Forget technology. Creativity is not device-dependent.
30. Organization = Liberty. Real innovation in design, or any other field, happens in context. That context is usually some form of cooperatively managed enterprise. Frank Gehry, for instance, is only able to realize Bilbao because his studio can deliver it on budget. The myth of a split between "creatives" and "suits" is what Leonard Cohen calls a 'charming artifact of the past.'
31. Don’t borrow money. Once again, Frank Gehry’s advice. By maintaining financial control, we maintain creative control. It’s not exactly rocket science, but it’s surprising how hard it is to maintain this discipline, and how many have failed.
32. Listen carefully. Every collaborator who enters our orbit brings with him or her a world more strange and complex than any we could ever hope to imagine. By listening to the details and the subtlety of their needs, desires, or ambitions, we fold their world onto our own. Neither party will ever be the same.
33. Take field trips. The bandwidth of the world is greater than that of your TV set, or the Internet, or even a totally immersive, interactive, dynamically rendered, object-oriented, real-time, computer graphic–simulated environment.
34. Make mistakes faster. This isn’t my idea -- I borrowed it. I think it belongs to Andy Grove.
35. Imitate.Don’t be shy about it. Try to get as close as you can. You'll never get all the way, and the separation might be truly remarkable. We have only to look to Richard Hamilton and his version of Marcel Duchamp’s large glass to see how rich, discredited, and underused imitation is as a technique.
36. Scat.When you forget the words, do what Ella did: make up something else ... but not words.
37. Break it, stretch it, bend it, crush it, crack it, fold it.
38. Explore the other edge. Great liberty exists when we avoid trying to run with the technological pack. We can’t find the leading edge because it’s trampled underfoot. Try using old-tech equipment made obsolete by an economic cycle but still rich with potential.
39. Coffee breaks, cab rides, green rooms. Real growth often happens outside of where we intend it to, in the interstitial spaces -- what Dr. Seuss calls "the waiting place." Hans Ulrich Obrist once organized a science and art conference with all of the infrastructure of a conference -- the parties, chats, lunches, airport arrivals — but with no actual conference. Apparently it was hugely successful and spawned many ongoing collaborations.
40. Avoid fields.Jump fences. Disciplinary boundaries and regulatory regimes are attempts to control the wilding of creative life. They are often understandable efforts to order what are manifold, complex, evolutionary processes. Our job is to jump the fences and cross the fields.
41. Laugh.People visiting the studio often comment on how much we laugh. Since I've become aware of this, I use it as a barometer of how comfortably we are expressing ourselves.
42. Remember.Growth is only possible as a product of history. Without memory, innovation is merely novelty. History gives growth a direction. But a memory is never perfect. Every memory is a degraded or composite image of a previous moment or event. That’s what makes us aware of its quality as a past and not a present. It means that every memory is new, a partial construct different from its source, and, as such, a potential for growth itself.
43. Power to the people.Play can only happen when people feel they have control over their lives. We can't be free agents if we’re not free.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
PowerPoint Training (5 of 5):
10 Steps to Presentations without Hesitation
Presenting can be difficult. Any PowerPoint product is made stronger through the addition of tips to the presenter, to help him or her feel more comfortable in presenting. Here are some highlighting some tips and techniques I recommend for the new presenter to help him or her present more effectively.
1. Stay mobile. Moving around helps keep people attention focussed, and actively participating. This is especially important for
younger audiences
2. Make eye contact. This is the best tool for maintaining a personal connection with each participant.
3. Be enthusiastic. Show your interest in the subject and passion for the communication and the energy will communicate.
4. Connect conversationally with your audience. The presentation is just like a conversation, not a speech. Encourage the presenter to talk using the points in the slide, but not just reading the points in the slide. Don’t use a script, as much as a rough outline from which you can extrapolate conversationally.
5. Rehearse. Once the presenter knows what she wants to say, she should practice in real time, out loud, not just in her head. This helps you to be aware of the time, and avoid elements that can trip you up.
6. Know the material. This should be encouragement to read through the TE and become familiar with the specific topic.
7. Encourage response. Allowing for times when the presentation can become a conversation can loosen everyone up.
Get equipment early and set up early.
8. Make sure everyone can see the screen, and that the presenter can see everyone.
9. Make it real. Relate the topic to specifics will make it more interesting for Participant and Presenter.
10. Be flexible. Once you;ve rehearsed and rehearsed and got the presentation down, be ready with a couple of planned “stalls.” These will help you in case of the presentation being delayed, or equipment failure in mid-stream, or the presentation going much shorter than you anticipated. Small canned jokes about the subject matter, which presenters will typically start a presentation with, can also be useful in pocket to pull out at these awkward junctures.
1. Stay mobile. Moving around helps keep people attention focussed, and actively participating. This is especially important for
younger audiences
2. Make eye contact. This is the best tool for maintaining a personal connection with each participant.
3. Be enthusiastic. Show your interest in the subject and passion for the communication and the energy will communicate.
4. Connect conversationally with your audience. The presentation is just like a conversation, not a speech. Encourage the presenter to talk using the points in the slide, but not just reading the points in the slide. Don’t use a script, as much as a rough outline from which you can extrapolate conversationally.
5. Rehearse. Once the presenter knows what she wants to say, she should practice in real time, out loud, not just in her head. This helps you to be aware of the time, and avoid elements that can trip you up.
6. Know the material. This should be encouragement to read through the TE and become familiar with the specific topic.
7. Encourage response. Allowing for times when the presentation can become a conversation can loosen everyone up.
Get equipment early and set up early.
8. Make sure everyone can see the screen, and that the presenter can see everyone.
9. Make it real. Relate the topic to specifics will make it more interesting for Participant and Presenter.
10. Be flexible. Once you;ve rehearsed and rehearsed and got the presentation down, be ready with a couple of planned “stalls.” These will help you in case of the presentation being delayed, or equipment failure in mid-stream, or the presentation going much shorter than you anticipated. Small canned jokes about the subject matter, which presenters will typically start a presentation with, can also be useful in pocket to pull out at these awkward junctures.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
PowerPoint Training (4 of 5):
Seven goals in creating an effective presentation.
1. Make it readable
Point size must be readable for the proposed space. If an individual is to view the presentation on a computer screen in front of him, it need not be as large as a show intended to be viewed from the back row of an auditorium. If delivery can’t be determined, there are some good middle-ground standards.
2. Use visuals to focus attention
Images can be distracting, but also work to focus attention. Individuals (who read) will read the content in the first second or two. The presenter must then be relied on to hold the viewers attention on the screen, and on the content, while the extrapolation and detailed content delivery occurs. The right images can help keep the participant focussed on the screen, and thereby on the presentation.
3. Deliver content simply
Know the audience, and a delivery system that is best for them. While animations might be distracting for an older audience, for a younger audience it can be a tool to hold attention. Therefore it’s essential to know who the presentation is designed to reach.
4. Deliver content consistently
As mentioned, templates not only help with ease of building PowerPoint shows, but consistent delivery also helps with messaging.
5. Keep it simple
If the content starts building on a particular slide, question if it should be two slides. Remember that the attention given to an individual slide will wane. The longer that slide is up on the screen, the more participants will look away, and become distracted. But put a new slide on the screen, and the attention of the participants can be likewise refreshed. Avoid having to linger for too long on any individual point on any individual slide, unless there are some elements that move on the screen, and thereby “refresh” the audiences attention.
6. Make it memorable
There are 3 keys to making a compelling, memorable slide:
• Use only 3-7 words
• Use active verbs (ideally start with an active verb)
• Keep the slide focused.
7. Keep the show short
The flip side to breaking out slides is to not have too many slides. One way to help with this is to compartmentalize a large presentation into sections, and provide an agenda at the start. One really great graphic method of helping viewers determine where they are in the paradigm of the presentation is to provide a little navigation bar, at the bottom or the side of the slide, providing wayfinding orientation, much like a website. But as important as it is to let the participant know where he/she is in the presentation, it's also important that they not get lost along the way, in too many slides.
