OUGD403 - Module Evaluation

1.  What skills have you developed through this module and how effectively do you think you have applied them?
The main skill I have developed throughout this module is my practical work on the computer, using Illustrator. At the beginning of the course I had used it for a minimal amount, only knowing the basic controls, but now after the workshops we were given I feel confident in my use of this program to create visual variations and my final outcomes. I think this has definitely aided in making my work look a lot more professional and finished. The use of Illustrator has allowed me be more creative and a lot less worried about taking risks in pieces as I can now change it at the click of a button. This in turn has helped my idea generation and development.
2. What approaches to/methods of design production have you developed and how have they informed your design development process?
My approach to design productions has definitely been more experimental throughout this module. I have taken time to get my ideas down on a piece of paper and then take it from there, whereas I used to just go for it and make the changes later. This has helped manage time during this project as I have a clear idea what I am doing before I start doing it digitally. The tasks in which we come up with ten or twenty variations has become a lot easier for me because of this. I have found I am a lot more open to what I can do creatively in development because I now have the skills to fulfil these on the computer/by hand. The main thing I have started doing is looking at the briefs as if I was a viewer and what I would understand, instead of as the designer who knows everything about it. This is important as these outcomes have had to be things that have to recognised and understood immediately, and I am learning to get a balance and capitalise on this.
3. What strengths can you identify in your work and how have/will you capitalise on these?
In my personal opinion, my final outcomes are my strong point. The professionalism and cleanness of them makes them aesthetically pleasing in my eyes. I need to bring this same approach to the development stage and remember to keep it all at the same level of professionalism. Another strength of my work is the ideas generation. Although I may not come up with a huge amount of ideas, I do feel that the ones I come up with are strong ideas and get the message across well. From the few strong ideas I have, I am able to combine them to create the final outcomes.
4. What weaknesses can you identify in your work and how will you address these in the future?
My main weakness is that in the end, when we are doing group critiques, not everyone understands exactly the message that I am putting across. This is something I need to work on and to make the message as clearly as possible so anyone who looks at it will know exactly what they are looking at. Although I feel they are aesthetically pleasing, others may not and this could lead to them not understanding what I am saying through the piece. Another weakness is that I am more focussed on the final outcome than the development and ideas generation. I need to give myself a balance and be able to spend more time on this and hand drawn development than doing everything digitally to try get a final outcome quickly.
5. Identify five things that you will do differently next time and what do you expect to gain from doing these?
1.     The first thing I want to change is the amount of digital to hand drawing ratio. I would like to increase the hand drawn element in my work, as this is an important feature of being a designer. I feel I have not done enough, however this could be down to the time frames of the brief and trying to get a final outcome out before the deadline. 2.     I would like to do more ideas and design development in the briefs so I can come up with a more resolved and thought about final outcome. This will help me learn what gets the message across and will benefit me in the future. 3.     Improving and sourcing my research is something I would like to work on. I want to be able to get a balance between research, development and the final outcome. Research is definitely the thing that is lacking and I have always had an issue with. 4.     The quality of my hand drawn works. A lot of my hand drawn pieces are development or quick sketches. I would like to incorporate this element into the final outcome some how so I can get some good quality drawing/hand rendered work in there. 5.     I would like to start making more sophisticated work. I don’t feel like I have been doing this yet. I think it   has all been quite simple so far and I would like to make more intelligent and sophisticated work. I would also like to make work that is more true to my style than the work I have been creating. I am more of a post-modernist designer than a modernist and I don’t feel that has been shown.
6.How would you grade yourself on the following areas: (please indicate using an ‘x’)  5= excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = average, 1 = poor
	1	2	3	4	5
Attendance					x
Punctuality					x
Motivation				x
Commitment					x
Quantity of work produced				x
Quality of work produced				x
Contribution to the group			x
The evaluation of your work is an important part of the assessment criteria and represents a percentage of the overall grade. It is essential that you give yourself enough time to complete your written evaluation fully and with appropriate depth and level of self-reflection. If you have any questions relating to the self evaluation process speak to a member of staff as soon as possible.

