ChangeOrder

What Are You Really Good At?

Quick: Tell me what you're best at as a designer.

No, you can't say you're really good at print. Can't you narrow it down to packaging or collateral, branding or advertising?

No, you can't say you're really good at creating Web sites. Do you focus on blogs, big dynamic sites with thousands of pages, non-linear Flash experiences, IM chatbots?

This may all sound a little facile, but every designer struggles with how they brand themselves. We know that having a design process can often yield great results, no matter what the tangible deliverable. And as we gain experience, we gain knowledge of more disciplines and tangibles. But we can't master them all.

The above exercise is humbling. And it serves great purpose, because when you're looking for work, clients ask you this sort of question all the time, and in many different ways. They want to know where your sweet spot lies when it comes to tactics. This is something you need to know now, not when you're on the spot.

So, I propose the following simple rule of thumb for working designers: Do three things well, and one thing better than anyone else. At least on paper. We can try to be good at applying design to everything that we see, often with terrific results, but the age of the generalist is slowly waning. We need to prepare for it.

Design-Isms: August 24, 2008

The work in your portfolio should show range, mastery, and intelligence. But if it lacks heart, it'll be much harder to land a job with it.

Even if you're the best graphic artist in the world, if you can't communicate an idea, you're toast.

There is no such thing as doing "informal user research," since it only leads to anecdotal results that lead to formally having no clue what your users want.

Clients can smell fear. It emboldens bad decisions for all parties involved.

Design Richter Scale

This week, after reviewing a ton of portfolios, it struck me that the very best design work I've seen recently inspires calm, awe, and respect. Emotionally, my response to each piece of work was narrowly focused. I was feeling what the designer wanted me to feel.

The weaker design work, by contrast, caused a wider range of emotions. Since many of the pieces that I saw weren't cogent design, I would see what the designer was trying to do. The effect of the work was all over the map. Hence the above chart, which inverts the Richter Scale.

In an earthquake, as you zip up the Richter scale the magnitude (and destruction) increases exponentially. When reviewing portfolios, it's the opposite. Really great design work that makes an impact on society has an exponential, focused effect, but instead of leveling cities, it simplifies decisions and inspires emotions (including envy). Weaker design, on the other hand, destabilizes the populace and becomes another layer of visual clutter.

ChangeOrder charts and cartoons are now on Flickr...