learn to kern

Last weekend some friends and I traveled to Seattle for the Niners vs Seahawks game. It was a great game and the Niners won. The team played very well. Today, I was perusing the 49ers' website to watch post-game interviews, but instead it was the poor typography that stood out to me. I'm not even sure how one could possibly mess up the kerning so much. Even if one didn't kern the type at all, it wouldn't look this bad. Did their designer seriously spend time spacing these letters and decide that this was finished?

guitar swirl painting

Here's a fascinating video displaying the process of swirl painting a guitar.

BCS (BullCrapSystem): *almost* every game counts.

Bowl season is upon us so I am going to switch gears and talk football today. Alabama finished ahead of Oklahoma State in the polls and will get a rematch against LSU in the BCS championship game. Personally, I'm glad OSU didn't jump 'Bama in the polls because if they had, I would have had to hear from 'Bama fans for the next eight months about how they never even had the chance to even play LSU this year. Oh wait…they did.

I'll preface this by saying that my criticisms are with the BCS system, not Alabama. I think LSU and Alabama are the two best teams in the country. I think both would easily beat Oklahoma State. However, it's not determined based solely on what I think and while I do think the bcs placed the two best teams in the NC game, to do so they had to counter many arguments they've made against a playoff system in previous years and contradict many previous bcs decisions. As an advocate of a playoff system and an opponent of the flawed bcs system, I'm glad BCS chose Alabama. It just shows the inconsistencies of the system and they can no longer bring up the argument "playoffs would make the regular season matter less!!! with bsc, every reg season game counts!!!".

Each time a playoff system is brought up, BCS advocates will state that it would diminish the importance of the regular season and they will often claim that the regular season IS the playoffs for the BCS. I guess this year they forgot to mention that it is a double elimination playoff. By allowing Alabama to have a rematch against LSU, the BCS contradicts their strongest argument for keeping the BCS rather than implementing a playoff system. If BCS advocates are going to try to say "every game counts", then they have to count the game where Alabama lost at home to LSU. ESPN analyst Rick Reilly brought up the fact that the BCS's twitter handle is @everygamecounts (which he later suggests they change to "@EveryGameCountsUnlessAnSECTeamLoses"). For a system who names their twitter "everygamecounts" and below that has the tagline "best regular season in sports", they are massive hypocrites for ignoring a regular season loss and granting Alabama a mulligan.

The reason Alabama gets the nod over the other 1-loss team, Oklahoma State, is because Alabama's one loss is to a better team. And this does absolutely go in Alabama's favor. Alabama lost at home to the number one team in the country, while Oklahoma State lost on the road to unranked Iowa State. But should it be solely about losses? Shouldn't wins be a factor as well? After all Oklahoma State beat five top 25 teams and seven top 50 teams, while Alabama beat two top 25 teams and five top 50 teams. Oklahoma State also won their conference unlike Alabama. But despite the fact that Oklahoma State won their conference (why have conference championships at all if it is no factor in the NC game?), played the 10th hardest schedule (compared to Alabama's 38th most difficult schedule) people overlooked all of this and made decisions based on losses instead. This also contradicts past BCS decisions.

In previous season, undefeated teams like Boise St., TCU, or Utah--teams that played weak schedules--were excluded (and rightfully so) because they beat bad teams, while 1 loss teams from stronger conferences jumped them in rankings. The argument was that losses weren't as important as quality of wins. Yet for Alabama to get the nod over OKstate, one would have to focus on the quality of loss, rather than the quality of wins. Again, I'm not necessarily saying Alabama does not deserve to play in the game, but that the BCS is inconsistent with its past decisions and arguments by sending them.