OUGD403 - Critical Evaluation: Message & Delivery: Distribution

Feedback sheets:

OUGD403 - Self Evaluation: Message and Delivery Distribution

When first given the brief I was pretty hesitant about it because it was something I had never done or even thought about before. However I found I could easily manipulate what I had done for the posters and research to fit into exactly what I wanted to do. It's quite an open brief, which meant I could have done anything I wanted, just as long as it fit into the envelope.

My biggest regret with this brief is not thinking about this sooner and playing around with different sizes, scales and shapes to create the leaflet/poster with. I chose a standard A4 size to create the leaflet with, but now wish I perhaps did it on a larger scale, A3, and maybe made it a long thin poster instead of keeping with the standard paper sizes. I also could have manipulated the envelope and made it appear the correct size, but actually open out into something larger.

However, I do feel I created a visually appropriate and interesting outcome, even if I wasn't particularly happy with the size/shape of it. I think overall it worked well as a leaflet and was easy to see everything and read. That was the main thing I was going for - just to keep it simple and readable. I feel I did that as I kept the information to a minimum, but straight t o the point and kept it interesting with the speech bubbles instead of just typing it out.

The one thing I would change now is the stock I used fro the envelope. I didn't think about the stock remaining the same for all elements of this brief, and made the envelope out of blue card, as I was not confident the paper would do very well in the post. Perhaps the best thing to do was to find a white card that would do well in the post, and be a good stock to print the leaflet and mail list onto. Aside from this, I was happy with the outcomes.

Overall I think I stuck to the brief and kept the outcome in relevance to the posters and stayed true to what I originally wanted to say in the first place. I think I executed it well and kept it practical for the person opening the envelope, keeping it as easy to do and easy to read the leaflet.

OUGD403 - Critical Evaluation: Message & Delivery Posters

This group critical evaluation was done anonymously, so I got three feedback sheets, with no idea who evaluated my work. The crit was also of just the final three posters, and not the project as a whole.
This had it's pros and cons. It meant that I had made a good poster if they knew exactly what I was talking about when they saw it, however the downside is that unless they know the story, they won't fully understand my work and will not evaluate it in context.

I got three completely different feedback sheets, with a completely mixed reaction. One person clearly knew all about twitter and exactly where I was coming from, the second did not, and the third seemed to know a little bit to know what I was sort of talking about.

The person who knew what I was talking about said my posters fulfilled the brief and were definitely related to the story and they could tell exactly what I was going on about. They also gave fair feedback in how to improve the posters.

The second person, who knew nothing about twitter and what I was going on about, was mainly negative in feedback. I think this is down to the fact that they didn't know the context I was basing the posters on. When asked how to improve the posters, they didn't really give any sort of useful and constructive criticism, which didn't help me at all.

The third gave fair criticism and ideas in how to improve the posters to make them more memorable and how to improve them. As they didn't know the context completely, they made suggestions that I had already done, like using the font that is used on twitter, which I did for all the posters - Arial.

The main criticism from one was about the Type posters. - They couldn't see what word went after one another to make the sentence. Although I respect their opinion, I do find that they are quite wrong when it comes to this.
I haven't messed with the type and half of it upside down or done anything like Carson where you can barely read the text and understand the message. They are four statements, clearly laid out, with exactly the same wording, so it is very easy to tell exactly what they are saying.
I did ask a few other people if they had the same problem, and none of them did, so it leaves me with the task to make it perhaps a little clearer without ruining the whole composition of it all.

I do think a lot of the criticism is personal opinion. One said to get rid of the outlines and there were too many, however I find this is a defining feature of the posters and keeps them in a set. It also makes the elements stand out from the backgrounds and separates them from each other - which one person pointed out and seemed to like.

