In my experiences designing for mass-produced packaged goods (i.e. stuff in a supermarket), accessibility and instant grasp are key and intrigue, intelligence, and surprise are best left on the drawing board. It is rare to find a product (in this arena) where the target audience is assumed to be looking for something beyond the basic purchase need. I'm sitting here looking at a bottle of Snapple and appreciating that they provide bits on the package for those who choose to look more closely. It's much improved from, say, the cereal package approach. "Hey, check out this enlarged bit of flake! It's better than those other flakes!"

At my school they teach you to make things as obvious as possible. Last semester I had to make book illustrating the elements of design. Everybody in my class had things that were obvious, plus they included the name of the element they were illustrating and the definition of the element.

I left all of the element names off the pages. I wanted to make a book that had images somebody could enjoy but also question on another level without being told what was going on. Luckily, I left several blank pages in the back, my teacher said I needed to have the names and definitions in case the book was "read" by someone who didn't speak design.

I agree somethings should be blatantly obvious for the "dumbasses" of the world, other things should just be enjoyable and make people work for the answer.

I know this isn't the meaning you intended by the word "accessible," but it triggered a stream-of-consciousness cross-reference, so I thought I'd mention it.

The AIGA recently relaunched the national site (aiga.org) and it's very inaccessible to the disabled. I'm an accessibility proponent in addition to being a graphic designer, so I was quite upset and scratched out some rants about the site. I didn't mention the specific problems, but suffice it to say it is very short of the national (Section 508) and international (WCAG) standards for minimum levels of accessibility. I sent the link to David Womack and Shawn McKinney (Austin Chapter President) but haven't heard any response.

I was kind of torn on posting the rant. As an active AIGA member and chapter board member, I didn't really want to post something so negative about a fresh launch of the national site, but I feel so strongly about this that I had to say it. Hopefully it will be taken constructively and lead to an increase in awareness of the problem of web accessibility.

I know many of this site's readers are AIGA members and so I wanted to ask for your feedback. How do you feel about the comments I made? Did you even know it was a concern? Now that you know, how do you feel about the social responsibility of designers using the web as a medium?

Please excuse me if this is off-topic, KM. I'm not trying to commandeer your post. Hopefully, you'll consider this as on-topic and necessary as I do.

Right after I posted that, my server went down. The link is good, but I'm not sure when it will be back up. Sorry for the inconvenience. :p

There is certainly value (maybe not ROI value, but value) in creating a design that really makes people think. But, I think there is a difference between making people ponder, and making them go "what the..."

Wouldn't the best solution be to create an aesthetic that cleary communicates meaning, but also forces the viewer to "think"? To me, that would be ultimate branding.

As much as it may suck, our society is driven by the almighty $, and we must realize that MOST people are in fact dumb, and the lowest common demominator speaks to the highest percentage of a market, and therefore is the most successful design according to almost anyone's number crunching boss.

If people aren't stupid, then why do they let MTV et al make decisions for them?

James - you are a bit off topic but have raised an interesting point perhaps more suitable for another discussion.

Kris, I agree, slightly off topic but not completely. I can see how James made the connection and raises a good point on the decoration-only stance some designers take. Without getting too deep in my opinions of the AIGA site, I think James' concern is legit and it addresses part of the original question are we to simply decorate without any authorship in the process?. This could be a great opportunity for the AIGA to demostrate their commitment to web design by adhering to web standards. But, as a non-compliant designer myself I don't have much to bitch about in that department,

Anyway… window dressing? Nothing wrong with that, I've dressed many, many windows and it is very rewarding when you step back and your window is all pretty. But design can aslo be about building the window.

Are we to simply decorate without any authorship in the process? No. I've said it before when this kind of statement comes up. I am not comfortable being a monkey, nor do I look forward to a design project that involves mere articulation. Computers articulate form; I am a human being capable of thought and emotion. Show me a designer who thinks otherwise.

The audience wants to be considered smart. They don't want to be dupped, nor do they want to be labeled stupid. How many times have you sat next to somebody watching a commercial and heard, "Oh, please. I saw it coming all along." Nobody likes to see it coming. There's more reward in revelation. Vagueness severs a purpose. Picasso said it best with a successful painting comes together just barely. Just barely meaning enough to cue the viewer into completing it themselves. The trick is making it just vague enough without going into the outer limits of, "What the... I just don't get it."