Point size must be readable for the proposed space. If an individual is to view the presentation on a computer screen in front of him, it need not be as large as a show intended to be viewed from the back row of an auditorium. If delivery can’t be determined, there are some good middle-ground standards.
2. Use visuals to focus attention
Images can be distracting, but also work to focus attention. Individuals (who read) will read the content in the first second or two. The presenter must then be relied on to hold the viewers attention on the screen, and on the content, while the extrapolation and detailed content delivery occurs. The right images can help keep the participant focussed on the screen, and thereby on the presentation.
3. Deliver content simply
Know the audience, and a delivery system that is best for them. While animations might be distracting for an older audience, for a younger audience it can be a tool to hold attention. Therefore it’s essential to know who the presentation is designed to reach.
4. Deliver content consistently
As mentioned, templates not only help with ease of building PowerPoint shows, but consistent delivery also helps with messaging.
5. Keep it simple
If the content starts building on a particular slide, question if it should be two slides. Remember that the attention given to an individual slide will wane. The longer that slide is up on the screen, the more participants will look away, and become distracted. But put a new slide on the screen, and the attention of the participants can be likewise refreshed. Avoid having to linger for too long on any individual point on any individual slide, unless there are some elements that move on the screen, and thereby “refresh” the audiences attention.
6. Make it memorable
There are 3 keys to making a compelling, memorable slide:
• Use only 3-7 words
• Use active verbs (ideally start with an active verb)
• Keep the slide focused.
7. Keep the show short
The flip side to breaking out slides is to not have too many slides. One way to help with this is to compartmentalize a large presentation into sections, and provide an agenda at the start. One really great graphic method of helping viewers determine where they are in the paradigm of the presentation is to provide a little navigation bar, at the bottom or the side of the slide, providing wayfinding orientation, much like a website. But as important as it is to let the participant know where he/she is in the presentation, it's also important that they not get lost along the way, in too many slides.
Monday, September 22, 2008
PowerPoint Training (3 of 5):
Six Reasons to use a PowerPoint Template and a Slide Library
1. Consistent delivery. PowerPoint is all about consistency, and tools to help enforce consistency, as a tool for focusing content. This allows for delivery of information, within definable and organized parameters.
2. Templates allow you to take advantage of a Pre-Built Slide Library.
A library of slides is an invaluable creation tool. The more Slide Types that can be identified up front, the more streamlined the creation process can become.
3. Templates with a Slide library add Drag and drop slide functionality.
With templates built to the same design allows simple drag-and-drop functionality within the formatted slides that would not be available for slides pulled from templates outside of the RHB template.
4. Easy production of a lesson from scratch.
All of these elements combine to create a workflow that makes it easy to set up a consistent lesson. This is especially true if you are creating a product with multiple PowerPoint presentations, or developing a sales force who need to deliver multiple different presentations on different aspects of a large product line.
5. Slides can be created with Pre-built functionality.
The animations and functionality can be built right in. Complicated animations and reveals can be built once, then repurposed. This amortizes the cost of creating complex (and often very interesting) slides,which makes for better presentations.
6. Creates, over time, a reduction of work.
Again, the more slides you make from scratch, the more you can add to your library. The bigger your library, the fewer slides you need to create from scratch later on. Again to use the example of a sales force, if a salesman builds a new slide for a new product, (or more likely has a staff designer with PowerPoint savvy do so) then that slide can be easily added to a library that can be distributed to all of the sales force. Such a library is easily updated, small and therefore easily (digitally) portable, and distributable.
2. Templates allow you to take advantage of a Pre-Built Slide Library.
A library of slides is an invaluable creation tool. The more Slide Types that can be identified up front, the more streamlined the creation process can become.
3. Templates with a Slide library add Drag and drop slide functionality.
With templates built to the same design allows simple drag-and-drop functionality within the formatted slides that would not be available for slides pulled from templates outside of the RHB template.
4. Easy production of a lesson from scratch.
All of these elements combine to create a workflow that makes it easy to set up a consistent lesson. This is especially true if you are creating a product with multiple PowerPoint presentations, or developing a sales force who need to deliver multiple different presentations on different aspects of a large product line.
5. Slides can be created with Pre-built functionality.
The animations and functionality can be built right in. Complicated animations and reveals can be built once, then repurposed. This amortizes the cost of creating complex (and often very interesting) slides,which makes for better presentations.
6. Creates, over time, a reduction of work.
Again, the more slides you make from scratch, the more you can add to your library. The bigger your library, the fewer slides you need to create from scratch later on. Again to use the example of a sales force, if a salesman builds a new slide for a new product, (or more likely has a staff designer with PowerPoint savvy do so) then that slide can be easily added to a library that can be distributed to all of the sales force. Such a library is easily updated, small and therefore easily (digitally) portable, and distributable.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Point of PowerPoint (2 of 5):
Building design consistency
The first big time-saver is to build a usable, and re-usable, template.
If produce one of something, it’s unique. If you produce two, it’s a pair, but not necessarily a consistency. Make three or more of something, and you’ve begun to define consistency, and that's the core of good design. People like consistency, and it’s what PowerPoint was designed for. So, in order to build a solid template, you have to have enough of a volume of the types of slides you'll typically see in order to solidly develop consistency.
A great start toward establishing consistency between more than one PowerPoint presentation, and thereby developing or promoting an identity, is to build a reusable template. A good template can save hours of work, and consistent use of a template facilitates reuse of slides from a slide library.
Consistency in a presentation allows the participant to focus on the content, because the framework for that content is a consistent “box”— a frame that provides context, but by remaining the same, does not call attention to itself. This familiar framework offers a lot of benefits—but first I should address the dangers.
The templates which come standard with PowerPoint most often feel like they were designed by Mondrian, if Mondrian was a colorblind dyslexic. As a result, many “out of the box” PowerPoint presentations are garish, and poorly designed in terms of color selection, based entirely on the template. And as a result, there is a thriving business in the selling of PowerPoint backgrounds, for those without the savvy to create one on their own, with any image manipulation software. But even then, the ability to create a background doesn’t infer the design ability to create an effective one. I’ll get into that in one of the future installments.
With the design issues in mind, once you have an attractive and effective identity created, in the form of a n attractive and workable background, there are still other elements to apply, toward consistency. PowerPoint templates consist of a Master Slide, which have Master Slide styles (including footer styles) , and Notes Page Styles. Using these elements regularly and in the same manner, and using templates that share the same characteristics as a “set,” can help ensure 3 things:
• Consistent placement
Text elements in terms of font choice, hierarchy and placement can be set on a Master Page in the PowerPoint document.
• Consistent identity
Master pages can be set up with text sizes and image placements that assure consistent identity. This includes color and specialized graphic effects beyond the standard templates Microsoft packages with the program. Using the Master Page consistently and exclusively assures that the identity will be consistent.
• Ease of use
A properly built template is easy to create new slides in. This allows the writer to focus on the content, and not the formatting. Of course, the key to this is to have prebuilt formatting in the template that covers 80-90% of the writer’s content needs.
And you’re on your way.
If produce one of something, it’s unique. If you produce two, it’s a pair, but not necessarily a consistency. Make three or more of something, and you’ve begun to define consistency, and that's the core of good design. People like consistency, and it’s what PowerPoint was designed for. So, in order to build a solid template, you have to have enough of a volume of the types of slides you'll typically see in order to solidly develop consistency.
A great start toward establishing consistency between more than one PowerPoint presentation, and thereby developing or promoting an identity, is to build a reusable template. A good template can save hours of work, and consistent use of a template facilitates reuse of slides from a slide library.
Consistency in a presentation allows the participant to focus on the content, because the framework for that content is a consistent “box”— a frame that provides context, but by remaining the same, does not call attention to itself. This familiar framework offers a lot of benefits—but first I should address the dangers.
