For example, when I draw I solve the form of one part of a scene where others will describe that part in a line or two inside many others. My drawing will sit, centred and small, on a blank page when others roughly fill the page right to every edge. When I write I assemble vignettes and hints together but rarely scenes. When working on a logo I might resolve the curves on a single letterform on a logo that is not the solution to the job.

Its hard to know if this is a disability or an advantage. We are all drawn to bigger works but love smaller parts. We will sit and watch Spartacus enthusiastically but will also remember only lines Happy Gilmore.

“I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast”

“You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?”

Call the marketing department – we gonna be rich!

Idea one was an anchor built into the text symbolising this central company being a proverbial rock all the others are fastened to. Idea two was based on ripples of water showing a flow of ideas outward from a central point. The third was the idea of a company a fan-like spread of assets, in this case the fan was abstracted and shaped into the initial letter of their name. Instead, the boss took two ideas from a book of logos and hey presto! Done deal!

This happened a day after a client asking me can I draw and being amazed after I said “Of course! After four years of art college I must have learned something”. The response to this was – “oh you can go to college to do design?”

Anyway, it’s lovely to know I am appreciated, now where can I stick those dead logo ideas?

sorry.

Ships and boats really get me going. Long and elegant from one angle, squat and robust from another; they represent a nostalgic way to travel where instead of being cosseted away one’s senses are assaulted by the journey. The travel is about taking time away from everything and seeing the world at a remove. These mechanical Jonah’s whales battle their way though the seas to deliver those in their bellies.

Mid twentieth century ships particularly excite me with their proud bows vertically rising from the point where they obtusely cleave the water apart. They make no concession to ergonomic theory or streamlining. Everything is upright and proper.

Those of us unfortunate enough to sit through it saw this illustrated in Minority Report when Tom Cruise, or whatever his character was called, walked into a shop which immediately recommended purchases based on his previous transactions. We are all familiar with Amazon doing this for us when we log on and our iGoogle showing us something that tallies with our ‘interests’. StumbleUpon aims to show us new things we may not be familiar with but these are within our chosen spheres of interest.

Why do we want these narrowed options tailored to make us sit comfortably in nice neatly labeled consumer boxes? Why should our past purchases or browsing determine what we are exposed to in the future?

These technologies can ultimately present us with fewer options and narrow our frames of reference. They have the potential to make us even lazier than we already are as our entire human experience is handed to us on a plate. They are the stuff of anomie-fuelled science fiction. So why are they being developed? They are the stuff of dreams for marketing and population control. I’m not very excited by the prospects for this

Firstly the ramp goes straight down towards the road. Obviously people in wheelchairs can either stop their wheels rolling or deal with the consequences. It also suggests they should really have some one able-bodied with them at all times. Secondly the ramp had a transition down it to really help them gather momentum on the way down or make it really difficult on the way up.

Due to the age of the area and the prevailing attitudes toward disability when the ramp was built this isn’t that shocking. In fact it may have been quite forward thinking and philanthropic for its time.

Haven’t we just come so far since then? Maybe. We hear about accessibility all the time these days but do we really design things to accommodate or do we just label them later? There are two everyday items which are obsessed over to a ridiculous degree that suggest otherwise – paper money and ipods.

Apple prides itself on design. Is it form over or following function? Why do ipods feature such interfaces that are completely blank in purely tactile terms? The navigation is not only unintuitive to a blind person but is practically unworkable. But that said the name of this blog is Lost Causes and pertains to ideas that have been lost. It doesn’t refer to complaining about perceived lost causes. Apple mac software has speakable items software. How hard can it be to have a setting that allows your ipod to tell you what you are doing? Of course if Apple already have this then I look fairly foolish right now.

Paper money, while it is not news to point out its tactile blandness, could be easily improved by punching holes into it. Either adopt a braille symbol or put in a line for each denomination (one line of holes for a fiver, 2 for ten, 3 for 20 etc). The lines would be preferable as it crosses language barriers.

There you have it – a few more thoughts on an obscure webpage that next to no-one will ever see but that might change the world (albeit only a little bit). Not even a pretty picture to look either.

Computers have changed everything but then again you didn’t need me to tell you that. Everything is quicker, faster and easier. Better is something though I’m not so sure about.

We can now tailor everything to the way we like it. This is particularly true of commissioning design. You don’t like the way your designer used a tasteful typeface? Get them to change it. They left blank space where the layout can breathe? Fill that fucker with words of how great your company is, after all that’s what your clients love.

Never mind the fact that the professional, trained designer you have chosen to execute your project has advised you against it. Simply tell them you could do it in MS Paint yourself just as easily but you don’t have the time.

Before computers though the designer crafted a mockup, clearly setting aside an area for text, a site for logos, image area etc. Clients did not have the ability to do any of this badly themselves and they trusted the person they hired. After all, hadn’t they sketched it out in front of them and agreed on everything. Design stood for something – it was part of the process of printing. It wasn’t just someone who could operate a computer that looks vaguely familiar but is clearly running a different and daunting operating system.

Everything was agreed before artworking began. Designers didn’t have to ‘make my logo bigger’ after the final pdf proof. They also told clients wat typeface would be good (highly specialised knowledge in those days) they told them full colour printing was out of their league but you could do something really eye-catching by doing ‘x’.

At least nowadays we designers have our ‘cliquey’ design sites where we can log on and faithfully trot out whatever style is the current plat-du-jour.

(I have just been asked to remove a blue sky image and replace it with ‘something financial’ for a financial assistance brochure. That’s what the reader wants – penury instead of trouble-free horizons)

Equally you should never leave anything to chance or take your chances – make sure you always have control.

I thought it would be interesting if this were stopped by clearly defining objects and events.