This is one of those times.

I will make it super brief and will desperately try not to let it happen again.

A certain someone I work with finished up their employment this week after having found a nicer job closer to home. This person was super-smart, super-sharp and super-sarcastic. Exactly what I like. It’s a shame they are gone. It made work bearable quite a bit more enjoyable at times.

Two very important points to make about this:

1. Judging by their past performance, I predict they will do well at whatever they do.
2. They are dead to me.

FatBooth is an app that takes a head-on photo of a person’s face and adds.. oh.. maybe 200 pounds. It’s dead simple to use and generates surprisingly good results.

Using the app goes something like this:

Step 1: Start the app and press the button to bring up the camera.

Step 2: Line up the person’s shot (face-on photos only.. zoom with your feet to fill the outline overlaid on the camera) and snap the photo.

Step 3: It will do some facial feature detection, but then you have to simply tweak the eyes, mouth and chin locations. This is dead simple to do.

Step 4: Press the button and let it do it’s thang.

A few things to note:

1. Perhaps it’s more of a statement about how body-conscious our society is, but getting your wife or girlfriend to let you try this thing out may be very difficult.

2. Note that there is a delete button available once you view the results. Respect your photo subjects, offer to delete the photo if they want you to. Don’t be a dick.

3. You also have the opportunity to save the photo (either before and/or after photos) to your gallery. Once again, don’t be a dick.

Oh.. Since the Internet Forgets Nothing (tm) I am not posting any before/after photos of myself.. however as if all this magic wasn’t enough, I can also confirm that IT WORKED ON MY CAT!

Sorry Midge. I had to post it.

Bikeshedding is one of those words I just looked up. I’ve read it several times and have probably even used it. But for some reason, this morning I just had to look it up. Most people would have first heard of the term in a FreeBSD mailing list post from back in 1999. The post however centres around a circa 1957 argument from C. Northcote Parkinson dubbed the Law of Triviality. It’s his depiction of this concept that caught my attention (emphasis my own):

Parkinson dramatizes his Law of Triviality with a committee’s deliberations on a nuclear power plant, contrasting it to deliberation on a bicycle shed. A nuclear reactor is used because it is so vastly expensive and complicated that an average person cannot understand it, so they assume that those working on it understand it. Even those with strong opinions often withhold them for fear of being shown to be insufficiently informed. On the other hand, everyone understands a bicycle shed (or thinks he or she does), so building one can result in endless discussions because everyone involved wants to add his or her touch and show that they have contributed. While discussing the bikeshed, debate emerges over whether the best choice of roofing is aluminium, asbestos, or galvanized iron, rather than whether the shed is a good idea or not.

That last phrase is how I feel about both GnomeShell and Unity. We get so caught up in the gee-whiz and kewl-ness of it all that we forget to step back and ask:

1. Why are we doing these things?
2. What is the end goal?
3. Is this really the best use of our time and attention?

I’d feel a lot better about the current state of Gnome and Ubuntu if I had seen clear answers to those, or had seen some evidence of those questions even being asked. I haven’t. Yet.

And dang it if it wasn’t dead easy to install. Just head to your WordPress admin panel, hit ‘Add New’ under the Plugins section of the left sidebar, and search for WPTouch. Then just install and activate.

I’ve tested it from my Nexus One and it seems to work fine. By all means, if you find anything janky with it, let me know.

That stinks.

I must do better.

With sites like 99designs.com which leverage design contests and with logos coming to istockphoto.com the apparent cheapening of the graphic design profession is unrelenting. On one hand I understand the ‘world going to hell in a handbasket’ sort of view, but the pragmatist in me tries to step back and see how this is not unique and not at all unexpected.

There is the sentiment that any fool with some graphics software and half a brain can hang his shingle out as a “designer”. Whether they will be successful or not is another matter entirely. There is also the view that design work becomes undervalued and commoditized when clients see that they can get an acceptable logo for $50.00 instead of the $1000.00 the top grade designer may want to charge. Do you want to buy your shoes at Payless or head over to Gucci? Well if the buyer can’t tell the difference (which is the designer’s job to describe), then hell yes I’d expect him to head over to Payless. This is not ideal, but completely expected.

It can be a difficult rationalization. Why should graphic design escape the same sort of trend as desktop publishing, journalism, writing or photography for that matter? What makes graphic designers so unique?

We have seen photography flourish as of late and yet there are still great photographers - in fact I’d say many more of them. Is the photography business as lucrative as it once was? I’d think not. Photographers have to work harder, be more creative and up their quality to survive. I find it great that so many more people are interested in photography - if I was a professional photographer I think I’d probably hate it.

And so it is with graphic design. I love the fact that design concepts start to enter the mainstream. It is no longer a black art. Sure, it would be more romantic if it was, but it’s not. Is it hurting things for professional graphic designers? Sure. But again, I value the proliferation of skills over the health of an industry.

Granted I am not a professional graphic designer nor am I a professional photographer. It’s easy for me to hold these views. And since I’m a shit programmer by any measure, I could just as easily say the same thing for programmers as well (and writers and desktop publishers). Progress and technology lower the bar. That enables more people to participate. I think that’s a good thing, but that dilutes the market for those who’ve been in the pool the longest. I feel bad for them. Sincerely I do.

I am lucky in a way that in my own profession (structural engineering) there is greater liability. When I design a structure I am legally responsible for that design and its performance over the life of the building. This affords us signficantly more protection against the democratization of structural engineering (ha - now there’s a far-fetched idea). This sort of liability is rarely there for software designers, and probably even more rare for graphic designers. I don’t see that changing.