The templates which come standard with PowerPoint most often feel like they were designed by Mondrian, if Mondrian was a colorblind dyslexic. As a result, many “out of the box” PowerPoint presentations are garish, and poorly designed in terms of color selection, based entirely on the template. And as a result, there is a thriving business in the selling of PowerPoint backgrounds, for those without the savvy to create one on their own, with any image manipulation software. But even then, the ability to create a background doesn’t infer the design ability to create an effective one. I’ll get into that in one of the future installments.
With the design issues in mind, once you have an attractive and effective identity created, in the form of a n attractive and workable background, there are still other elements to apply, toward consistency. PowerPoint templates consist of a Master Slide, which have Master Slide styles (including footer styles) , and Notes Page Styles. Using these elements regularly and in the same manner, and using templates that share the same characteristics as a “set,” can help ensure 3 things:
• Consistent placement
Text elements in terms of font choice, hierarchy and placement can be set on a Master Page in the PowerPoint document.
• Consistent identity
Master pages can be set up with text sizes and image placements that assure consistent identity. This includes color and specialized graphic effects beyond the standard templates Microsoft packages with the program. Using the Master Page consistently and exclusively assures that the identity will be consistent.
• Ease of use
A properly built template is easy to create new slides in. This allows the writer to focus on the content, and not the formatting. Of course, the key to this is to have prebuilt formatting in the template that covers 80-90% of the writer’s content needs.
And you’re on your way.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Point of PowerPoint (1 of 5): Thinking before Inking.
“Think before you ink” is an old expression I picked up in my comic book days, speaking to the fact that a good comic book inker had to be a strong artist, not just a “tracer of pencil lines.” A good inker thinks before he inks, and knows the marks he needs to make in order to make an effective product. And like so many things in comics, that’s an analogy for almost anything. Before a presenter starts building a presentation, essentially putting ink to paper, the thinking needs to be there.
And that thinking needs to answer 2 core questions.
What is the Point?
The “point” of a PowerPoint show is to communicate information. To do this you need to follow some simple rules for visual presentation. You need to build your show with:
• Clear readability
• Clear communication
• Ease of use (and not over-use)
What is the Focus?
The “focus” of a PowerPoint is different from the point, for our purposes. For this, we’ll define the focus as “what do you want the participant to walk away from this with?” There is a specific point to each slide, and to the presentation as a whole. To keep the focus clear, you need to be sure that you:
• Keep the viewers attention. It’s inevitable that in a presentation attention will wander. Viewers of all ages look to understand what the point is, but if the feel they’ve gotten it, their attention will wander. If you hand out a printout of all the slides in a presentation, inevitably there will come a point in each and every slide when the audience member with this in hand, will look to see what the next slide is, even though the speaker hasn’t finished speaking on the current slide. This is a signal that the participant feels he or she has gleaned the point, and is anxious to move on to the next point. This is an area where (when not overdone) animation and imagery can help—in keeping the participant focussed on the slide, and thereby glean more from the content.
• Don’t overwrite the slide. If a slide has several bullets, consider making it two slides. According to a study by the US Navy, the average adults attention span is 18 minutes. Ideally for a PowerPoint presentation, that would be broken down into chunks of about 2-4 minutes per slide. If a slide is overwritten or takes longer than 5 minutes, you can count on having lost your audience’s attention at some point in there.
• Plan the content as more than what is read. Content should introduce the idea, and allow the speaker to extrapolate, or you lose the participant’s attention. The participant can read faster than the presenter can talk. If the speaker is merely reading what is on the screen, and adding nothing, you're going to have a room full of bored participants. You'd have been better served emailing the presentation.
•Give the audience something to look at. I'm not talking about extra bells and whistles, or distracting images, or useless clip art. Give the audience images with impact, that point to, emphasize, and work with the content. A picture really is worth a thousand words, and in an environment where you don't want a thousand words, they are especially valuable. This is where my own area of experience comes in—in creating visuals that highlight the content in a dramatic way, and thereby creates an environment where the participant is more likely to get the point, and walk away with the point securely in pocket.
With those overarching goals, getting into the specifics of “how” can provide some shortcuts to making a PowerPoint presentation simple. effective, and attractive.
And that thinking needs to answer 2 core questions.
What is the Point?
The “point” of a PowerPoint show is to communicate information. To do this you need to follow some simple rules for visual presentation. You need to build your show with:
• Clear readability
• Clear communication
• Ease of use (and not over-use)
What is the Focus?
The “focus” of a PowerPoint is different from the point, for our purposes. For this, we’ll define the focus as “what do you want the participant to walk away from this with?” There is a specific point to each slide, and to the presentation as a whole. To keep the focus clear, you need to be sure that you:
• Keep the viewers attention. It’s inevitable that in a presentation attention will wander. Viewers of all ages look to understand what the point is, but if the feel they’ve gotten it, their attention will wander. If you hand out a printout of all the slides in a presentation, inevitably there will come a point in each and every slide when the audience member with this in hand, will look to see what the next slide is, even though the speaker hasn’t finished speaking on the current slide. This is a signal that the participant feels he or she has gleaned the point, and is anxious to move on to the next point. This is an area where (when not overdone) animation and imagery can help—in keeping the participant focussed on the slide, and thereby glean more from the content.
• Don’t overwrite the slide. If a slide has several bullets, consider making it two slides. According to a study by the US Navy, the average adults attention span is 18 minutes. Ideally for a PowerPoint presentation, that would be broken down into chunks of about 2-4 minutes per slide. If a slide is overwritten or takes longer than 5 minutes, you can count on having lost your audience’s attention at some point in there.
• Plan the content as more than what is read. Content should introduce the idea, and allow the speaker to extrapolate, or you lose the participant’s attention. The participant can read faster than the presenter can talk. If the speaker is merely reading what is on the screen, and adding nothing, you're going to have a room full of bored participants. You'd have been better served emailing the presentation.
•Give the audience something to look at. I'm not talking about extra bells and whistles, or distracting images, or useless clip art. Give the audience images with impact, that point to, emphasize, and work with the content. A picture really is worth a thousand words, and in an environment where you don't want a thousand words, they are especially valuable. This is where my own area of experience comes in—in creating visuals that highlight the content in a dramatic way, and thereby creates an environment where the participant is more likely to get the point, and walk away with the point securely in pocket.
With those overarching goals, getting into the specifics of “how” can provide some shortcuts to making a PowerPoint presentation simple. effective, and attractive.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Observations on the Teen Demographic (Part 3 of 3): Talk with me, not at me: The importance of interactivity
Television and print media are traditionally “push” media; uni-directional with predefined “receiver” structures. In contrast to this, one of the major appeals of the internet is its ability to function in the same way with traditional “push” content, but also, more importantly to work interactively with viewers, and provide “pull” content. This interactive engagement of the viewer, getting the kids into acquiring information and directing the course of their learning, creates a sense of community and personal involvement. Kids tale part in gaining education, and in participating, value what they’ve gained.
A personal aside: I learned as a child one of the keys to a strong education is a perception of education as something you take, not something that is ”given” to you. That is, if you have a teacher that is un-engaging, and delivering material that is uninteresting in an “easy” class, it remains the responsibility of the student to try and dig something out of the hours spent in class. Especially in college, where every hour in class represents an investment of cash, I could never understand the glee in others eyes at a teacher not delivering, or, on occasion, not showing up. Sure, you get credit for the class. But you don’t get the value that the credit you paid for was supposed to represent. How can you image that you’re “getting over” by not having to have a class because the teacher doesn’t show? As a concept, it still blows my mind. But this is not a popular attitude, and one that’s difficult to spread. But the internet seems to be doing it quite well—if a site does not deliver, it does not get clicked-through, and opportunity for deeper diving and increased communication is lost.
