Learning how to bend the brief to suit my own interests within graphic design has become a important way to make the briefs more enjoyable to tackle. This was crucial in reference to designing for screen as this was an area where I had no prior understanding or interest in pursuing. Having an editorial based problem meant that the design still revolved around using editorial content and creating editorial appropriate solutions. Furthermore being able to bend the briefs creates a more cohesive portfolio of work which demonstrates my own interests in graphic design.
The amount of work and difficulty in producing all of the animations highlights the importance of having a dedicated coder/animator when designing for screen. Having a dedicated animator/coder allows for the ideas from the graphic designers to be represented more accurately. The animators and coders knowledge of the field will also help push these ideas to its full potential as they know the limits and possibilities when designing for screen. This was a difficulty when creating the animations, most notably trying to create a 3d effect. The lack of experience in using AfterEffects resulted in compromising the original design idea.
However thinking commercially, creating these complex animations may not be economically viable in the long run. These animations would probably demand higher costs from the coders/animators and require more time and effort. Furthermore because the preview is just a preview, putting much time and effort into it may not be worth it, depending on the impact these previews may have on the sales of the magazine. In a way this highlights why design studios prefer multidisciplinary designers as it will allow the studio to branch out to more areas to creatively communicate their ideas.
Drawing out the art boards for each major progression in the animations made it easier to understand the overall idea for each one and to systematically go through them once on screen. This way of working was also quicker in experimenting with different compositions which was less frustrating than trying it on screen.
After doing both briefs, the differences are clear between designing for screen and designing for print. Between the two, digital design was quicker in achieving the final resolution. The immediacy of digital design however means experimentation during the process is reduced because every element of the design is able to be manipulated with ease. Designing digitally also reduces the amount of human error during the design process. With print, many errors were produced from screen printing where the pulls did not produce a strong enough registration or not having the correct alignment. Producing for print requires the designer to learn the technical skills and have the resources. Digital design on the other hand does not take long to learn and is relatively easy to produce, the resources needed to produce the work is all in one place i.e. the computer.
Experimentation for screen is not focused around the production but rather the user. An effective piece of digital design is based on how well the user interface and user experience is designed.
For print, each design decision had to go through a lengthy process which needed planning time ahead. Furthermore it is often during these experimentations within the process where something new is discovered that can help improve the design.
With digital design, the work becomes restricted to the screen and requires the screen to be viewed. Designing for print on the other hand is a format can take on many variations. However this does not mean digital design is restricting. The animated magazine previews demonstrate how far content can be manipulated for screen. The formats just take on a different form e.g. videos, gif, sound and user interaction. Due to the varied amount of 'screens' available to us today, there is a need for the solution to be fully workable on a multitude of screen sizes. Unlike in print where the final resolution fits all. With these varying screen sizes also comes different user experiences that dictate how the solution should be designed for that screen.
As a whole the solution to the brief's problem has been effective. The static reading experience of reading editorial content online is currently comprised of long passages of text, static images and difficult navigation options that has created a subpar reading experience that feels unnatural to use. The solution provides a highly visual way of reading the same content. The animation heavy previews grabs the users attention and is designed around how we prefer to read on screen. This meant shortening the amount of copy to make the preview feel easy to read, providing brief but key amounts of information to generate curiosity and having interactivity between the user and the screen to create their own reading experience. The biggest aspect of the solution is that it is not meant to provide the best way to read online magazines but to be a platform where publishers can help promote exposure for their magazine. Therefore the intended form of the magazine i.e. it being an artefact and having a tactile reading experience, receives better sales as opposed to creating a solution that rivals discouraging the need of physical magazines. What was not dealt with effectively were the external areas beside the actual animations. Basic mockups were done on how these previews will look like on Instagram and desktop websites but there was little consideration on the way in which to generate exposure of the feature itself and ensuring the longevity of the feature. Overall however the animated preview feature does provide an alternative solution to a problem that has caused the unpopularity of on screen reading of magazines.
No comments:
Post a Comment