And, let's not forget the 2006 Ohio State vs Michigan game, which ended with Ohio State barely edging Michigan in an epic game. Many were advocating a rematch, while others felt Florida, who had lost to Auburn earlier in the year, should go face Ohio St. in the championship game instead. Florida ended up playing in the game rather than Michigan and most experts expected Ohio State to destroy them (just as most would expect LSU to destroy OkState). Of course, Florida destroyed the Buckeyes in that game. No one knows what will happen with OKstate vs LSU. I think LSU would win, but I don't know that (I thought OU would beat OKstate in the Bedlam game too). The truth is, no one truly knows who the best teams are unless they play. And can we be certain that Ohio State and Florida were the two best teams in 2006? USC embarrassed Michigan in the Rose Bowl. How are we certain they wouldn't have destroyed Ohio State as well? It can be argued that USC and Florida were actually the two best teams that year.

Unfortunately, this happens nearly every year. There is always a team that can make a good case for being deserving of a national title shot, but they don't get the chance. When was the last time any NFL team claimed they deserved to play in the superbowl rather than one of the other two teams? Did the 1994 Dallas Cowboys (who many agree were the 2nd best team that year) argue that they should get a rematch against the 49ers in the superbowl? No. I doubt even a single Cowboys fan will say they deserved to play in that game over the Chargers, even though many think Dallas had a better team than San Diego. It doesn't happen in the NFL because teams have a chance in the playoffs. In the flawed bcs system, there is always the team the can make a good case for why they should be in the game and we'll never truly know unless it happens. That is why the BCS is a joke, and always has been.

Design is a battlefield (and we are winning)!

Here is a very well done video by The University of Central Oklahoma's Design program (my alma mater) about the accomplishments and exciting future of their design program.

A timeline of activities and achievements of the Department of Design at the University of Central Oklahoma designed by AdamGault, MFA Design Candidate for a class project.

Rendering Synthetic Objects into Legacy Photographs

Rendering Synthetic Objects into Legacy Photographs from Kevin Karsch on Vimeo.

Also, I will be moving my blog to a wordpress during the new year. It will be linked at my website.

typography infographic

A quick and well organized typography guide!

Macrap

Amongst other things, design is about clear communication and persuasion. A designer must consistently seek innovative new ways to reach the target market and ultimately create awareness or sell a product or service. A lot of thought and rationale is put into each design decision. A graphic designer doesn't choose a font, image or color because it "looks cool", but rather because it incites a feeling, enhances a message, or effectively communicates said message. Unfortunately there are many that call themselves graphic designers that do not consider the purpose of each element, and aim to create something that "looks cool". This often merely consists of adding multifarious photoshop filters and egregious type alterations to a stolen stock image. The result is often a composition that is only effective as an eyesore, rather than problem solving and clear communication. One of my college professors, Jim Watson, refers to this misuse of technology as macrap:

Macrap philosophy
Macrap happens when a Mac user builds graphic elements based on this premise:
when you do something just because you can, not because you should.
Many computer users are seduced by the technology and they lose sight of the task at hand - communicating or enhancing a message. When a computer user loses sight of the message and the solution objectives, the chance for poor design increases. The computer has made the production of design much easier in many ways. But with the ease, speed, and convenience; comes responsibility to use the tool wisely. If not, Macrap is produced.
Macrap is not poorly designed ads - that's just crap. Macrap is a misuse of technology or design technology used by non-designers.

A friend of mine created this site to call out faux designers that create poor design and demean the profession. Now these poor designs now serve a functional purpose…amusement for those that are actually educated and experienced in the profession.

http://youarenotagraphicdesigner.wordpress.com/

Just because you pirated photoshop and your mom thinks you’re creative does not make you a designer.

Guerilla advertising (don't try this at an airport)

Ryujin 3.5

Satoshi Kamiya created this dragon out of a single piece of paper with no cuts.

What do you want from your design?

A typographic puzzle

From "Stop Stealing Sheep & Learn How Type Works":

This is a typographic puzzle. Which typeface do you think fits which shoe?

So what time does Legacy Medical Center's Tetris tournament begin?

Some of the best and most creative solutions are simple.

Bed Bath & Beyond's type crime.

One of the very first lessons I was taught in typography class was to refrain from stretching or skewing type. Typeface designers spend hours tweaking various strokes, the x-height, the ascenders and descenders, the angle of the stems and spines, etc. so that the font family is consistent and all aspects of the letterforms relate well. Stretched type counteracts all of this hard work. The stroke thicknesses and curvatures become disproportionate, angles change, and inconsistent characters are a result.