But as the interactive communication offered on the internet becomes more popular, and even expected, it becomes difficult for traditional print media to echo, and complete. The interactivity can be mimicked to a certain extent in print publications through interactive activities like quizzes, discussion questions, and group activities. Notably, teen girl magazines are increasing their level of interactivity as well in this way; this will probably further escalate with the intense magazine competition that exists. Young male magazines such as Maxim also are following this paradigm.
In schools, there has been a shift from lecture-oriented teaching to cooperative work (broadcast model vs. interactive model), again allowing students to participate in knowledge acquisition. I myself am engaged in acquiring my Masters in Graphic Design through an online course, because of the flexibility it affords. This method of teaching is becoming more prevalent even in the least technologically savvy school districts. In an era where interactivity, cooperative learning and higher thinking skills are becoming so important, it’s a good idea to consider how we can possibly incorporate these teaching methods into publications and print as well.
Style of visual presentation can have a big effect on reader involvement. It’s a confirmation of the intuitive response that an anonymous author (one that just lists facts, describes things as happening to neither the author nor the reader directly) is much less appealing and involving for the reader than a “visible” author, one who creates an I-you relationship with the reader (as opposed to an I-it relationship). The bottom line is that the importance of talking to the reader, or more appropriately, engaging the reader in a conversation as part of the process, and really creating an engaging conversation, is becoming an essential part of assuring interactivity in print media. That is, talking to the reader, not at the reader, is a key, essential distinction—and one that is not easily achieved.
A personal aside: I learned as a child one of the keys to a strong education is a perception of education as something you take, not something that is ”given” to you. That is, if you have a teacher that is un-engaging, and delivering material that is uninteresting in an “easy” class, it remains the responsibility of the student to try and dig something out of the hours spent in class. Especially in college, where every hour in class represents an investment of cash, I could never understand the glee in others eyes at a teacher not delivering, or, on occasion, not showing up. Sure, you get credit for the class. But you don’t get the value that the credit you paid for was supposed to represent. How can you image that you’re “getting over” by not having to have a class because the teacher doesn’t show? As a concept, it still blows my mind. But this is not a popular attitude, and one that’s difficult to spread. But the internet seems to be doing it quite well—if a site does not deliver, it does not get clicked-through, and opportunity for deeper diving and increased communication is lost.
But as the interactive communication offered on the internet becomes more popular, and even expected, it becomes difficult for traditional print media to echo, and complete. The interactivity can be mimicked to a certain extent in print publications through interactive activities like quizzes, discussion questions, and group activities. Notably, teen girl magazines are increasing their level of interactivity as well in this way; this will probably further escalate with the intense magazine competition that exists. Young male magazines such as Maxim also are following this paradigm.
In schools, there has been a shift from lecture-oriented teaching to cooperative work (broadcast model vs. interactive model), again allowing students to participate in knowledge acquisition. I myself am engaged in acquiring my Masters in Graphic Design through an online course, because of the flexibility it affords. This method of teaching is becoming more prevalent even in the least technologically savvy school districts. In an era where interactivity, cooperative learning and higher thinking skills are becoming so important, it’s a good idea to consider how we can possibly incorporate these teaching methods into publications and print as well.
Style of visual presentation can have a big effect on reader involvement. It’s a confirmation of the intuitive response that an anonymous author (one that just lists facts, describes things as happening to neither the author nor the reader directly) is much less appealing and involving for the reader than a “visible” author, one who creates an I-you relationship with the reader (as opposed to an I-it relationship). The bottom line is that the importance of talking to the reader, or more appropriately, engaging the reader in a conversation as part of the process, and really creating an engaging conversation, is becoming an essential part of assuring interactivity in print media. That is, talking to the reader, not at the reader, is a key, essential distinction—and one that is not easily achieved.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Observations on the Teen Demographic
(Part 2 of 3):
The Birth of Generation Digital
The current generation of teens are firmly in what some analysts have called the “digital generation” or “Net generation.” They've grown up entrenched in digital and electronic technology and its effects on the media. Images in the TV and films they watch, in the magazines they read, and in the ads on all of the above which are aimed specifically at them are sophisticated, glossy, impressively sophisticated, and rapid fire.
They’ve received more exposure to computers than most of us probably did at their age; even if they don’t get hands-on usage regularly, talk of computers and the Internet is everywhere, with a majority of students anticipating having to use computers in their jobs and feeling that schools aren’t teaching them enough of what they’ll need to know. To get an idea of how quickly things are changing, it’s good to keep in mind that the transition from exclusively print media to a world saturated by electronic media has happened in less than a century. Estimates of computer and Internet usage are reflecting this kind of exponential growth pattern.
Computer technology has helped drive shifting educational paradigms. Our schools are slowly moving from the traditional broadcast teaching style (an authority dispensing information uni-directionally) to a more interactive approach where cooperative learning is being utilized, allowing students to participate in their own acquisition of knowledge. This shift is still underway and slow, but it’s receiving more and more attention and priority as research confirms its effectiveness.
At the same time, it’s good to keep in mind that, even though teens are living in a more technology-saturated world than older generations grew up in, the basic emotional challenges of fitting in, becoming independent, managing familial, friendly and romantic relationships are much the same. Today’s teens still worry about these things, in addition to grades, getting a good job, dating and peer pressure issues.
On the other hand, these teens have also been raised with the specters of cancer, HIV, and other modern plagues hanging over them, and with the growing sense of responsibility caused by the generally held belief that risks for many of the illnesses or tragedies that befall humans can be prevented or minimized.
The challenge then, is to create products that appeal to these teens, with all these other issues in mind. In order to create products in forms that this generation can relate to, are used to using, and that appeal to them, we need to teach them in ways they’re used to learning. More and more, that may mean questioning traditional instructional methods. Students are growing up digitally and as a result they learn differently.
• Over 80% of teens 13-17 use a computer at least once a week; 1/4 self-reporting as “techno-whizzes,” 28% as moderate techies.
• Surveys indicate no gender difference among teens in in-school and out-of-school computer use, including e-mail, chat rooms and school work, although teen boys visit significantly more Web sites than girls do.
• Other surveys show that girls are still not as interested as boys in a career in computers/technology. However, teen boys and girls report equal levels of confidence in their computer skills.
• A 2000 research study found that marketing is the online focus for girls; for boys, programming. While girls are reading online magazines, sending e-greetings, etc., 74% of boys are downloading free software.
• Kids are becoming self-publishers on Internet, running own sites and mailing lists, etc. It's not uncommon for high school students to make money designing Web pages or programming computers.
• Some sites offering “supervised discussions and programs like online summer camps.”
•"Virtually every major consumer magazine now visualizes the web not as a potential rival but as a potential ally." This is especially true of teen magazines -- such as Teen People -- and fashion magazines. They expand on their content on their Web site, which can be updated more frequently (e.g. daily).
They’ve received more exposure to computers than most of us probably did at their age; even if they don’t get hands-on usage regularly, talk of computers and the Internet is everywhere, with a majority of students anticipating having to use computers in their jobs and feeling that schools aren’t teaching them enough of what they’ll need to know. To get an idea of how quickly things are changing, it’s good to keep in mind that the transition from exclusively print media to a world saturated by electronic media has happened in less than a century. Estimates of computer and Internet usage are reflecting this kind of exponential growth pattern.
Computer technology has helped drive shifting educational paradigms. Our schools are slowly moving from the traditional broadcast teaching style (an authority dispensing information uni-directionally) to a more interactive approach where cooperative learning is being utilized, allowing students to participate in their own acquisition of knowledge. This shift is still underway and slow, but it’s receiving more and more attention and priority as research confirms its effectiveness.
At the same time, it’s good to keep in mind that, even though teens are living in a more technology-saturated world than older generations grew up in, the basic emotional challenges of fitting in, becoming independent, managing familial, friendly and romantic relationships are much the same. Today’s teens still worry about these things, in addition to grades, getting a good job, dating and peer pressure issues.
