20 Rules of Logo Design

1. Get as much information as possible before you start on the project.
2. Make sure you are working with the decision makers.
3. Get inspiration outside of the logo books. Try an art museum or the local scrap yard.
4. Don’t use gradients. Well… If you do, just make sure the mark looks great without the gradients as well.
5. Committees can’t commit. Have a very direct and transparent plan if you do agree to work with a committee (never agree to work when there is more than one committee involved in the approval process).
6. Don’t just ask questions of the client, but work to figure out what lies underneath their answers.
7. Keep animation in the back of your mind, even if you don’t see the client needing it immediately.
8. Don’t leave “fine tuning” for after the client approval. Most of the time, after a logo is approved, the client wants it “ASAP”. If you do leave “fine tuning” for after the client gives final approval, make sure you follow through.
9. Work to appear current without being too trendy. More Sprint. Less at&t. Traveling/bouncing circles, droplets and or “canted” logos are becoming as trendy as the ubiquitous swoosh.
10. As much as you love the mark you created, make sure it is balanced with the type (if they are separate). Don’t make a mark that will completely overpower the company name and vice versa.
11. Simplify
12. Make sure it is recognizable at a quarter inch.
13. Make the overall shape unique. Think of the Coke bottle.
14. When you are creating shapes in Illustrator, use as few points as possible.
15. Start with some sort of sketch. Even if you are not a full-on thumbnail person, rough sketches on lined paper is better than nothing at all.
16. Start in black & white. Present that to the client before color becomes a factor (I am talking to myself here as well).
17. Strive to create a mark that would only work for your client, while allowing room for the company to expand and grow.
18. Don’t lose site of the overall picture. I find myself getting caught up in fine tuning details on a mark that, when looked at objectively, doesn’t fit within the client’s needs.
19. Don’t present a logo option to the client that you are not fully confident in. They WILL pick your least favorite.
20. Don’t forget that the logo is just one element in the larger scheme of the identity and brand.

Web Development Portfolio

I've finally gotten around to updating my online portfolio of web design work. Rather than just toss in a bunch of little screenshots of work I've done, this time around I've included only a handful of the more notable designs. They are broken up into two categories: Professional and Recreational. Each screenshot includes a paragraph or two explaining the decisions and technologies that went into the specific project. Hopefully this will prove more useful to those who might be interested in hiring me for web design work. My updated portfolio is accessible either via the "Portfolio" link to the right, or by clicking here.

Web Design Isn't Easy

Before you choke on your Cheetos, note that the title of this post isn't "Web Design Is Hard." Okay, now we can begin.I was reading an article about wireframing and prototyping in HTML when I ran across the following:
In some circles, HTML has acquired the reputation of being a time-consuming, difficult undertaking best left to developers.
My question is, in what circles? I guess taking context into account, I can see why usability folk might be scared to venture into the web design world, especially if they're stuck in their Visio ways. However, in nearly every circle I've been in, the exact opposite is true. HTML and more generally speaking, web design, have taken on the reputation of being easy.In the software development world, which is a world I live in for at least 40 hours a week, I consistently hear references to the ideas that building web pages is trivial and that web developers are a dime-a-dozen. I suppose I can agree with both points, the latter simply because it is undeniably true and the former because I have been building web pages for eleven years.The distinction that needs to be made is that good web designers and developers are not a dime-a-dozen. In addition, designing and building good websites is most certainly not trivial, even for someone who has been doing it semi-professionally for as long as I have (or longer).Typically the people that say things like "we can just throw a web page together – it's simple" end up producing pages that look something like this. Actually, that's being generous.I always take statements like that with a grain of salt, because it's just like hearing someone say "I am a C++ coder and write programs all the time." Then you take a peek at the code they've written and find a bunch of stuff lik this.The truth is, there is an artistic side to web design and development that most people just don't have. If I've ever had it, it was a struggle to attain and very fleeting. I believe there is an artistic side to programming as well, and it's easy to tell when someone has it. It's easy to tell when they don't too. The problem is, you can often get away with not having the artistic side in the programming world – the same is not always true in the web design world. It's just a fact, most people will naturally respond to a site like seriph in a way that they won't to a site like yoda.com (though you have to admit that site is pretty hilarious).So in conclusion, if you're one of those people that tends to write off web design as something trivial, only for those who "aren't smart enough to write real code," go pay a visit to mezzoblue, SimpleBits and Stopdesign (feel free to check out their source code too) and then come back here and tell me why.