Apparently Bed Bath & Beyond's logo designer slept through the lecture on type crimes. The logo uses the futura font, which already has a large em space, then horizontally stretches the word "BEYOND", which creates awkward variations of letter widths.

It appears the creator was trying to emphasize "beyooooond", but there are ways to do so without resorting to egregious typography. The concept itself is trite. A great logo conveys a strong message about the company and often conveys a feeling or idea, rather than a literal image of the product or name. A great example one of my former college professors uses is insurance companies. Rather than showing a paper policy form, it is more prudent for an insurance company to convey professionalism, trust, and integrity. Emphasizing "beyond" does not convey an idea one attributes to the company and the only feeling it incites is nausea amongst typography lovers such as myself.

Below is what the logo would look like without the stretched typeface, which still doesn't convey a unique quality of the company, but at least won't make me wish I were blind each time I drive past an outlet mall.

Inspirational package design

I want another package design project and I really want a beer client. I enjoy designing packaging because it adds another dimension to the design and creates more opportunities for creativity. When designing products and packaging, there are multifarious options in creating innovative prototypes that enhance the concept of the brand and are functional for the user. Here are some nice beer packaging designs (from dieline.com):





I love everything about this design. The colors and typography are fantastic. What I think really makes this one appealing though is the paper and texture.








This looks almost like a design for a whiskey bottle, but it effectively communicates the "old days of beermaking".







Nice use of a grid and calligraphic illustrations and type.

Romney's abysmal campaign logo

Is Mitt Romney running for the president of the United States or Aquafresh? The R does not respect the typeface at all and looks out of place, the hierarchy is weak (I see "OMNEY" first), and the word "Believe" is too close to the R (it looks like the letter B is leaving a toothpaste trail or something). The kerning is awful, especially between the "EY". Also, it's a bit ironic that Romney's campaign logo features an American flag pointed downward at the ground. After viewing this logo, I'm more inclined to brush my teeth than I am to vote for Romney.

48÷2(9+3) =

The Argument
This has become a viral debate online. It has spanned across facebook, blogs, and various message boards and in nearly every case people are split just about 50/50 between the answers "2" and "288". Math teachers are split, math students are split, even the physics forum is split! People are debating this fervently. Even calculators are split on the debate:



The reason for such a divided outcome is that it is a poorly devised equation. One side, the side that answers "2" (we'll call them side A), reads it as:

Formula A:
48
__
2(9+3)

The other side, the side that answers "288" (we'll call them side B), reads it as:

Formula B
48
__ (9+3)
2

What's even more amusing is that both sides are using PEMDAS to back up their argument. The acronym has M before D, but this is merely a mnemonic device to remember the order of operations. Multiplication and division actually have no preference over each other as explained here:

A common technique for remembering the order of operations is the abbreviation "PEMDAS", which is turned into the phrase "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally". It stands for "Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, and Addition and Subtraction". This tells you the ranks of the operations: Parentheses outrank exponents, which outrank multiplication and division (but multiplication and division are at the same rank), and these two outrank addition and subtraction (which are together on the bottom rank).

Thus, side B claims that since there is no preference between M&D and it goes left to right, then one must therefore divide first. But, then side A claims that since there is distributive property, this must be used first. This is stated here:

= 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
= 16 ÷ 4 + 1
= 4 + 1
= 5

The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication.Typesetting the entire problem in a graphing calculator verifies this hierarchy:

Using Proofs
Essentially both sides have good arguments because they are reading the problems differently. Each side has offered proofs that show that their answer is right and the other is wrong. For example, here is a proof proposed by side A that claims to prove the answer is "2":

Proof for the answer "2"
48÷x(9+3) = 2
48 / (x*9+x*3) = 2
48 / 12x = 2
4 / x = 2
4=2x
2=x (it works)

Proof for the answer 288
48÷x(9+3) = 288
48 / (x*9+x*3) = 288
48 / 12x = 288
4 / x = 288
4=288x
0.0138888888889=X (it doesn't work)