On the other hand, these teens have also been raised with the specters of cancer, HIV, and other modern plagues hanging over them, and with the growing sense of responsibility caused by the generally held belief that risks for many of the illnesses or tragedies that befall humans can be prevented or minimized.
The challenge then, is to create products that appeal to these teens, with all these other issues in mind. In order to create products in forms that this generation can relate to, are used to using, and that appeal to them, we need to teach them in ways they’re used to learning. More and more, that may mean questioning traditional instructional methods. Students are growing up digitally and as a result they learn differently.
• Over 80% of teens 13-17 use a computer at least once a week; 1/4 self-reporting as “techno-whizzes,” 28% as moderate techies.
• Surveys indicate no gender difference among teens in in-school and out-of-school computer use, including e-mail, chat rooms and school work, although teen boys visit significantly more Web sites than girls do.
• Other surveys show that girls are still not as interested as boys in a career in computers/technology. However, teen boys and girls report equal levels of confidence in their computer skills.
• A 2000 research study found that marketing is the online focus for girls; for boys, programming. While girls are reading online magazines, sending e-greetings, etc., 74% of boys are downloading free software.
• Kids are becoming self-publishers on Internet, running own sites and mailing lists, etc. It's not uncommon for high school students to make money designing Web pages or programming computers.
• Some sites offering “supervised discussions and programs like online summer camps.”
•"Virtually every major consumer magazine now visualizes the web not as a potential rival but as a potential ally." This is especially true of teen magazines -- such as Teen People -- and fashion magazines. They expand on their content on their Web site, which can be updated more frequently (e.g. daily).
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Observations on the Teen Demographic
(Part 1 of 3): Who are you?
In America, you are not selling if you are not tapping the teen market.
There were 30 million teens in the U.S. by 2006. In 1999 it was documented that people under 18 made up 26% of the population. As you can tell by any night on television, and any movie marquis, and any newsstand, that’s a huge chunk of the population, and by percentage on of the largest with a disposable income. Therefore, they are a target. Their most persistent suitors, outside of television and movie advertisers, are the mavens of the teen magazine market. They learn hard lessons about what it takes to get a teen’s attention in just a few seconds, and keep it from month to month, because their livelihood, and their very existence, relies on that understanding. From a publishing perspective (even as a designer for a publisher which does not sell directly to the demographic) it’s equally important.
I do little these days to sell to teens, but in my last 2 jobs it was essential to understand this demographic and how to communicate with them. So I got some goods and nowhere to go with it. This next series of blogs will explore some elements key to communicating with this teen demographic, from my perspective and experience, gleaned from exposure to the elements of popular culture they are inundated with.
First and foremost, we need to keep in mind that there really isn’t one teen reader or audience. The teen population is extremely diverse. Aside from similar emotional and physical development stages, there is tremendous racial/ethnic, cultural and social diversity (the racial/ethnic proportions in our country are undergoing rapid and drastic changes now and in the near future). However, more than ever, styles of fashion, music and language are becoming more accessible to teens across the country and around the world because of TV, radio and the Internet; no longer are Californian or New York teens light years ahead of teens in the Midwest.
In every part of the country, Teens are living in an increasingly diverse population, racially and ethnically. Also, there are many social groups within any teen community. Caution should be used not to lump everyone together or assume homogeneity within the age range. Diversity must be acknowledged.
Inclusivity and diversity are thought to reach the biggest audience in marketing to teens. Teens these days, and increasingly in the future, are living in an increasingly multicultural nation. Not only that, but the proportions of those varying cultures are changing. In 1999, 65% of U.S. children were white, non-Hispanic. Since, taking Hispanic population as an example, the number of Hispanic children had increased faster than that of any other ethnic group. They were 9% of the child population in 1980, 16% in 1999. By 2020, it is projected that more than 1 in 5 children will be of Hispanic origin. By 2050, non-Hispanic Whites are expected to decrease to less than 53% of the population.
Such demographic changes are reflected in popular culture in the increasing prevalence of television programs that feature diversity, without calling attention to that diversity. Shows such as Greys Anatomy feature an ethnically diverse cast, without ever having that diversity showcased as part of the plot.
What this means in terms of imagery in product is that it’s quite different from 10 years ago. Then it was a difficult thing to find images of diverse teens in a group. Now using anything but fully diverse images feel inauthentic, which is the worst mistake to make in communicating with this demographic.
Next: The Birth of Generation Digital
There were 30 million teens in the U.S. by 2006. In 1999 it was documented that people under 18 made up 26% of the population. As you can tell by any night on television, and any movie marquis, and any newsstand, that’s a huge chunk of the population, and by percentage on of the largest with a disposable income. Therefore, they are a target. Their most persistent suitors, outside of television and movie advertisers, are the mavens of the teen magazine market. They learn hard lessons about what it takes to get a teen’s attention in just a few seconds, and keep it from month to month, because their livelihood, and their very existence, relies on that understanding. From a publishing perspective (even as a designer for a publisher which does not sell directly to the demographic) it’s equally important.
I do little these days to sell to teens, but in my last 2 jobs it was essential to understand this demographic and how to communicate with them. So I got some goods and nowhere to go with it. This next series of blogs will explore some elements key to communicating with this teen demographic, from my perspective and experience, gleaned from exposure to the elements of popular culture they are inundated with.
First and foremost, we need to keep in mind that there really isn’t one teen reader or audience. The teen population is extremely diverse. Aside from similar emotional and physical development stages, there is tremendous racial/ethnic, cultural and social diversity (the racial/ethnic proportions in our country are undergoing rapid and drastic changes now and in the near future). However, more than ever, styles of fashion, music and language are becoming more accessible to teens across the country and around the world because of TV, radio and the Internet; no longer are Californian or New York teens light years ahead of teens in the Midwest.
In every part of the country, Teens are living in an increasingly diverse population, racially and ethnically. Also, there are many social groups within any teen community. Caution should be used not to lump everyone together or assume homogeneity within the age range. Diversity must be acknowledged.
Inclusivity and diversity are thought to reach the biggest audience in marketing to teens. Teens these days, and increasingly in the future, are living in an increasingly multicultural nation. Not only that, but the proportions of those varying cultures are changing. In 1999, 65% of U.S. children were white, non-Hispanic. Since, taking Hispanic population as an example, the number of Hispanic children had increased faster than that of any other ethnic group. They were 9% of the child population in 1980, 16% in 1999. By 2020, it is projected that more than 1 in 5 children will be of Hispanic origin. By 2050, non-Hispanic Whites are expected to decrease to less than 53% of the population.
Such demographic changes are reflected in popular culture in the increasing prevalence of television programs that feature diversity, without calling attention to that diversity. Shows such as Greys Anatomy feature an ethnically diverse cast, without ever having that diversity showcased as part of the plot.
What this means in terms of imagery in product is that it’s quite different from 10 years ago. Then it was a difficult thing to find images of diverse teens in a group. Now using anything but fully diverse images feel inauthentic, which is the worst mistake to make in communicating with this demographic.
Next: The Birth of Generation Digital
Monday, May 12, 2008
On redesigning an existing logo (Part 2 of 2)
On occasion, say when a company or brand is purchased by another company, there may be a sales or marketing cal to unify the branding. This is positioned as in the interest of sales, so that the customer can understand that a product is now part of this family. I’ve heard this issue actually softened by a marketing rep who said that a logo needed “not necessarily to feel like a brother, but at least like a distant cousin.”
I take it as a given that there are families of which are of a family, and which therefore need to have a resemblance. But these logos still should—no, really must—allow for some discrimination. The goal of these grouped identities would be to say, "these products are related, a family, but each has a particular unique and distinguishing flavor," which are typified by the unique elements of that logo.
