May 05, 2006 @ 9:07 AM
I was reminded this morning how important it is to think about my words.
Andy Rutledge - Male Designer is one of my absolute favorite blogs to read. But this morning, his post ”How Well Do You Understand Design?” has got me all riled up. I’ve taken a moment to have my morning coffee, to make sure I haven’t just woken up on the wrong side of the bed. But it’s still irking me. And since Andy doesn’t allow comments on his site, I feel the need to react to it here.
His 17 questions cover a broad range of language, tools and methods designers employ in web design. The problem is that 14 of the questions are fundamentally flawed in that: there is no one right answer, the right answer is not among the multiple choices, or that the question itself demonstrates a lack of understanding of design principals. His conclusion (on the answer page) suggesting you the reader go out and educate yourself about design is the icing on the cake.
The first question:
1. The primary reason for color being used to indicate information hierarchy is because of its utilization of which fundamentally communicative clue?
a. beauty
b. contrast <-- Correct answer, according to Andy.
c. texture
d. decoration
Actually, it’s CONTRAST that utilizes the “fundamentally communicative clue” of CONTRAST. I think I almost understand his point, but here’s an example of how using terms loosely can be a dangerous thing.
Through temperature, hue and saturation (i.e. chroma) - COLOR can be used to communicate tone, mood, tension, energy, personality - any number of things. However, saying that COLOR is used in web design to establish visual hierarchy through it’s properties of CONTRAST is like saying FONTS should be chosen based on their PROPERTIES OF POINT SIZE. Fonts have certain visual properties. The point size you choose (along with tracking, line height, etc...) can effect their visual weight. But fonts don’t have an inherent property of point size.
I think it’s important for designers who wish to be authorities on a subject, to more carefully consider what they’re saying when “preaching to the masses” (including myself!). Inevitably the masses will include a client that you or I will work with someday, and I believe we have an obligation to “educate” carefully.
I appreciate Andy’s desire to try to simplify things, but in doing so I think he’s muddied the issue.
“Yes, for experienced designers this was simple fare.”
Mmmmmmmmm, nope.
“But many who consider themselves to be Web designers may find these questions to be rather difficult to answer correctly.”
Probably.
“The key to knowing the right answers lies in a solid grasp of artistic and design fundamentals.”
Ah, that must be what I’m missing.
So what I’m left with is a reminder that my words matter. Better that my readers (be they friends, fellow designers or potential clients) come away from something I’ve written with a firm understanding of 1 point vs. a misunderstanding of 10 (or 17).
Comments
Interesting. While I do agree that the quiz itself and the closing message to "educate yourself" has a bit of that holier-than-thou-pompus-designer flair to it... It seems like it's clearly targeted towards the crap-loads of people who get a copy of dreamweaver and then call themselves "designers." Quite frankly, they bug the shit out me with their lack of design fundamentals and rock bottom prices for their services, which are more often than not sub-par in the eyes of us "trianed" folk. (Not that all untrained people make bad designers - I'm just generalizing here.)Soooo... while many of the questions we flawed and the attitude was, well kind of lame, I can see where he was trying to go with it.
I think.
Vicki - Yeah I think I recognize a lot of that "holier-than-thou-pompus-designer flair" in my posts as well, so the quiz really reminded me to think before I write. I DO still appreciate the spirit in which the quiz was written too. 
I agree, i think some of the terms could maybe be a little more accurate, but I don't think that makes his answers necessarily wrong.for example, the question you reference:
while color does have many attributes that can convey a number of things ("tone, mood, tension, energy, personality"), and will not inherently add "contrast" (at least not contrast as one may at first think of contrast (ie. black vs. white)), the variation that color can add to a layout can be in contrast to the rest of a layout. while not every case of using color will be in contrast to the rest of the layout, if color is being used to "indicate information hierarchy" the amount that the color contrasts with the rest of the layout (whether through brightness, saturation, hue) could determine its hierarchical placement.
the question, i think, is not asking which inherent property of color always creates hierarchy, but more, which property can one utilize/create through color to establish hierarchy.
i don't think that "contrast" is really wrong, but it does have a certain assumed meaning to many, and may have been more clearly understood as "variation" (there was a second instance in there where he used "contrast," and i thought "variation" may have been more clearly understood ... can't think of it now)
perhaps he even used the terms he did to require a little further thought on the questions (for example, "contrast" ... well what actually is contrast? ... does it mean "dark on white"? does it mean "variation"? ... ) ... but most likely i think he was just trying to be succinct in his writing.
Read the question and answer - it clearly states that color has a "fundamentally communicative clue" called contrast. That's simply not true.
And my point is that if we want to pontificate, we need to choose our words carefully. And it also helps when writing a quiz, to be right.
Words mean things.