I worked at a small design firm for a while and recently moved to a large agency that does mass market communication. There are many differences, but window dressing seems common to both.

Small design firms seem to embrace the "conceptual" in addition to doing window dressing. Where I came from the concept was usually the anchor for the window dressing. I don't know if has to do with the designer-client relationship and a more narrow focus on audience. At the large "mass appeal" agency the conceptual is less important. It seems the "consumer" doesn't have time to ponder what is being communicated. The large agency is more focused on the results of the communication. The possibility of "losing" the consumer must be avoided. "Window dressing' is used without high-concept. I don't think the lack of conceptual thinking means the audience is considered dumb.

This is another one of those 'it all depends' questions. ;o)

Decorating and Design are tightly integrated and sometimes a project calls for more of one than the other.

In terms of the 'dumb-ass' question, again, it depends. Who's your audience?

And John, excellent rant, and, as usual with the AIGA, that's just the way it is. The AIGA is a print design club, and I don't see that changing. Ever.

The only thing I'd add to your rant is that accessibility is not about making something accessible to the disabled, but rather making something more accessible to everyone.

Er...James. Not John. Sorry about that, James!

Anyway… window dressing? Nothing wrong with that, I've dressed many, many windows and it is very rewarding when you step back and your window is all pretty.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. As designers we think visually and create visual solutions.

But design can aslo be about building the window.

Exactly my point. This is also relevant to PK's topic.

If people aren't stupid, then why do they let MTV et al make decisions for them?

Perhaps the question should be - do you think people are stupid because they are habited to decisions being made for them?

The audience wants to be considered smart. They don't want to be dupped, nor do they want to be labeled stupid.

This could be the answer to the question above. I certainly feel "dupped" when the obvious is so clearly defined as if it wouldn't be possible to arrive at the conclusion myself.

I think there's a happy medium in there somewhere...Something I like to do (which is not always possible) is to put in an obvious meaning, and then sneak in another behind it. There's always a few who will get the second meaning, and everyone else can enjoy the simplicity of the first meaning.

Designers are both deep thinkers and "window dressers" ( I don't like the term, but can appreciate the spirit). It depends on the intellegence level of the client, and the depth of the work. No use sneaking in double entendres into Beanie Weenie packaging.

I'm sitting here looking at a bottle of Snapple and appreciating that they provide bits on the package for those who choose to look more closely.

Nantucket Nectars puts facts under their caps and I've always liked that, not much of a design element but it educates for those who want and those who don't care to learn don't have to read it. I think everything needs something like that, a hidden element that makes people think.

And I do believe that we are "window dressers". That is all the clients (at least the ones I deal with) ever hire me to do, make their product, company, ect. look pretty.

Where I work I'm always told to design so the stupidest person (dumbassess) can understand what ever it is we are trying to say. I don't think there is away around that, at least where I work.

Has this arrival been deemed as absurd (they won’t get it) and forced you to default to �decorating?

I know this isn't exactly the same but kind of similar.

I redesigned the website for the company I work for and my first design was shot down because they didn't think people would understand how to navigate it (I wanted to use drop down menus). In the end, I used a basic web design platform (title on top, navigation on the left) and made the site look pretty. I still got emails from people saying that don't understand how to navigate the site but that is besides the point.

So, I guess all we really can do is "decorate" things and hope that people get that.

Wouldn't the best solution be to create an aesthetic that cleary communicates meaning, but also forces the viewer to "think"? To me, that would be ultimate branding.

I'm sitting here looking at a bottle of Snapple and appreciating that they provide bits on the package for those who choose to look more closely.

I think you need to appeal to people's senses in three ways...visually, emotionally and intellectually. Yes, I agree that to get people to "think" is an important philosophical aspiration, but the order in which people "see" things is as follows (this is courtesy of brand strategist Cheryl Swanson):

1. color

2. shape

3. numbers

4. words

It is great that Snapple zealots like to look for the nuances in the package (and as a huge Snapple drinker and as also someone that works on some of their packaging, it just makes me happy to be in the Snapple world, so to speak), but most consumers (uh, people) want to FEEL something first when they look at things. The thinking comes afterwards. If you don't feel something first, chances are you will not even bother to consider anything else (kind of like falling in love). And most people get their first impression of things in (believe it or not) seven seconds. So if they don't feel it first, intellectually they will never even try to understand it.