Logo design, then, adds authenticity to the business and the identity by communicating uniqueness, quality, and quite simply, what is remarkable about a particular brand, versus another. This identity is what provides the "peanut butter" for the branding, creating instant recognition and drawing a new customers attention as well as pulling a satisfied customer back, sticking to the roof of their collective mouths, and providing distinct flavor.
Given these assumptions, a recent comment I overheard saying a logo looks "too different" from its family seems antithetical. Again, having a family of logos is one thing, but moving a logo away from unique branding to gain that family identification is the opposite of branding. Creation of a family of logos should never occur at the expense of its communication that the product featured is something different, and something special in its own right. Ultimately, each logo must stand alone, and stand for something, in order to justify its existence as a separate logo, or entity, or imprint. If it's not communicating something different, a way that it is unique from other products of its kind in the market, even other products within it's own family, then what is the purpose for its existence as a separate logo? Again, it comes down to the communication goal.
Comparing a proposed new logo on a product against the current logo as it stands speaks volumes to the core issues: Does it maintain a connection to the current brand identity in the mind of the buyers? Does it communicate the uniqueness of the brand? Does it speak to the core value of the product?
If the reason for changes in a logo are not to enhance the brand or uniqueness, but to increase the sameness of the mark to fall more in line with the other logos in the family highlights a core error of homogenization. Ultimately, such efforts are the death of uniqueness within a brand identity. The ultimate purpose of redesigning a logo to fit within a family should be to create a family of individuals, and even as designers work to unify that family, it should not be at the expense of the very real market cost of losing their uniqueness.
I take it as a given that there are families of which are of a family, and which therefore need to have a resemblance. But these logos still should—no, really must—allow for some discrimination. The goal of these grouped identities would be to say, "these products are related, a family, but each has a particular unique and distinguishing flavor," which are typified by the unique elements of that logo.
Logo design, then, adds authenticity to the business and the identity by communicating uniqueness, quality, and quite simply, what is remarkable about a particular brand, versus another. This identity is what provides the "peanut butter" for the branding, creating instant recognition and drawing a new customers attention as well as pulling a satisfied customer back, sticking to the roof of their collective mouths, and providing distinct flavor.
Given these assumptions, a recent comment I overheard saying a logo looks "too different" from its family seems antithetical. Again, having a family of logos is one thing, but moving a logo away from unique branding to gain that family identification is the opposite of branding. Creation of a family of logos should never occur at the expense of its communication that the product featured is something different, and something special in its own right. Ultimately, each logo must stand alone, and stand for something, in order to justify its existence as a separate logo, or entity, or imprint. If it's not communicating something different, a way that it is unique from other products of its kind in the market, even other products within it's own family, then what is the purpose for its existence as a separate logo? Again, it comes down to the communication goal.
Comparing a proposed new logo on a product against the current logo as it stands speaks volumes to the core issues: Does it maintain a connection to the current brand identity in the mind of the buyers? Does it communicate the uniqueness of the brand? Does it speak to the core value of the product?
If the reason for changes in a logo are not to enhance the brand or uniqueness, but to increase the sameness of the mark to fall more in line with the other logos in the family highlights a core error of homogenization. Ultimately, such efforts are the death of uniqueness within a brand identity. The ultimate purpose of redesigning a logo to fit within a family should be to create a family of individuals, and even as designers work to unify that family, it should not be at the expense of the very real market cost of losing their uniqueness.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
On redesigning an existing logo (Part 1 of 2)
From a design perspective, my understanding of logo design goals are to communicate uniqueness and speak to how a particular product is not only different from other products, but better. There was a piece recently on NPR's Morning Edition that captured this goal in a nutshell, which I have been unable to uncover since, but was highly relevant. It discussed the purpose of logos in terms of recognizability, and what a logo is intended to communicate in that recognition.
Logos highlight a company name and the services it has to offer to it customers, and most importantly, creates recognition of its goods among the consumer and client community. Companies and purchasers visually associate logos with a brand identity, much as we associate a picture of our house as the place we live, our office as the place we work, without having to read the address every time. Logos create identity, and at the core of identity is the idea of specificity and uniqueness; I live here and not there, I work here and not there, and I want this product and not that one, because this one is better. And all that is communicated not in the text, but in the context and subtext, and completely visually.
So, it’s a unique opportunity, to say the least, to develop an existing logo in a new direction. As with all major design projects, the most important question to answer is, what do you want to accomplish. It’s not to make a cool logo. At least, not that alone. The answer lies in answering, what is the purpose of the redesigned identity? What is it trying to present?
If the logo is to create an identity that says "this product is the same as these other products, just with another name," then the purpose of the logos, and the communication, might be served through mimicry. But that’s seldom a worthwhile design goal. A better way to think about echoing an existing logo is to define why it’s supposed to be like something else. Pepsi is like Coke-look at the logos side-by-side and you’ll see the similarities-but different. The similarity is in that they are selling the same idea, smooth cool refreshment, good taste, good times. But it’s the distinguishing differences that make all the difference—the how they present those ideas-that creates identity and specificity.
Logos highlight a company name and the services it has to offer to it customers, and most importantly, creates recognition of its goods among the consumer and client community. Companies and purchasers visually associate logos with a brand identity, much as we associate a picture of our house as the place we live, our office as the place we work, without having to read the address every time. Logos create identity, and at the core of identity is the idea of specificity and uniqueness; I live here and not there, I work here and not there, and I want this product and not that one, because this one is better. And all that is communicated not in the text, but in the context and subtext, and completely visually.
So, it’s a unique opportunity, to say the least, to develop an existing logo in a new direction. As with all major design projects, the most important question to answer is, what do you want to accomplish. It’s not to make a cool logo. At least, not that alone. The answer lies in answering, what is the purpose of the redesigned identity? What is it trying to present?
If the logo is to create an identity that says "this product is the same as these other products, just with another name," then the purpose of the logos, and the communication, might be served through mimicry. But that’s seldom a worthwhile design goal. A better way to think about echoing an existing logo is to define why it’s supposed to be like something else. Pepsi is like Coke-look at the logos side-by-side and you’ll see the similarities-but different. The similarity is in that they are selling the same idea, smooth cool refreshment, good taste, good times. But it’s the distinguishing differences that make all the difference—the how they present those ideas-that creates identity and specificity.
Monday, March 3, 2008
More Designing for Middle School:
Talking at their level,
lying over their heads
Communicating to this demographic is also about talking up to them, but at their own level. Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself.
My point is, there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek in communicating effectively with this age group. The most popular types of shows for middle schoolers are ones in which the authority figures are not as smart as the kids they rule over. Kids know best. Kids rule. And in these scenarios, kids make mistakes, but the mistakes are resolved by them, and they learn from them. But in the end, the constant in these shows is that the kids know best.
Kids this age are remarkably media-savvy. They’ve learned not to believe everything they see in print, and know that they are being lied to, to some degree, and that not everything the see (on the internet, and through self publishing and gossip-type blogs) in print is true. They are therefore cynical about the messages they receive in general. You have to avoid the hard sell, because they can tell a lemon when it’s just painted like a grapefruit. They won’t believe an assertion just because it is presented to them. Only facts and authenticity to back it up can convince.
This means portraying real diversity in terms of both ethnicity and gender, with imagery that is inclusive. All the kids in the images should not be of perfect weight, or glasses-free, or with perfectly coifed heads. It means being aware of real trends, not merely the broad-stroked caricatures of Goths and skaters, hip-hop and prep that marks Hollywood shorthand of the 90’s. It means trying to be real.
But at the same time, like everyone, they want to receive messages that they can believe, in an aspirational way. This leads therefore to a form of visual flattery of this age group that we see in popular television, which presents schools in a glamorous light. Even if the school is dopey, and kids rule the school, the kids are all similarly well-dressed, and the homes are all comfortably middle class, and the hallways are immaculate. This is the world as they wish and might expect it to be, never mind how it really is. And the kids who often play middle schoolers on television are often of an older age range. But kids will not call them on this. Because the actors look like the viewers want to look, and are perceived as the viewers want to be perceived. They aspire to what they see, and draw the authenticity from that perspective. Lie to me, as long as they are lies I want to believe.