And you can make excuses for him, and guess as to what he meant to say, but how much is that really helping all those poor "dumb designers" out there? You know, the ones he's trying to "educate".
actually it doesn't say "has" it says "utilizes" ... i guess i took that to mean "applies" or "creates" more than "has"it's not presented as an inherent quality of color, but one that can be achieved with color
also ... i don't think he's trying to educate anyone. this is probably actually where i've disagreed most with his writings (or more so, i suppose, his intentions). he seems (in reading his other posts) to believe that design can 'only' (perhaps not quite only) be learned through a formal education.he's not providing reasons for the answers and doesn't provide an opportunity for discussion as he seems to see that as nothing more that a bunch of hot air (read "no comments here"). there doesn't seem to be any intention behind alot of what he says other than to make people realize that they may not be the 'designer' they thought they were (which may be a means at making people realize the real value of good design).
i actually do believe that discussion and answers are a way of progressing design.
also, i'm not trying to make excuses for him. he'd probably be much more successful at defending his writings than my bumbling words, but i don't think that the example in your post is well presented or maybe more that your complaint with it is very well backed. you can say "guess as to what he meant to say" ... fair enough ... but i think it may be more inferring the actual meaning of the question. it seems to be out of context at first, but i think that "color being used to indicate information hierarchy" is the context. to not see that as the context is to say that every use of color is a means of developing hierarchy (which i can't imagine is what he's sating) ... it's not the most specific context, but it seems it is a context
But wait, ryan. Isn't "make[ing] people realize that they may not be the 'designer' they thought they were" an education in itself? An incentive to people to go and further educate themselves? Don't take too narrow a view of what education is.Interesting riposte here. I feel better about getting six of the questions wrong now. But I'm not sure I agree with you. I've read the sentence a couple of time now. It keeps tripping me up, but he's saying "The primary reason for using colour is contrast," not "colour is contrast." Oh. I just wanted to disagree with myself after typing that. I guess it's a question of interpretation of syntax. He seems to go out of his way to create cluttered, wordy sentences. A better structure might be:
Which inherent property is the primary reason that color is used to indicate information hierarchy? b)contrast
You would have to remove "decoration" as a possible answer, though. It is superficially the same thing as beauty, and meaningless as an inherent property.
There's been many a time I've really wanted comments on Mr. Rutledge's site; I think some informed some discussion would be valuable there, but I understand his reasons for not having them.
Ugh. Line breaks?
The benefits of Andy's ramblings are the conversations they can envoke about the internet. This brings attention to the subject matter which can be nothing but healthy for the deisgn community to explore more and more. I tend to agree with a lot of what Andy says (I got every question on his quiz right) but at the same time I do not view my personal opinions on such things as the one true writing on the wall like Andy comes across. I value my experience, knowledge, and interest but I tend to value moreso the learning process... and dare I say being proved wrong. This is what makes it all worthwide to me.
Cpawl - I agree. It's really great to talk about design. Promoting it's discussion is a honorable thing. And my repeated point, that seems to be getting lost here, is that perhaps a little less talking and a little more thinking might just help raise level of discussion. You said, "I got every question on his quiz right", and I'm just raising the question - according to WHO? I think there are great discussions to be had about design, creativity, formal training Vs. self-education, but when someone claims to have the right answers as Andy is doing here - "So here you've got the answers, but not the explanations for why these are the correct answers." - and here - "The key to knowing the right answers lies in a solid grasp of artistic and design fundamentals.", he's not helping the discussion by using words interchangeably that have completely different meanings, making vague generalizations, and in certain cases stating that untrue things, are in fact true... because he thinks so.
Yeah, it's "worthwide" to me, too. 
The nice thing about being a design ignoramus is that discovering what I don't know is a thrilling thing, not a frustrating one. It's all about assuming we can learning something from everybody, even the pompous minions of the who's-your-daddy art world.
Mark, I come to your website when my eyes hurt because of the visually soothing experience I have each time I come. Nice work!
Yeah, line breaks would be cool.
Linebreaks! Viola. ExpressionEngine rawks!
Thanks for the kind words, Clifton! LOVE YOUR SITE!!! Now can we talk about my American Express bill?
Yes, let's talk about your bill. I think your interest rate is too high, your line of credit should be increased, and have you considered upgrading your card? Actually, I don't have a clue about customer service. I just train the newbies with pretty pictures. I was beginning to think my sister-in-law was the only good thing to ever come out of New Mexico. Way to bring up the curve down there, buddy!
To be honest, I think Andy Rutledge has alot of pompus content. I am often annoyed/offended by his arrogance.
The test does a decent job at promoting conversation—strong opinions usually will. I thought that the questions were poorly asked and the selection of answers were generally ill-defined and/or subjective. I was put off by the perceived attitude of the entire post and hope untrained designers don't take their cue from Mr. Rutledge who shouldn't be allowed within 500 feet of a logo design.
I agree that in many cases the questions were poorly written. I only missed two questions, but I could have gone either way with the ones I got right. I don't think that when it comes to composition there are any real rules. Except for this; If your going to break a rule do it on purpose.
I'm a fine artist who works as a graphic designer, so I have the so called formal art school training. Many of the artists and designers that have made it big have always broken from convention. I think that if you stick to Mr. Rutledge's rules you'll stagnate.
Followed rules and art school training does not an artist make.
For instance, one rule in art school you are taught to use the golden mean or 3/4ths rule for color and composition like the masters did. This is a really safe way to create a piece, but breaking the rules and painting/designing yourself in a corner stimulates growth. Many of the best 20th century painters break that rule, but do so intentionally.
Add a comment
