Brown is in a curious nonposition in terms of color hierarchy. It is certainly a color ­— more so that black is, or white — but like pink it has no place in the spectrum. It was, however, the need to distinguish specifically between different brown colors which lead to the world’s first colorimeter. Joseph Lovibond was an Englishman who will be remembered for two things: his pioneering work… READ MORE.]]> Third in an ongoing series of excerpts from Victoria Finlay’s book: Color: A Natural History of the Palette

Brown is in a curious nonposition in terms of color hierarchy. It is certainly a color ­— more so that black is, or white — but like pink it has no place in the spectrum. It was, however, the need to distinguish specifically between different brown colors which lead to the world’s first colorimeter. Joseph Lovibond was an Englishman who will be remembered for two things: his pioneering work with colors and the terrible moment when, as a teenager who had just made a fortune in the gold fields of South Australia, he waved too enthusiastically to the friends he left behind on the wharf and all his money spun out of his hat and into the Sydney Harbor. Poor once again, he returned home and joined his father and two brothers in the family brewing business. He began to realize that the variations in color of his different brews were a good guide to their quality, but he found there was no established way of categorizing them — he needed some kind of graded scale. He tried different pigments, painting them on to a card and holding them up next to the beer. But they were unreliable and tended to fade, and anyway, how do you compare a liquid against a paint? Inspiration to improving the world’s beer quality arrived one day in church. Lovibond was attending a service at Salisbury Cathedral, and suddenly realized the answer lay in finding the right shades of brown stained glass as a standard against which to compare the colors of his amber-colored brew. Five years later, in 1885, he produced the first colorimeter, with a scale of many different kinds of brown, and later adapted it, in the form of the Lovibond Color Scale, to measure the three primary hues, red, blue, yellow, and so revolutionized color testing.

— Victoria Finlay
excerpted from her book: Color: A Natural History of the Palette

Visit her website: victoriafinlay.com and fnd out more about graphic design and architectural color at: studioconover.com

Crowdsourcing is a model where seekers of creative work present their needs and ask the creative industry to submit finished concepts to be judged by the buyer who, upon selection from many submissions, awards (some… READ MORE.]]> Crowdsourcing is a new flavor of Gutenberg’s moveable type, Niépce’s first photograph, Sholes typewriter and Wozniak’s and Jobs’ first computer that appealed to creative pratictioners. For many graphic designers crowdsourcing is perceived as a commoditization of the creative process that excludes the practicing professional and relegates the power to two parties: the client-purchaser and novices.

Crowdsourcing is a model where seekers of creative work present their needs and ask the creative industry to submit finished concepts to be judged by the buyer who, upon selection from many submissions, awards (some form of) compensation for the selected idea. Crowdsourcing’s financial incentives are not much different than stock photography. Finding the best creative idea for the cheapest price from the greatest selection of possibilities is the reward for the crowdsourcer. Crowdsourcing concerns are the same concerns felt by the gatekeepers of creativity throughout millennia; some luddite, armed with a new tool (moveable type, camera, typewriter or computer) is allowed to compete in an discipline that seemingly requires time and effort to master. But that notion gives designers a false assumption regarding who is qualified to deliver creative services. And it presumes that ownership over those decisions should not be in the hands of buyers of creative services. Add to that, concerns about unrealistically low compensation for crowdsourced ideas — like spec work and stock imagery — and you find a design industry very nervous about the concept of crowdsourcing. Very nervous.

So why is crowdsourcing so popular?
Many professional organizations (like AIGA and The Graphic Artists Guild) take a heedful position regarding speculative and crowdsourced work. They often advise members not to work for free and to differentiate between compensation expectations and unpaid pro bono work for the public good. They also state that designers should be aware of competitions where submissions are retained by the sponsor. AIGA specifically deems these situations potentially unfavorable contracts and they are right.

However, many designers have worked — or have given away free advice — for reduced (or no) compensation at some point in their career. When ReCourse’s David Baker says (crowdsourcing) “is good because it will nudge the entire industry to start selling their thinking rather than their doing”, I also add that giving away your thinking is just as harmful as participating in crowdsourced contests. Many creatives have done, and continue to give away all forms of creative advice. Remember of all the free ideas presented in your last RFP submission?

So then, why get involved with crowdsourcing? The answers are complex and contingent upon which side you are on. Designers can choose to see it as a threat (like so many other alleged threats: certification, technology, amateurs) or an opportunity as David Baker observed previously. Buyers of creativity — many of whom savor the freedom of choice at an affordable price have learned to work this way. And, why not? Their goods and services are similarly exploited. Rather than trust the more gratifying freedom from choice which experienced designers present, crowdsourcing buyers believe they are getting all three traits from the oft-repeated bromide: “good”, “cheap” and “fast”, rather than just two of the three.

Buyers of creative services simply have another avenue to pursue in their continued efforts to control costs and manage time. They are taking advantage of a large resource of hungry participants where it is a buyer’s market. Given that situation who wouldn’t take advantage?

Conversely, when a more measured and thoughtful process is needed, crowdsourced solutions are inadequate. There is plenty of that kind of work available. As designers, if you believe crowdsourcing presents unsophisticated projects and small rewards then that is not the type of work to be pursuing.

In 1997 our first specification binder redesign was for a stone veneer manufacturer. Our research revealed an inexplicable amount of vinyl silkscreened binders with a confusing array of disparate components inside. Why? Doesn’t this important sales tool warrant… READ MORE.]]> Before and After images are great aren’t they? It’s so easy to understand their transcendent appeal. In third grade I remember our first cursive handwriting attempts that lined the classroom wall in September and by mid-May, our handwriting transformed, side-by-side comparisons on that very wall. Progress is easy to spot isn’t it?

In 1997 our first specification binder redesign was for a stone veneer manufacturer. Our research revealed an inexplicable amount of vinyl silkscreened binders with a confusing array of disparate components inside. Why? Doesn’t this important sales tool warrant the attention given the rest of the brand’s touchpoints? Even today, when online offerings provide easily updatable resources, the spec binder still plays a prominent role for any manufacturer.

Here’s three suggestions — with before and after photos — that showcase how we transform spec binders for building product manufacturers.

1 Don’t assume you have to use the standard materials the binder manufacturer offers.
Many vendors (in all industries) showcase standard offerings because they represent cost effective solutions and most readily available materials. There’s nothing wrong with this, however, when we redesign a spec binder we first start by determining what alternately can be fulfilled without necessarily producing a cost prohibitive binder. That can be accomplished through the selection of paper for the cover, the powdercoating of a particular color for the ring hardware, even the type of laminate used to protect the binder.

2 Present a consistent brand “voice” throughout the binder.
The new binder looks great on the outside but how does it look once it’s opened? The impression your client gets from every component of the binder cannot be understated. If you offer a mix of disparate looking brochures, photocopied test reports and dissimilar trade association collateral you won’t appear organized, unified and consistent. Make sure and audit all components so a singular graphic “voice” is heard. (For instance, inexpensive one-color reports can be upgraded by printing on the same type of paper as other binder components.)

3 The information printed in the binder should be exactly what’s presented on your website.
Nothing can be more frustrating for a specifier than inconsistent offerings, product naming or confusing identification. When you ask a potential client to figure things out themselves you risk losing their interest. True, keeping current with printed components is a challenge today (especially considering the ease of online updates) but consider the all-important face-time your sales team capitalizes on while updating printed components in your client’s office. On-site updating of your materials is a benefit for any specifier of your product.