At first glance, it seems as though the debate is over. But remember, each side is viewing the problem differently. This proof works the problem as if the problem is

48
__
2 (9+3)

But remember, side B does not view the problem this way. If you work this proof in the formula as they see it, one gets different results:

Proof for the answer "288"…
48
__ (9+3)=288
x

48(9+3)=288x
576=288x
2=x (it works)

vs

Proof for the answer "2"…
48
__ (9+3)=2
x

48(9+3)=2x
576=2x
288=x (it doesn't work)

Using Examples:
As one can see, even in proofs, the answer still relies on how one views the problem. People have also attempted to use real life examples to show how one formula works while the other doesn't. For example, side B has proposed this:

We know that if you take add 1 cup with 1 cup you have two cups. (1+1) = 2

If you halve two cups you get 1 cup
1÷2(2) = 1

You express this same problem mathematically with the following equation:

1÷2(1+1) = 1

From here, we apply this to both formats. First let's use the formula that side A has used:

1
_
2(1+1) =1/4

This doesn't equal one, which we all know is how many cups we have.

Now, let's write it the way one that says "288" would:

1
__ (1+1)
2

1
__ (2)= 1.
2

It appears that the logical format would be:

48
__ (9+3)
2

This proves that the side B formula works and the side A formula doesn't so the answer is "288", right? Well not so fast. This has the same problem that the previous proofs had. The word problem used (cups) is a scenario where equation B would be needed. But remember, side A reads the equation as A. There are word problems that would fit formula A as well. It is possible to derive a life scenario where equation A would work, but equation B would not. This is yet another case of people solving different problems, which is the reason both sides can create scenarios that prove theirs to be correct and the others to be wrong. Once again, it comes down to what one perceives to be the problem.


Problem Solving

The first step in problem solving for design or advertising is to state the problem. If one accurately identifies the problem, then said person can accurately create a strong solution. The problem with both sides of this debate is that people were not convinced on what the problem was. People recognized two different problems. This example shows how one can create the wrong solution when said person does not correctly identify the problem. Likewise, in advertising, it is essential that one identifies the problem correctly in order to find the most effective solution.

Creative Opportunity?
It's an interesting debate and I can see both sides of the argument. What I think is more interesting, however, is how passionate people have been over such an irrelevant argument. This debate is all over the internet and debates are getting heated. The internet has often become a place for debate. People debate religion, politics, sports, movies, etc. all the time. But with those issues, people are usually emotionally invested in the subject. With this subject, people don't really have anything emotionally invested in the subject, yet they still have heated debates. People might have something to gain from convincing another to change positions on a political issue, but no one really has anything to gain from winning an argument over a math equation. But, people still engaged in this debate.



People will put a lot more time and effort into an argument online than they would with people at home or in the office. The internet has provided an outlet for discussion and debate that didn't previously exist, or not to this extent. The exciting thing about the advertising industry is that the internet (especially social media) is still relatively new and there are many ideas that have not yet been implemented or attempted. We have seen how engaged people can become in a debate and how debates over something as simple as a math problem can go viral. Wouldn't it be interesting to start a viral debate over a brand? I'm not talking about debate in a negative way, but perhaps a debate between two good qualities of a product (an example that comes to mind is Miller Lite's "more taste vs less filling" ads, but I'm sure a better idea could be used).

This math equation may have been posed accidentally, but let's assume a person actually created it with the intention of trolling people. If that's the case, then said person has not only created an equation that has been posted on many sites (sites the original poster has never even visited) and received thousands of responses on each, but has also created awareness of the brand (the math equation). If a person asked me a math equation, I would normally forget the equation after a few minutes, but since this is everywhere and I've read so many arguments over it, I can easily remember "48/2(9+3)". The equation appears in google searches, on blogs, on message boards, and it is being debated to no end. Imagine if this were the case with a brand! It seems like a campaign focused on starting an online debate over a non-offensive question or statement would be an interesting way to get people to discuss the brand (either directly or indirectly). There are many ways for information to go viral online, but I haven't seen anyone attempt to advertise a product through viral debate, which is perhaps one of the easiest way to engage people who can't resist proving the others wrong (as shown in the comic above).

