> On 26 Jun 2018, at 6:34 am, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Is it necessary that designers engage with the visual to design invisible processes or system that work well?
>
> The second question involves the word “aesthetic.” This word makes sense in one way, but it remains quite vague. What do you mean by the aesthetic dimension? Depending on the definitions you use, a tax system may have aesthetic dimensions — or it may not. The same applies to many of the kinds of things that meet Simon’s admittedly broad definition.
Not wishing to complicate things further, but here is another view. I often find that our best work is invisible. I use the term ‘best’ in a number of ways. In information design we spend a lot of time on the ‘visual’ aspect of our work: choice of fonts, colour, layout, style etc. We also spend a lot of time making sure that our work meets the STANDARDS we set. The net effect of all of this is to remove any impediment to people using what we produce in such as way as to make its artifice and its maker ‘invisible’.
This, btw, is not an original view but one long held by typographers like Stanley Morison.
Quite a lot of our work gets copied (unacknowledged, of course) and it becomes invisible in another way.
Sometimes it’s a bit like magic: Now you see it, now you don’t!
If you want to know more about our STANDARDS, go here: https://communication.org.au/standards-communication-information-design/ <https://communication.org.au/standards-communication-information-design/>
You are free to use them, but acknowledgements are appreciated.
David
--
web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|