So I don't see design as window dressing, I sort of see it as diving into someones soul to try and connect with them.

First ... KM said,

If people aren't stupid, then why do they let MTV et al make decisions for them?

Perhaps the question should be - do you think people are stupid because they are habited to decisions being made for them?

----

Yes. Most of us operate as we were educated. If that education included 'trusting' television, then we will.

....

Dumbasss one who is not literate in the field I am talking about.

I just did a usability test with my girlfriend for a website I am working on. She couldn't follow my layout, and was able to point out choices I had made which didn't work for her. So, now the site is easier to navigate. But who is the dumbass? Her because she is not as technically oriented, or me, because I didn't see the things she saw?

In her field (finance related) customers are often 'dumbasses'. I would have been one before I knew her.

I (being a hardware tech) have done call-center tech support. People call in and you help them without being able to see what is going on. As you can imagine, many techs consider the end-users to be typically 'dumbasses'. And often tech support will treat people that way. Either rudely responding to their questions, or giving them useless (though technically proper) advice.

Now, what I learned was to acknowledge that people were not 'dumbasses' but rather, ignorant. You can lead an ignorant person to a solution.

Yes, there were a few stubborn people who had to do it their way. In a tech situation this can be self-correcting. When they do what they want, and not what you advise, and it causes their comptuer problems ... then they come back and ask your way. (Thinking that it probably won't work, but ... )

So hopefully, a trend is starting to be visible. A dumbass, in the typical sense, is just someone who is not conversant in your field.

So how do you communicate with those who don't speak your language, without giving up all of the beauty and subtlety of your language?

OK, since I’m the moron who brought up the "window dresser" analogy, (in Patric's discussion), I should probably elaborate now, before we all get completely sick of the term.

First of all, I meant no slight to Window Dressers. I have a friend who dresses windows quite nicely for Neiman Marcus and it wouldn't surprise me if she preferred to be called an Environmental Designer. Just as in our profession, those working at the highest level have serious skills.

However, it was apparently a decent analogy for our purposes because everyone seems to get it instantly and it walks that fine line where you’re not quite sure if it’s a good thing or not. It does have some baggage. But as I said before, I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with being a window dresser or a stylist or whatever you want to call it — I just think we have a lot more to gain by embracing this aspect of the craft and understanding that this is how we are perceived, than we do by denying it and pretending to be that which we are not.

Perhaps I was a bit presumptuous to suggest that writers here were somehow not honest about graphic designers being window dressers and that has been demonstrated to be untrue over the last couple days. Nevertheless, I believe there exists a conceit perpetrated at the higher levels of this profession (or at least at the higher-billing levels) — and perpetuated by industry guardians like AIGA — that graphic designers deserve to be something more than window dressers. That we are somehow not fulfilling our potential by merely dressing windows and that we are eminently qualified to be strategic business consultants and while I would certainly like to be highly-paid, I just don't see any evidence to suggest that the average graphic designer understands the dynamics of business enough to really contribute much beyond making things look sharp.

More on topic though, let's say there are two window dressers who work for the same store. The first dresser appoints the window in spectacular fashion using lavish materials and style according to her own tastes and sensibility. The 2nd dresser takes care to choose content and style that is suited to both the positioning of the store and to the tastes of the store's customers — not particularly bold or extravagant, but accessible. Just for fun, let's say that the first dresser wins several awards for her work. Which is the better window dresser? Which does the store choose for the next season's project? And which dresser should command the higher fee?

Teal, thank you for your excellent response to Other Jeff. A similar thought, not so well-explained, has been bouncing around the back of my deadline-tormented brain all day.

Then you asked: So how do you communicate with those who don't speak your language, without giving up all of the beauty and subtlety of your language?

I think Debbie laid a very good foundation for answering that question in her research-based comments.

I would say it's a balance between making things look pretty and communication itself. I think that just because people need to be fed information doesn't make them stupid... perhaps the other way around. In a world of visual bombardment, you have to choose what to tune out, and this is usually the mundane. Thus, your design must breach this attention gap, and then a creative, intuitive, etc design can exist. But without that initial breach, it is essentially worthless (the worth of the design hinges upon whether or not it is viewed and/or contemplated upon)

It has been said that in music, especially jazz music, the listener is constantly anticipating what is to come. If they are right more than 50% of the time, they think the music is boring or predictable.If they are wrong more than 50% of the time,they think the music is chaotic.Maybe the same type of thing comes into play when experiencing design? You want to be surprised but not too surprised?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how "window dressers" can truly be considered graphic designers at all... perhaps "graphic decorators" is a more apt term. Design, by definition, is intentional creation.