I understand that this is a poster crit, and posters are supposed to be seen and associated to the subject immediately, and because of this, I will definitely take the criticism into consideration and try rework the posters to make them more obvious. However I think that my posters are very self explanatory and have simple things that most people know - the twitter bird makes it obvious it's about twitter, and it is widely known that 140 characters is the amount of characters each post is allowed. I am not a twitter user of any sort and know the logo and that fact about the post, and knew that a long time before researching into the news story.

OUGD403 - Self Evaluation: Message & Delivery Posters

This is the brief I think I was most excited about because, as much as I prefer typography, using image is something I've been looking forward to. The idea of creating three posters, one image, one type and one type and image was a pretty open and creative opportunity for me. I had purposely chosen a news story that was quite open so I knew I would be able to create successful designs. The story chosen was about bullying on twitter, so for my research I generally looked at twitter, and I kept the research into this as varied and informative as possible so I could create opinionated and successful outcomes. I believe I did this with the three posters I created.

At first I was a bit disappointed at the idea of only using two colours plus stock, but quickly found that it made my ideas more creative and completely different to the way I usually work. I kept it all simple, using only three elements - the twitter bird, the 140 character statement, and the world map, and even then, I didn't use them all together.

I think I stayed true to my style of work with the way I constructed it, however because of the lack of colour and rules for each poster, it made it different from what I am used to. This worked to my advantage as it pushed me to make the composition and message very clear and obvious to what I was trying to say.

There are definitely things I would change after reflecting on the posters and the anonymous critical evaluation I got from the group crits. However, I do feel that the main aspects of the posters should remain the same as they did get the message across. The one I mainly have to rethink is the Type poster. According to the crit, it was hard to read. I didn't think this was the case, but I will definitely look into it and make it clearer.

One of the main things I had an issue with is that posters are supposed to communicate the message immediately. Twitter is blue, and blue isn't a colour which sticks out like red or yellow. It was said in my crit that they weren't memorable because of this. So maybe in the future I have to try work with it and try make it striking and memorable, even if the colour scheme isn't something that usually stands out.

This brief has certainly made me realise that unlike most of the year group, I am a post-modernist and don't particularly like modern and simple graphic design. I understand that this was the way I had to go on these posters to communicate the message, but I don't think I'll be doing it again. I have a feeling that this is where the main critique on my Type poster was - it was hard to read and overcrowded, but it's just the way I do my work. I am going to try get a balance between the two as I appreciate exactly why modernist graphic design is so popular, but I will definitely stay true to my style of working.

OUGD403 - Self Evaluation: Illustrator Typeface

This is the brief that I was most excited about, but least looking forward to, just because Illustrator is a program that I have not used before, but the idea of learning it and finally being able to create images and work using it was the exciting aspect of this.

I have used Illustrator before, but only very recently and very little, just using the pen tool for less than half an hour while working on a project last year. I found that my skills developed quickly in these sessions and my previous understanding of a couple of the tools and Photoshop helped a lot.

At first I didn't see how I could use Illustrator to create the typeface I wanted, but after a couple of the sessions I found it was very easy, a lot easier than I thought it ever would be. However, I think this is down to the fact that the letters I created weren't overly different from the originals as my word was shatter. It meant I could create the letters without having to change the characteristics of the original typeface, just cutting and shattering it instead.

I think my typeface turned out well and stuck to what I wanted to do. It was an easy process once I knew exactly what I was doing, which led to me creating the lowercase for the typeface too. I found it very successful in the end, but next time I would perhaps use a more experimental typeface. I would also think about the anatomy of type and how the typefaces are created in relation to the sizing and heights of parts of the letters. Luckily it does not look like I haven't considered this, but there are a couple of letters that I perhaps would change now that I have thought about this.

Overall I found that this was a very useful process and I am now confident in using the pen tool and a few of the other tools that we were shown. I have already started using it in the other projects and am learning to use the other tools slowly.

OUGD403 - Self Evaluation: Typeface

When given this brief my first initial thought was that it was going to be relatively hard to put across someones personality through an illustrative alphabet. It would be a challenge, but give me the opportunity to research into things and considering styles that I perhaps wouldn't have. It gives an opportunity to expand my creative ability through something I personally might never have thought about.