Website Evolution

I've re-designed my website this week and I'd like to take the time not only to promote my new site, but also show older versions and how the design has evolved.

Here is the first version of my website, which I designed in April/May of 2009 while I was in college. As you can see, my logo has since been tweaked and the design is very much limited to my knowledge of dreamweaver/css at the time.





The next website was launched in February of 2010 shortly after graduating. I got rid of the blocky layout and went with a more minimal layout.





My most recent design was launched this week, about two years after the initial site was produced. I decided that the previous site was too minimal and many of the elements weren't connected well. I wanted to design a site that was visually appealing, easy to navigate, and showcased work effectively. I utilized a grid to organize the work in a way that was visually appealing and functional. Rather than having a different page for each project, and numbers and arrows to navigate between different photos of projects, I just simplified the design to one page that features thumbnails of each design that open with a lightbox of the images. I used the lightbox for images so the viewer can view larger images of each project. The website can be viewed at www.jasonkeisling.com.



A portfolio is an ongoing process and I will be continually adding more work. I think the site has improved drastically with each layout and I'm hopeful that the eventual fourth version will continue that trend.

Comedy Central…Why so serious?

On the left is the previous Comedy Central Logo. On the right is the new logo introduced in 2011. Which logo looks more like a network that is home to the likes of Jon Stewart and South Park? It's certainly not the latter. A good logo should be suitable for the company's product and audience. There is nothing distinctive about this logo, nor does it effectively convey anything about the network. When I see the new logo, I do not think of laughter, I think of a copyright symbol. In fact, when I first saw the new Comedy Central logo on an ad, I thought the ad was for Comcast!



Comparisons have also been made to Chanel, which is an upscale fragrance!

All of these logos use a "c" in a geometric san serif font and none of them convey humor (which is fine for the others since they do not emphasize comedy). The new logo resembles an internet provider more than it does a network that airs re-runs of Futurama, and that is a joke (I suppose this logo has a punchline afterall).

Car singing

When I was in college, I had a friend named Sam who kept a microphone in the cab of his car. Most people sing in the car, but he took it to the next level--using props. While most people are embarrassed to be caught singing in the car, he added a prop! He never seemed to mind stares from people at stoplights that glanced over and saw him screaming into a microphone. Aside from the added distraction while driving and safety concerns, I think this is great! If only more people cared less about how silly they look and just did what they enjoy. As a creative thinker, I think is important to stop worrying so much about looking foolish, asking dumb, questions, and other activities that one might fear. This is when true creativity will flow and when great ideas will emerge.

The rolling bench

What a fantastic idea! Benches become useless when it has recently rained (which is often here in the northwest). This is a very innovative solution to the problem.

Some creative ways people have earned jobs.

In this recession, it has been difficult for many to find work. In the advertising industry, one is constantly seeking innovative new ways to grasp the target market's attention and sell a product. In a job search, the company one desires to work for is the target market and the individual seeking a job is selling their product (their labor). I think this tough job market will result in some exciting and innovative new ways that people apply for jobs. Here are a few examples:

Alec Brownstein bought Google ad words for a handful of creative directors’ names he wanted to work for so that when they Googled themselves a message from Brownstein was the top result. He now works for one of his targets at Y&R New York. This cost him a mere $6.

I recall another example where a person put out ads claiming to pay the expenses of a vacation for anyone that could get him a full-time job (vacation location varied based on the salary of his new job).

This recession is certainly a scary time for individuals seeking a new career, but it can also be an exciting time for people to find new creative ways of earning a new career. Have you heard of any creative or bizarre job search stories, or do you have some great ideas of your own? Feel free to share them in the comments.

I've decided to start blogging, and since I haven't updated this since I was in college, I think it is time for an update. I moved to Portland Oregon--like a year ago--and I have been working freelance up here. In the year I've lived here, I've met some great people, enjoyed some great scenery, and done some fun activities. I will be blogging much more in the future, I promise.