I dont agree with the whole basis for the question "Are we to simply decorate without any authorship in the process?" To me, this shows a lack of understanding of what graphic design is all about. A good designer/client relationship doesn't involve the client acting as a patron of the arts, nor does it involve the designer being a slave to the client and doing something obvious and expected. Its a partnership, where the designer finds a compelling way to communicate the client's message. There can be any number of ways to do this, depending on what is appropriate for that particular client.

Debbie said:

So I don't see design as window dressing, I sort of see it as diving into someones soul to try and connect with them.

I see design as diving into the soul of the CLIENT, and distilling that into something that the consumer can immediately connect with. That's extremely difficult to do, and a far cry from "decorating."

> I see design as diving into the soul of the CLIENT

Just remember that many times, if not most, the client is not the final target audience. Yes, it might help diving into the client's soul to figure out what s/he wants but in the end you are adressing the client's clients.

Regarding David E's last comments and everything to this point:

Indeed, you are designing for the client and not the audience. If the client understands that research/understanding of the target market is needed, this is an "educated client" and you will be designing for the audience. But that often results in design by Focus Group, in which case you may get the lowest common denominator if it isnt structured right. Companies are not spending, why should they trust the gut instincts of a 20 something graphic designer?

I think many things are happing in our industry that creates a thread like this. I remember designing Annual Reports in the late 90s that were complete flights of fancy. Remember the Yahoo! reports? Graphic Designers were coming to work in rivet gear (I worked with a DJ with a green mohawk) straight form a rave the night before. Individuality was the message built open David Carson's art director days at Transworld, the great leaps made by firms like tDR, migrating ex-Cranbrook grads, and the PC.

What has happened has been a complete 180. It is a miracle if you can get a company to put out anything more than a 10k wrap on newsprint (even though that is what is called for). Thanks to the internet bubble and corporate excess, we are not at liberty to create intellectually stimulating collateral on the mass-market level. It would be obliterated by PR stunts anyway.

In a way, we are going back to our roots. For me, desiging something like a billing statement is what calls for a professional graphic designer. You have to know all the formal elements and be a master with typography. And what about wayfinding systems? And what about cleaning up design/architecture on sites done by people who think usability means using xhtml, proper tags, and nothing but hypertext (ahhh.. i save that for another thread). I never remember tDR or Carson on the cover of Eye magazine or Emigre with the wonderful new multi-lingual design of the most recent American Express billing statement.

But anyway... back to my boring package design...

back on topic...

If you have a product that can be clever/intelligent over the expense of a "potential" lost customer (the LCD) and can sell it to the client.... I will be the first person in line to help you out.

It really all depends on how well your team can sell the client on it, and what the cost ratios are. And if your firm will take the risk of being blamed if the design does not sell itself.

For me, the really intriquing designs are for either small clients (easier sell, less politics) or niche markets that have disposable income.

I really agree with your argument when it comes to the net, accessible (which is more about code/structure) has come to mean flat/non-conceptual design. It doesn't have to be. People are window dressing Dreamweaver templates more and more.

(Side-track)

Ya know, I was going to suggest to Armin about having a discussion about the AIGA's site redesign. Some things I like about it; others aspects (many) I strongly dislike. I think some good points could come from that potential thread.

But getting back on-topic...

aUSTIN-

I think everything needs something like that, a hidden element that makes people think.

Debbie Millman-

I think you need to appeal to people's senses in three ways...visually, emotionally and intellectually.

simon-se-dice

In a world of visual bombardment, you have to choose what to tune out, and this is usually the mundane. Thus, your design must breach this attention gap, and then a creative, intuitive, etc design can exist.

Armin

Just remember that many times, if not most, the client is not the final target audience.

To the above comments, I would add a comment that Michael Vanderbyl mentioned in a class I took 20+ years ago, that has always stuck in my head: "If it doesn't look good, they'll never pick it up. If they never pick it up, it'll never be read."