When asking my partner (Sean) about himself it was a bit of an information overload, which is a good thing but also a bad thing at the same time. It gives a huge amount of information and routes I could go down, but it also leaves me with the task of cutting it all down to the primary things that I want to get across in the typeface.

The main thing at this point that I didn't necessarily think about was the whole thing working well as a set. I thought about it in a sense of trying to get as much information about him in as possible. This meant that I was doing a different thing for pretty much every other letter, and in the end I know it would not have looked like a set at all.

However, when I narrowed it down to what I was going to focus on, it became much simpler and flowed into a set. Looking into stencil and skateboard-style graphics, it became pretty easy, just using straight lines and circles based on Swiss-style design work. This made it very easy to manipulate the style into each letter and create the alphabet. There were a couple of letters which I found difficult to do, the ones that had more than one join or had half-curves in them. The 'G' was particularly hard to do as it had both, a curve and a complicated join.

Looking back at the final alphabet there are certainly a few things I would do differently. I made changes to five of the letter: G, S, X, N, Y. However, looking over that one, there are still changes I wish I had made during the design process. The main one is that the thickness of the black lines in each letter varies. For example, the 'H' lines are a lot thinner than the 'J' ones. I think if I could go back and change it, I would make all the lines as thick as the 'J' as it fits in a lot more with the circular letters than the others.

Overall I am happy with the final outcome and enjoyed the process. I surprised myself at how easy I could take one thing that Sean said and create a whole alphabet based on it, and manage to keep it interesting, with each letter having their own uniqueness. I feel I have developed my typography and Adobe Illustrator skills throughout this brief, and have a clearer understanding in typography and how I can manipulate it.

OUGD403 - Critical Evaluation: Typeface

Today we had a critical evaluation session in a small group of six and the tutors, giving us five minutes each to explain our typeface research and ideas/development of the project so far. As it's a crit in the middle of the project, it gives us all time to make significant or small changes to create a better visual outcome.

Feedback for my project generally revolved around the idea that perhaps there was too much going on in the letter forms, and that when they were shrunk down they might not be as visible and obvious as to what each separate element is.

I found the feedback useful and found that they all agreed that the better style was the simple structures I had been using for the 'O' instead of what I have been using for the 'K' and 'H', although there are elements in those that could definitely be used. From this, I will stop looking at skateboarding graphic designs so much and start looking at more simplistic designs by Saul Bass, who had a small influence, but not a huge one. This seems to be the direction that is said I should go down, and it does work well with the stencil work as he used a small colour palette on every piece of work he's done, normally only two or three different colours.

The list below is everything I am now going to do from this point on:

• Stay with the stencil style work
• Keep it simple
• Simple line work
• Think about scale
• How it is going to work as a set

OUGD403 - Critical Evaluation: 'Shatter' Letters

Alphabet Soup Design Practice

For the critical evaluation for this project we were put into groups and had to explain our ten letters and how they came about. Once this was done, we each had to decide as a group, the five best from each persons ten. These were then stuck on the wall, under the word which they were associated with.

The five of mine that were chosen:

A couple that were chosen were a surprise to me as I thought they were the worst ones out of my ten, the 'P' and the 'W'. They were my least favorite out of the ten because I wasn't happy with their outcome at all. The other eight had some relation to one another, while these two were completely different.

Once up, we were moved to another table where we had to take down an image one by one under the criteria that it didn't fit the word. It wasn't so much about the visual quality, how amazing it was drawn, more of if it got the word across visually without explanation. We had to leave a total of five up, from any criteria which best showed the word they represented. As a group we had to discuss why we kept the five we did and explain it to the class.

The 'W' of mine was kept on as a top five from the group who evaluated it, which again was a surprise to me, but it shows that other people's opinions and views make a difference when it comes to your work as you could see it one way, and others see it another.