The Future of Web Browsing

I was happy to see this morning that CNet has a special section of their site dedicated to Internet Explorer , and more importantly, the future of Web browsing.The first article, IE--embraced, extended, extinct?, raises several key points regarding what may be in store for the future of IE:
An article titled Planning to dump IE? Think again raises the point that even those who have switched to alternative browsers are often forced to keep IE around in order to perform critical functions like updating their operating system.IE gaps that need to be plugged does a good job of pointing out the major features that Internet Explorer lacks in comparison to its alternatives, such as tabbed browsing, live bookmarks , up-to-date CSS support, and support for PNG technology — i.e., the usual suspects.Have the browser wars been reignited? gives a run down on the options Web surfers have in terms of the Web browser they use, and finally, Views of IE's competition provides several screenshots side by side of the vastly different "dash boards" of those alternatives.Anyone interested in Web browsers should take the time to read those articles. Reading them only made me more curious about what the future of Web browsing will look like.

Bad Web Design Abounds

It pains me to see potentially high-profile websites (or sites that aspire to be high-profile) that suffer from really bad web design. Take a look at this page to get an example of what I mean. The page is only one among millions, but it's a relevant reminder, to me at least, that good web design should be appreciated whenever encountered — it really is a rare thing. It's just a shame it has to be that way.

Be Careful When Preaching Web Standards

Today, Doug announced that he has introduced a nifty stylesheet switching approach that allows his visitors to tweak Stopdesign to their liking so that everyone can have their way. This is great to see, and is an excellent example of how separating style from structure can provide boundless opportunity in design.However, while reading through some of the related comments over at his site, I stumbled upon the following.
This is one of the best reasons for standards-based designs. Try doing this with tables and suffer! Ritesh Niranjan , the commenter in question, is unfortunately very off-base with his comment.While it is true that those who choose to design with tables go against what is now considered common standards-based design, it is downright incorrect to say that Doug could not have achieved the feat he did had he used a table-based design. Doug's achievement can be attributed solely to the complete (and completely creative) use of style/structure separation. Whether or not his stylesheets and the rules therein apply to divs or tables is completely irrelevant.One thing we must be careful of when preaching web standards is that we don't end up sounding like all those anti-Microsoft folks out there. Just because a site utilizes tables for its structure does not mean it can't meet all the requirements of a standard and valid web document. Tables are acceptable entities in XHTML and HTML.Anyone who truly understands the the purpose of web standards and knows the real potential of separating style from content will easily see the weakness(es) in Ritesh conjecture.

A Standardized Web Makes No Sense?

I am sure lots of people have noticed this. It doesn't matter to me since I use both browsers and don't believe that a Standardized web makes any sense. I like Firefox for some features and IE for others. I think the decision of what to target is an ignorant decision. I think it's more important to deicide [sic] who to target and work on from there. That way you can create the optimal user experiences for your target market. Standardization like cross platform support addresses developer needs not user needs. That's why it doesn't make sense to me because it sacrifices practicality for convenience, and it's not even the end-users convenience we are talking about.
First off, what is this guy smoking? So what you use two different browsers...the reason you have to is because there is no standardized Web. The "end users" you talk about don't typically want to be switching back and forth between browsers. They want the Web to work for them no matter what browser they are using.I don't know how you typically think of business, Iggy, but as far as I'm concerned most businesses want their target market to grow. In order to help that happen, you better be darn sure people outside of your target market can get in. It's a plain-and-simple fact that most users who come across a website that doesn't work in their browser will simply leave the site. They're not going to think, oh, I'll bet this works in that other browser I have sitting on my computer somewhere (mostly because a lot of them don't even have another browser on their computer somewhere).Get a clue, Iggy. The standardized Web makes a lot of sense, and not just for developers. Most developers would love to still be writing tag soup – I promise you – but it just doesn't make sense in this new day and age of accessibility, bandwidth and market growth concerns.