Journal

What’s missing from DIF?

  • Posted on: January 11, 2005
  • In: Design, News, CSS
  • Comments closed

Finally after months of wondering if it was worth it (yes, yes, I know it’s only ten bucks) i’ve finally subscribed to four issues of DIF. I’ve got to say, so far i’m very impressed.

The content is good and very well positioned to appeal to seasoned industry veterans and novices alike. But, yes there is a but…

I found the content didn’t address some of the core fundamentals of design theory - eg, colour, balance, typography, grids etc. Now maybe DIF isn’t the place for this. But I feel that some solid theoritical articles, especially surrounding a dying practice of correct typography and grid design, were missing from the issues I have.

I’ve been thinking of a number of articles that I might write for submission, and if they’re not accepted then i’ll just leave them posted up here.

So, what do you think should be in DIF? 

Comments

Mark,

Thanks for the comments and constructive criticism on DIF. I’m glad that you’ve enjoyed it for the most part.

That said, I would welcome any and all articles that you might come up with. Feel free to writeon theory and design practices—they are what is missing!

Best,
Andy Arikawa
Editor, Design In-Flight

Andy Arikawa's Gravatar

Andy Arikawa
Tue 11th Jan 2005
at 11:34 am

Wow, I didn’t expect a comment from the editor!

Thanks for the comment Andy. I was actually about to rephrase it slightly as I thought it might seem a little harsh in addressing a potential gap in the content.

I was thinking about this a little more this afternoon and have come up with some ideas for some articles. I’ll be getting some rough drafts together in the next week or two.

I guess the danger with design theory and practice pieces is they generally aren’t very inclusive. They also have a habit of being a bit dull. I try and address this!

Hmmmm… This is definitely got me thinking.

Mark Boulton's Gravatar

Mark Boulton
Tue 11th Jan 2005
at 12:43 pm

I’m a big fan of DIF too, particularly some of the earlier issues, actually.

I’ve not been classically trained as a designer, so I’d welcome some of those theoretical articles, and perhaps slightly fewer op-ed pieces from ‘the designer’s perspective’ - but then I guess the readership may have a different view! I’ve also felt a little bit as though the web standards side is perhaps a bit elementary, but again, the readership may just be dipping its toes in the water of XHTML/CSS.

To help balance the theoretical articles, how about some articles or how-tos in Illustrator/Photoshop, some more about project management and client handling, and some more in the vein of Jason Santa Maria’s great article on creativity?

Steph's Gravatar

Steph
Mon 17th Jan 2005
at 12:26 pm

Hi Steph,

I’ve been giving this some more thought and I currently underway with an article which hopefully DIF will publish, if they don’t it will be here anyway.

The articles will be in 2 parts - 1. Grids, Form and Balance and 2. Typography, Heirachy and Access structure. They will both address using and construction of these elements from a traditional ‘craft’ point of view. They will include historical and modern day examples as well as tutorials to work through. Hopefully i’ll combine the articles with a tutorial or two online here for people who want to delve a little deeper.

Any thoughts you may have on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark Boulton's Gravatar

Mark Boulton
Tue 18th Jan 2005
at 2:17 am

Agree with Steph that it’s hard to find a balance that suits the entire readership. In our recent reader survey, when asked the question “Would you like more tutorials, or more design theory?” the results were nearly 50/50.

Mark, your article idea sounds wonderful. We can consider it penciled in for the April issue, if you’re willing (Mar 1 deadline). If you need any help fleshing it out, feel free to contact me.

Andy Arikawa's Gravatar

Andy Arikawa
Tue 18th Jan 2005
at 5:43 am

with aiming a magazine at such a broad spectrum within the industry, as well as cross-overs into the more traditional design industry, I guess it will always be a difficult balancing act for you Andy. But, so far, you’re doing a great job.

I’d be well up for including it in the April issue, thanks! I’ll get together a more detailed overview for you over the next week and email you direct. Cheers!

Mark Boulton's Gravatar

Mark Boulton
Tue 18th Jan 2005
at 6:07 am

I agree, some design theory would fill in a big hole in an otherwise excellent publication.

Speaking for myself, I find an explanation of theoretical principles reinforced with examples is the best way to grasp such concepts.

I really enjoyed Nate Steiner’s “Soup to Nuts” (DIF Jan 05) where he explains how he builds his sites from the ground up. I would like to see something like that from a designer’s perspective, where each step in the evolution of the design is explained with reference to the design principles that drove the changes. Yum.

Looking forward to what you come up with, Mark. I can hardly wait until April.

Nigel Duckworth's Gravatar

Nigel Duckworth
Thu 20th Jan 2005
at 3:58 pm

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Next entry: Expression Engine - Designers Questions

Previous entry: Design and the Divine Proportion

A picture of Mark BoultonI'm a graphic designer from near Cardiff in the UK. I've been a designer for over ten years now and primarily work on the web. I'm still partial to a bit of print every now and then though. I used to work for Agency.com in London as an Art Director before working as a Senior Designer for the BBC in sunny Cardiff. This was all before I took leave of my senses and formed my own design consultancy, Mark Boulton Design Ltd.

I've got a thing about grids and typography and occasionally ramble on about them to anyone who will listen.

If you're after simple, clean and effective web design; let me know.