The authors of
Be A Design Group contacted STEP editor Emily Potts in early December with an unusual proposal. They wanted to design the cover of an upcoming issue of STEP and do it in front of their readers. This was an intriguing opportunity for both STEP and the designers—creating a cover in a public forum, inviting readers to critique the process along the way. Potts agreed to do it. Here’s how the process worked: Eight BADG authors teamed up in pairs to form four teams of designers (the teams are listed below). Each team posted an initial cover design on Jan. 6, with an explanation of their concept. Readers were invited to critique each cover, then every few days the teams posted revisions to their designs. Each round of designs were critiqued by readers and STEP staff members including Potts, art director Michael Ulrich, and chief editor, Gus Venditto.
To keep egos in check and not feel as though they were being personally assaulted, the designers remained anonymous throughout the process. Read the designers’ comments below as they relate, from their perspectives, how this experiment panned out.
The players:
Team 1: Drew Davies, Clinton Carlson
Team 2: Adrian Hanft, David Kadavy
Team 3: Nate Voss, Paul Berkbigler
Team 4: Bennett Holzworth, Donovan Beery
|
|
|
|
| Team 1 |
Team 2 |
Team 3 |
Team 4 |
1. Why did you offer to design the STEP cover?
Beery: The need for change and variety in both the work I do, and the way I create the work is what I feel has helped me the most. This project offered a ‘change of scenery’ in both of these areas. Not only would I get to work on a magazine cover for a change, but a cover that is marketed to a creative audience.
Davies: I’m still completely fascinated by the concept: publicly go through the process of a design project, soliciting comments and critiques from the general design public. I wouldn’t do every project in this fashion, but what a great opportunity to be involved in a new and different experiment.
Kadavy: The better question is, why would STEP let us take a crack at it? I think it was very insightful of them to recognize that while they wouldn't have as much control over the design process as they might normally have, it was important to involve a design community such as BADG.
Holworth: It seemed to be a perfect fit. STEP hasn’t shied away from blog controversies, so we knew they would be active participants in this process. Blogs also get criticized for just complaining and not contributing anything new. We wanted to turn the tables a little and let the reader critique us while taking on a project that many would have opinions on. Everyone has an opinion on magazine covers.
Hanft: Our blog has been critical of past STEP covers, and it seemed like a good idea to see if we could do any better.
Berkbigler: It was one of the first chances that the collective members of BADG had to directly collaborate with one another. It intrigued me to participate in a project where the team members would, for the most part, have only met via correspondence and electronic dialogue prior to the assignment and would work through the process in that same model.
2. What were the challenges with the original design brief/assignment?
Holzworth: Sometimes the biggest challenges are open design briefs. We had enough rope to hang ourselves on this one. To design the cover of a design annual is a tall order. It was a tough challenge, but something that STEP has to deal with every year.
Kadavy: I think the biggest challenge was just designing for designers. Regular people are much easier to understand.
Davies: There were certain things that the editors shared along the way that might have been more efficiently included in the original brief. (e.g., previous sell-through numbers, the notion of “provocative”, etc.) They’re the kind of thing that wouldn’t need to be written in a traditional one-on-one collaborative design project, but in this case, it would’ve helped keep all the teams on the same page right from the start.
Carlson: Probably that the brief came with little chance for clarification and dialogue. The brief certainly fit the norms for a typical project brief, but there were gaps in the exchange of information between client and designer that warrant a deeper initial brief.
Berkbigler: I would say that the original brief was, in retrospect, a deceptively straightforward one. I’ll admit to coming at the assignment with some sense of the difficulty of creating something that didn’t feel simply redundant with the content of the issue.
Voss: I didn’t see too many challenges, really. The STEP 100 is the dream issue to design for as far as the content of the magazine goes (and the readership). As designers we’re trained to identify challenges and work with them or work around them. There was nothing so tough about the brief that gave me even a minute of pause.
3. People were pretty critical of the designs. How did you handle that?
Holzworth: It was painful at times, but it was also helpful. I knew I was going to have to develop a tougher skin if I wanted to succeed at this task. It is not that often that you get people to be that honest about your work.
Carlson: I’m probably harder on myself than anyone else could be, so the early criticism didn’t really affect me in a negative way. I think the criticism forced Drew and I to sift through what was being said, find the major themes and then go with our own instincts. They were helpful in revealing how others were viewing our concept, and the criticisms made us revisit details of our concept and attempt to address the issues through slight variations.
Berkbigler: The process ultimately felt like the best critiques in my undergraduate and graduate education: truly no-holds-barred and often pretty scathing to work through but eventually extremely beneficial to grapple with. I found that as much as the supportive comments often warmed the heart, they weren’t as helpful as some of the toughest critiques. The critiques that really offered the least to the process were those that chose to use this project experience as a chance to just sound off against STEP or to trash the designs without detailing the aspects of them that weren’t functioning properly (i.e. the “you suck” sort of posts).
Voss: We all paid really close attention to anything Emily, Mike, and Gus said. But there were other comments, from some very notable designers, who really knew what they were talking about. Those you have to read and digest, even if they are really negative, because you know they’ve already had success doing what it is you’re busting your ass to do.