From a design perspective, this often plays into using models in photo shoots who are, for example, firmly at the upper end of the demographic. The kids can look average-and to keep authenticity, ideally should not be perceived as model-types-but not truly, awkwardly, geekily average. Average, as they want to be perceived; average, as a cool standard.
My point is, there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek in communicating effectively with this age group. The most popular types of shows for middle schoolers are ones in which the authority figures are not as smart as the kids they rule over. Kids know best. Kids rule. And in these scenarios, kids make mistakes, but the mistakes are resolved by them, and they learn from them. But in the end, the constant in these shows is that the kids know best.
Kids this age are remarkably media-savvy. They’ve learned not to believe everything they see in print, and know that they are being lied to, to some degree, and that not everything the see (on the internet, and through self publishing and gossip-type blogs) in print is true. They are therefore cynical about the messages they receive in general. You have to avoid the hard sell, because they can tell a lemon when it’s just painted like a grapefruit. They won’t believe an assertion just because it is presented to them. Only facts and authenticity to back it up can convince.
This means portraying real diversity in terms of both ethnicity and gender, with imagery that is inclusive. All the kids in the images should not be of perfect weight, or glasses-free, or with perfectly coifed heads. It means being aware of real trends, not merely the broad-stroked caricatures of Goths and skaters, hip-hop and prep that marks Hollywood shorthand of the 90’s. It means trying to be real.
But at the same time, like everyone, they want to receive messages that they can believe, in an aspirational way. This leads therefore to a form of visual flattery of this age group that we see in popular television, which presents schools in a glamorous light. Even if the school is dopey, and kids rule the school, the kids are all similarly well-dressed, and the homes are all comfortably middle class, and the hallways are immaculate. This is the world as they wish and might expect it to be, never mind how it really is. And the kids who often play middle schoolers on television are often of an older age range. But kids will not call them on this. Because the actors look like the viewers want to look, and are perceived as the viewers want to be perceived. They aspire to what they see, and draw the authenticity from that perspective. Lie to me, as long as they are lies I want to believe.
From a design perspective, this often plays into using models in photo shoots who are, for example, firmly at the upper end of the demographic. The kids can look average-and to keep authenticity, ideally should not be perceived as model-types-but not truly, awkwardly, geekily average. Average, as they want to be perceived; average, as a cool standard.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Designing for Middle School
Visuals are key in designing for this demographic. But not just any visuals. They need to be loud, and moving, kinetic, colorful and exciting. These ain’t your grandfather’s design standards.
There’s an argument—not necessarily a good or valid one, but one I’ve heard defended—that design becomes less essential to communication as the audience older. Babies need messages entirely comprised of shape and color and vibrancy as content, while adults are drawn to messages with entirely textual content. That argument aside, the underlying strength for me therein is that it’s a given that strong design is important to essential for a younger audience. While you can make an argument for the power and efficiency of communicating content through text, it’s a given that if you can’t read the textual content, or are less receptive to it, and that therefore your first entrée into the content is through the visual. It’s through how the message is arranged before you. It’s about the design.
Design for middle schoolers is a key juncture in the paradigm between the need for an entirely visually communicative message like a picture book, and fully written content. Design is essential in understanding this audience, and I would argue that poorly designed messages, however appropriate in terms of written content, won’t get through the metaphorical front door if not presented in a strong design.
It’s important to maintain a focus on fun, and energy. The middle school aged generation, as has been the case for the several generations before, has been heavily influenced by bright television graphics, quickly-imparted messages, and a quick-in, quick-out storytelling of music videos, commercials, video games and cartoons. Some critics have claimed that this has led this generation to shorter attention spans, boredom and ADD. A converse argument to this could be that middle schoolers are developing a visual sense that lets them multi-process information in a way that generations before them couldn’t. To the preceeding generations, this might seem over-burdening o a too young mind, because such concepts would have been—or maybe even still are—too much for a more mature mind to easily wrap around.
This ties in to some degree to my previous post—parents and teachers, and older generations assuming a lower level of ability in a child’s mind than the child is actually able to achieve. Having too high expectations for children is seen as a major detriment to self esteem. But boredom ain’t such a feel-good element, either.
It’s an unfortunate but arguable trend that marketers seem to be the ones who are aware of harvesting the flexibility of the middle school and pre-teen mind, moreso than many teachers or parents. To see this in action, try having a child train an adult in the latest, high level of a PS3 game, and watch who gets bored or frustrated first.
But I digress. The design point of this post is that the key functionality of design for middle schoolers is vibrancy, energy, and movement. It’s not the clean line aesthetic of Frank Lloyd Wright, but the colorful chaos of Chucky Cheeze.
But that’s not to say that visual chaos can stay chaotic. There must be an underlying organization to the kinetic energy playing across the visual framework. It’s the idea of the “crying baby” again. You need the crying baby to get the attention of this audience, but once that attention is drawn away from the other crying babies on the shelf or on the rack, there must be clear organization to bring understanding to the message, and keep the kids interest. Or he or she will move on to the next crying baby that does allow entry. The brightest, liveliest visual must also be absolutely clear and directive, to hold the interest it draws. If they have to work too hard for it, they will move on.
There’s an argument—not necessarily a good or valid one, but one I’ve heard defended—that design becomes less essential to communication as the audience older. Babies need messages entirely comprised of shape and color and vibrancy as content, while adults are drawn to messages with entirely textual content. That argument aside, the underlying strength for me therein is that it’s a given that strong design is important to essential for a younger audience. While you can make an argument for the power and efficiency of communicating content through text, it’s a given that if you can’t read the textual content, or are less receptive to it, and that therefore your first entrée into the content is through the visual. It’s through how the message is arranged before you. It’s about the design.
Design for middle schoolers is a key juncture in the paradigm between the need for an entirely visually communicative message like a picture book, and fully written content. Design is essential in understanding this audience, and I would argue that poorly designed messages, however appropriate in terms of written content, won’t get through the metaphorical front door if not presented in a strong design.
It’s important to maintain a focus on fun, and energy. The middle school aged generation, as has been the case for the several generations before, has been heavily influenced by bright television graphics, quickly-imparted messages, and a quick-in, quick-out storytelling of music videos, commercials, video games and cartoons. Some critics have claimed that this has led this generation to shorter attention spans, boredom and ADD. A converse argument to this could be that middle schoolers are developing a visual sense that lets them multi-process information in a way that generations before them couldn’t. To the preceeding generations, this might seem over-burdening o a too young mind, because such concepts would have been—or maybe even still are—too much for a more mature mind to easily wrap around.
This ties in to some degree to my previous post—parents and teachers, and older generations assuming a lower level of ability in a child’s mind than the child is actually able to achieve. Having too high expectations for children is seen as a major detriment to self esteem. But boredom ain’t such a feel-good element, either.
It’s an unfortunate but arguable trend that marketers seem to be the ones who are aware of harvesting the flexibility of the middle school and pre-teen mind, moreso than many teachers or parents. To see this in action, try having a child train an adult in the latest, high level of a PS3 game, and watch who gets bored or frustrated first.
But I digress. The design point of this post is that the key functionality of design for middle schoolers is vibrancy, energy, and movement. It’s not the clean line aesthetic of Frank Lloyd Wright, but the colorful chaos of Chucky Cheeze.