So... In weaving all of these statements together, I will say that, in general, I try to design for the upper half of the 50% mark, but I don't forget that it needs to work for the middle of that bell-curve in order to be considered "functional." So I incorporate the basic veneer "window-dressing" treatments and interests with subtler details or elements that hopefully gives a greater meaning or depth to the project. I feel a sort of moral obligation to put more into a design that what a client or a client's customer is perhaps expecting.

The motivations for this are manifold.

First off, I feel that if we are always reinforcing the lowest-common-denomenator "dumb-ass" aspect of design, we will be helping to build and reinforce a "dumb-ass" world.

Also, I feel that providing greater meaning or depth is part of the competitive advantage that I have over other less-informed or inspired designers, who just focus on the basics.

I also enjoy the challenge of integrating subtle details and themes into the initial basic work to give the final solution greater meaning and depth. This is purely a self-indulgent activity that helps to keep me feeling good about being a designer, and not just a desktop publisher.

Additionally, I also think that trying to put more layers of meaning into a design helps to make the solution more effective by providing elements that more sophisticated people can pick up and appreciate. I'm not necessarily concerned whether this is acknowledged by everyone. And as Armin says, I'm frequently more concerned with connecting with the customer than with the client. That's not to say that I don't care about the client's interests or concerns. I will always go out of my way to make sure a client is happy. But like a painter who doesn't over explain, I put more into my design work that I always want to bring up the client. It's kind of like a parent who just confirms with the child that the food tastes good, without really getting into why it's good for them. I can be very candid with some clients, and that's wonderful. But with others, I give them only the reasons they want because they can't handle having too much complexity (even if their customers can).

So... Get the basic idea well worked out, then add in detailing and complexity to taste. A perfect "dish" every time.

I am tired of the design community pompously condescending to the public-at-large, speaking of them as "dumb-asses" and complaining that they must create for the "lowest common denominator." It is quite simply a vain, unjustified stance. If you want to challenge people with your brilliance, then quit your job at the agency (as a glorified salesman), and become a "fine" artist. Get over yourselves already. Your latest brochure or annual report is a piece of ephemera.

Mark, respectfully, this is something we are faced with constantly. Many times we hear from the client I'm afraid my costumers won't get it. Most of the times that concern from clients comes from the fact that they have to convey their message in less than 5 seconds, so they would rather do a poster, package, logo, etc. that is easily and quickly graspable by the audience. A more complex message (visually and linguistically) can take a longer time to decipher, but with mass conumer communications being watered (or dumbed) down constantly there is less probability that the public-at-large will react positively to something that takes a little longer to understand.

Granted, to use dumb-asses as a descriptor is not appropriate. Also, keep in mind that designers can be as much of a dumb-ass as anybody else, but within the parameters we work the ideas we have can sometimes get turned down because people will not get it and that can be frustrating at times.

If you want to challenge people with your brilliance, then quit your job at the agency (as a glorified salesman), and become a "fine" artist. Get over yourselves already.

Graphic designers are not artists so I don't see how this shift in activity would let us challenge people with our brilliance.

Granted, to use dumb-asses as a descriptor is not appropriate.

Just to clarify: I did not intend for "dumb-ass" to become a descriptor for anyone - graphic designers, clients, etc. I seem to have the talent to indirectly offend people on this site.

Apologies. My comment was not intended to flame anyone here, but rather a reaction against this all-too-common rant against the general public. If most of the intended audience for a particular project does not "get it", we as designers are far too eager to cluck our tongues at the unenlightened masses. I was taught that we are designing to an audience, that we are not artists, but rather communicators. If the audience doesn't get it, then we have failed, not them. We need to take responsibility for our lapses in this regard. There are far too many designers out there today who try to be the message, rather than convey the message, and when they fail they invariably seem to blame the audience.

One further comment, I think the blame for much of this behavior falls squarely on the shoulders of design competitions. The incestuous nature of these contests has left much of the design community hopelessly out of touch with the real world. We are designing for our contemporaries, rather than our clients and audiences. Pardon the double-post, but I'm new here, and can't find an edit button around. :P

> There are far too many designers out there today who try to be the message, rather than convey the message, and when they fail they invariably seem to blame the audience.

Very much agreed on that Mark.

Also I think the overestimation of our abilities paired with the underestimation of the audience leaves us mired in design that neither pushes nor pulls — right in between, and that's not good.