4. Do you feel that your designs were judged too harshly by the readers and/or by the STEP staff?
Davies: Not at all. I think that the only thing I could have asked for was a little clearer direction from the editors. Since they had to critique four different ideas each round, it felt a little lacking from the traditional investment a client has to make when dealing with a single design team. This case occasionally felt a little more like an “I’ll know it when I see it” kind of situation. As noted, I think that’s probably due to the format of the design process — four different teams, compressed time frames, etc. I really feel like the 4-team format fostered a lack of investment by both sides.
Beery: Anytime you have a public forum like this, it should be expected. Regardless of how harsh the STEP staff was on their comments, they were always made in the right intentions of helping us find a good solution to the project without giving us the solution. I still have trouble believing that they sent us their comments like everyone else, and allowed all of the readers to see the exact same feedback we did.
Holzworth: Sometimes it felt a bit harsh, but that is what we asked for. The STEP staff seemed a bit picky at times, but we also don't have to deal with newsstand sales and things of that nature. The staff has an entirely different perspective than us, so I learned a great deal.
Kadavy: No. Clearly we all wanted it to be a collaborative process. It's only natural that people would have a strong emotional response to designs in such a case: they have to be really blunt about how they feel about the work in order to be involved.
Hanft: Blogs are great for getting honest feedback. Unfortunately “honest” doesn’t mean kind. My only complaint about the STEP criticism is that it seemed “on the fence” compared with the strong opinions of the readers.
Berkbigler: I wouldn’t necessarily say that the harshness of some of the comments was problematic - often it was more frustrating to feel like people simply weren’t responding to the message OR to feel that certain levels of sophistication and less-than-direct communication were being ironed out of the designs in interest of extremely direct visual communication.
5. Do you feel like you met the objectives of the brief?
Davies: I feel like we did; we certainly kept them top of mind throughout the process.
Beery: The way I saw the brief changed once I read an online comment by Eric Heiman that gave the rule of 3s (the piece should work in hits of 3 seconds, 3 minutes, and 3 hours). I thought our “Timeline of a Trend” could work in the 3 minute and 3 hour hits, but we had trouble getting the 3 second one down. We eventually fixed the headline issue as our way of resolving it. This is the advice that makes opening up the process to anyone with an opinion worthwhile.
Holzworth: As I go through the six main objectives, I think we met all of them completely. I am looking forward to seeing it on the newsstand to see how much it will actually stand out from the rest. That will be a good test.
Kadavy: (Re-reading the brief)...hmmm, maybe not.
Carlson: Yes, I do. Obviously ours wasn’t picked, so there were some issues with it, however I think those issues could have been more effectively dealt with in a traditional client/designer relationship. Had we been in a more traditional setting we could have verbally explored the full spectrum of solutions and maybe found ways to make our concept really resonate with STEP’s perspective. As it is I think we met the objectives and came up with a solid solution… just not the one that was chosen.
Hanft: Yeah. I think the brief was broad enough that we could all go in different directions and still meet the objectives.
Berkbigler: With a little more distance on the project, I feel Nate and I moved toward a much more general discussion of design than the actual theme of the issue is geared toward—we didn’t hit on the connection between the trends/designer interview aspects of the annual within our visual and instead shifted the focus toward a reader/audience analysis of what goes into great design.
6. Why do you think your design was or was not chosen as the cover?
Davies: Despite its simplicity, my best guess is that the Pig cover was a little more edgy (outside of the norm, unusual) in its message and/or visuals than STEP felt safe going in.
Holzworth: In the end, I think it is the most "active" cover. It might not be the sexiest, but I think it grabs your eye from across the room and then has a reason to be there.
Carlson: From the feedback we received, I’d venture to say that STEP thought our concept didn’t have the depth of content that the chosen concepts had. The two covers that were selected as the top both functioned at a glance and on further inspection. I think ours may have been the most striking at-a-glance, but the client was looking for a cover that would capture both the browser and the reader.
Berkbigler: I would say that our concept ultimately shot too wide. We’d attempted some much more specific text references within the writing on our lock face and received little to no reaction to the comical digs at design annual trends so we moved toward the more universal elements that combine to make a design tick. Unfortunately, this sort of universality also leans toward a message so general that it just doesn’t offer that much insight in the long run..
Voss: Our cover wasn’t chosen because we weren’t doing the picking. Emily and Mike and Gus are the people that know their magazine and its needs the best and they picked the one they felt would meet those needs.
7. Would you participate in something like this again—i.e. an online critique?
Davies: Online critique, most certainly. Multiple design teams, I’d have to think more carefully about. With four different teams, it takes on some of the problems of a spec work situation: it removes most of the opportunities for the deep collaboration that is usually required to create exemplary design.
Beery: Of course. Overall I had a great time. Hearing I helped design the “worst STEP cover ever” from a blogger is a great way to keep you motivated.
Hanft: Under the same conditions, probably not. I think there is value to getting feedback on a finished piece, but I don’t think opening up the entire process to debate results in a better product. Good design needs as few “bosses” as possible otherwise you try pleasing everybody. Plus, when the “bosses” are hearing negative criticism, it makes it even harder to sell them on something original.
Voss: Only on a project of this scope, and only if it was aimed at the design community. If you’re doing a direct-mail piece for a client that has no real bearing on the world of design, who cares if you’re soliciting opinions online? The fun in this project was that everyone knew, whatever happens, that they get to go out to a store or open their mailbox and see the end result. It’s as much fun for them as it is for us. And for that kind of response, yes, I’d do it again in a heartbeat.
Links to each round of designs with comments:
WEB-EXCLUSIVE CONTENT!