But that’s not to say that visual chaos can stay chaotic. There must be an underlying organization to the kinetic energy playing across the visual framework. It’s the idea of the “crying baby” again. You need the crying baby to get the attention of this audience, but once that attention is drawn away from the other crying babies on the shelf or on the rack, there must be clear organization to bring understanding to the message, and keep the kids interest. Or he or she will move on to the next crying baby that does allow entry. The brightest, liveliest visual must also be absolutely clear and directive, to hold the interest it draws. If they have to work too hard for it, they will move on.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Designing for Parents
Parents generally underestimate the maturity of their children, likely as much as children over-estimate their own maturity. That’s only natural, but it's something that designers have to look out for, and be aware of.
Several key target audience surveys demonstrate significant gaps between kids’ perceptions of themselves and their peers, and parent’s perception of the same. For example, parents of middle school students think the kids’ priorities are having fun, looking good, and having friends. The priorities selected by those kids, on the other hand, are family matters, schoolwork and, most importantly, their future. And there are other key elements where this perspective varies, such as sex. 52% of middle school parents think the opposite sex is of interest to their child, while over 60% of middle school kids say the same. This is likely most significant for those parents whose kids are in that 60%. But the fact is that most parents underestimate their child’s interest in the opposite sex, and relationships of both an emotional and physical nature.
This discrepancy highlights one of the key issues in demographic testing, in my opinion. One of the unique gifts of the focus group leaders in my experience has been their ability to solicit opinions by talking about some representational “other” that, of course, includes no one in the room. Which, of course, by inference, it does. For example, 70% of parents think other parent’s are doing a good job, with only about a quarter of parents thinking “other” parents are doing a less than stellar job.
About the same amount of the general population, that is, parents’ and non-parents, think it is “very common” to find good role models among other parents. Kids, however, give parents an understandably higher grade; over 30% of middle school kids think that parents are generally communicative, and only 11% feel that their parents value their jobs more than their time with their kids.
Breaking this down in terms of design is difficult. My interpretation, from experience in design and children’s books market, is that parents want aspirational design for their kids; that is, products which speak to the best in their kids. Kids want things that speak up to them, without speaking over their heads. So one of the key elements is to design up to the kids, but not over where the parents perceive their kids are. That’s the crux and the hardest point to achieve.
Popular media reflects this dichotomy. Parents perceive what their kids watch as beneath them, while purveyors of media seek to deliver what kids want, and let the audience ratings speak for themselves. If it weren’t what people wanted, it likely wouldn’t stay on very long. But that’s not to say it’s necessarily good for them. Generally, 14% of parents of 2-5 year olds see children’s TV as “generally positive,” and 60% of parents of kids 2-17 years old feel that TV has “done more good than harm.” On the other hand, 24% of parents say their children watch inappropriate programming either “sometimes” of “a great deal,” and about the same amount say that their kids watch “too much TV.”
Internet access and its appropriateness is a close second to children’s TV as a parent’s topic. 20% express concern for their children’s exposure. As kids get older, parent’s concerns spread into music and music lyrics, video games, and movies. All these are elements of a child’s unsupervised time, and the result of discretionary income.
In terms of design, I've generally found the product I’ve worked on for kids couldn’t take advantage of this discretionary attention, as that product is typically filtered through the design expectations of parents and school officials who are the buyers. If it doesn't get by the filter, it doesn't get to the target.
A very recent example of this has been on a series of cover concepts designed by my design team and I. They were reviewed by a group of teachers, and the results saw a clear favorite. However, weeks later, we stumbled onto the opportunity to have the same covers reviewed by a group of kids from the target audience. What I discovered from that on second review was that the images that I assumed would have a stronger pull to kids as the target were in fact, better liked by them. And the more “staid” designs that were created specifically to appeal to teachers and administrators were, in fact, preferred by teachers and administrators. But these were not the same covers. Even though the teacehrs were selecting "for" the kids, we again we fall into the same trap of “other”— teachers who say they might like design A better (and so choose A), but feel like the kids would like design B better. But the kids subsequently choose design A. And that’s a mindset it is difficult to disabuse.
In short, designing through a “filter” audience such as teachers or parents can be difficult in a print media, but there’s no other game in town. Very young audiences access the web via parents and teachers, and only older kids with discretionary income can access certain media designed for them, on their own. But in creating magazines, storybooks, textbooks, workbooks, or other materials intended to entertain and inform kids, you must first design to the parents or teachers, and through them, to the intended target.
Several key target audience surveys demonstrate significant gaps between kids’ perceptions of themselves and their peers, and parent’s perception of the same. For example, parents of middle school students think the kids’ priorities are having fun, looking good, and having friends. The priorities selected by those kids, on the other hand, are family matters, schoolwork and, most importantly, their future. And there are other key elements where this perspective varies, such as sex. 52% of middle school parents think the opposite sex is of interest to their child, while over 60% of middle school kids say the same. This is likely most significant for those parents whose kids are in that 60%. But the fact is that most parents underestimate their child’s interest in the opposite sex, and relationships of both an emotional and physical nature.
This discrepancy highlights one of the key issues in demographic testing, in my opinion. One of the unique gifts of the focus group leaders in my experience has been their ability to solicit opinions by talking about some representational “other” that, of course, includes no one in the room. Which, of course, by inference, it does. For example, 70% of parents think other parent’s are doing a good job, with only about a quarter of parents thinking “other” parents are doing a less than stellar job.
About the same amount of the general population, that is, parents’ and non-parents, think it is “very common” to find good role models among other parents. Kids, however, give parents an understandably higher grade; over 30% of middle school kids think that parents are generally communicative, and only 11% feel that their parents value their jobs more than their time with their kids.
Breaking this down in terms of design is difficult. My interpretation, from experience in design and children’s books market, is that parents want aspirational design for their kids; that is, products which speak to the best in their kids. Kids want things that speak up to them, without speaking over their heads. So one of the key elements is to design up to the kids, but not over where the parents perceive their kids are. That’s the crux and the hardest point to achieve.
Popular media reflects this dichotomy. Parents perceive what their kids watch as beneath them, while purveyors of media seek to deliver what kids want, and let the audience ratings speak for themselves. If it weren’t what people wanted, it likely wouldn’t stay on very long. But that’s not to say it’s necessarily good for them. Generally, 14% of parents of 2-5 year olds see children’s TV as “generally positive,” and 60% of parents of kids 2-17 years old feel that TV has “done more good than harm.” On the other hand, 24% of parents say their children watch inappropriate programming either “sometimes” of “a great deal,” and about the same amount say that their kids watch “too much TV.”
Internet access and its appropriateness is a close second to children’s TV as a parent’s topic. 20% express concern for their children’s exposure. As kids get older, parent’s concerns spread into music and music lyrics, video games, and movies. All these are elements of a child’s unsupervised time, and the result of discretionary income.
In terms of design, I've generally found the product I’ve worked on for kids couldn’t take advantage of this discretionary attention, as that product is typically filtered through the design expectations of parents and school officials who are the buyers. If it doesn't get by the filter, it doesn't get to the target.
A very recent example of this has been on a series of cover concepts designed by my design team and I. They were reviewed by a group of teachers, and the results saw a clear favorite. However, weeks later, we stumbled onto the opportunity to have the same covers reviewed by a group of kids from the target audience. What I discovered from that on second review was that the images that I assumed would have a stronger pull to kids as the target were in fact, better liked by them. And the more “staid” designs that were created specifically to appeal to teachers and administrators were, in fact, preferred by teachers and administrators. But these were not the same covers. Even though the teacehrs were selecting "for" the kids, we again we fall into the same trap of “other”— teachers who say they might like design A better (and so choose A), but feel like the kids would like design B better. But the kids subsequently choose design A. And that’s a mindset it is difficult to disabuse.
In short, designing through a “filter” audience such as teachers or parents can be difficult in a print media, but there’s no other game in town. Very young audiences access the web via parents and teachers, and only older kids with discretionary income can access certain media designed for them, on their own. But in creating magazines, storybooks, textbooks, workbooks, or other materials intended to entertain and inform kids, you must first design to the parents or teachers, and through them, to the intended target.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