So where is the positive in all of this for our little FOSS corner over here? We already have a community built around voluntary contribution and knowledge sharing. We can take this time to weep about passing industries and shrinking job markets, or we can take a bunch of people who are already part of the Libre Software community and who are passionate and eager about design and teach ourselves great things so we can create even better things.

I think the first step is to admit we have a lot to learn. And perhaps we should just take that statement as fact since we may be the worst people to judge our own skill levels (as John Cleese put so well). Many would also say quite rightly that as far as design goes, Libre-land has nowhere to go but up. So let’s start climbing.

Some things to chew on in no specific order:

We need to learn to provide quality criticism, how to accept it and how to use it. No more ‘put up or shut up’ nonsense. Listen to criticism, evaluate it, discuss it, elevate it.

We need to stop thinking we know everything about design when we clearly don’t. We are smart. We can learn these things.

We need to encourage designers**, but hammer on basic design concepts. Audience, goals, colour, flow, etc.

We need to treat design seriously right from the start of our projects and stop treating it as a suit of clothes.

We need to look at the ‘why’ of good design going on outside of FOSS land. Why is something good? What is the concept at work? Not copying, not being unique for the sake of uniqueness. Let’s try to understand the ‘why’ of good design and apply that.

** I am conflicted about design contests. I understand the problems with them - if you don’t, I highly recommend reading this post. But I still think there needs to be a viable way for those eager to build their design skills to work on meaningful things. If you have ideas in this regard, let’s hear them and get a proper discussion going.

Enter librescope.com.

This site was borne out of some interesting initial ideas from Troy Sobotka and awesome execution by Jay over at kilobitspersecond. It’s a place that is meant to hopefully foster the growth of art and design discussion over here in libre-software land.

Initially it is an aggregator for our feeds, and very soon as discussion hopefully builds, we will add other authors to the feed as well.

It is NOT a place for distro-cheerleading or distro-bashing. It is NOT a place for people to rant while they grind their axes.

It IS however a place for people to engage in discussion about art and design matters whether that be for Fedora, Ubuntu, KDE, Gnome or any other type of free software subject. Think passionate, engaging debate and discourse.

Comments will be moderated to ensure discussions are on-target and respectful to the members of this new community as well.

As I understand it right now (and remember this is a newborn idea at this time), there will be article writers and feed editors. Article writers will have their posts incorporated into the feed merely by adding the librescope tag to their posts. Feed editors will be able to tag relevant posts already sitting on the web that will also be aggregated on the site.

If you are interested and passionate about art and design as it relates to Libre software, and want to get involved give Jay a shout over at kilobitspersecond.

I think it best at this point to rip-off Troy Sobotka’s words (they’re so good it would be pointless for me to paraphrase any more than I have already):

Join us in trying to grow a little Libre coffee shop / art house / design corner of the internet over at Librescope.

Blog, dent, tweet or buzz about it and link to it to help us out. Thanks.

While I make no attempt to be all-knowing or all-seeing, it seems to me that we in the libre end of design are pretty much all-positive all-the-time. I think this hurts us. Now, I’m not talking in the sense of beginner skill-building. I don’t for example think it’s at all useful to say “Hey Mr. Newbie Artist, that first attempt sucks, go home” - I’ve created enough suckage in my short time here to have left long ago if that were the case - However, when we’re talking about the more mature stages of design, and trying to push things ahead, I think a sharp tongued honest appraisal beats a syrupy praise-fest any day of the week.

How many times have you read something like “if you’ve got nothing positive to say, don’t say it at all.”? Or even more likely, “if you don’t like it, shut up or show something better”. Both aggravating and both missing the point. I think we have to grow some thicker skin and learn to pluck the wisdom where it presents itself, whether it comes served on a silver platter or as a quick swat across the chops.

I’ve been lucky over the past year or so to have someone who feels fairly free (I can only guess at this really) to tell me when he thinks what I’m doing sucks. There are a few reasons I think I’m lucky:

1. I respect the person, his work, his experience and knowledge.
2. I value, in fact, depend on his honesty when it comes to criticizing my work.
3. He is able to tell me why he thinks it sucks. It could be total bullshit in my mind, but it’s important he tells me his thought process.

You’re lucky if you’re faced with all three. However I’m pretty sure everyone who has ever created anything and made it public either has met up with, or will meet up with criticism and none of the above. Even faced with that, strive to pick up something of value from it. But heck, if it’s not there, it’s not there.

I’ve also come to realize a few things:

1. Praise feels good, but doesn’t help you progress much.

2. Getting criticized can hurt. But taken in the right frame of mind, it can push you ahead and make you think. Regardless of whether you change anything or not, it is valuable to think.

3. It’s your art, your design. You don’t have to pay attention to any of it. Though if you’re eager to learn and progress like me, you will.

I think we need more honest valuable criticism in libre design. If it can be bathed in sweetness and light, then great. But I think at this point beggars can’t be choosers. Give your criticism honestly. Make it valuable. And if you’re on the receiving end, fight off that urge to launch into defense mode, explore a little first. Get a discussion going. It will either improve your work or force you to figure out more specifically why you’re happy with it the way it is. There’s no downside to that is there?

A little over two weeks ago, I got an email from one of the developers of a project called OpenPilot asking if I’d be interested in creating a logo for the project. OpenPilot is an open source project developing an autopilot system for model aircraft - interesting stuff. Always looking for a creative challenge to focus on, I accepted the offer. It was an interesting challenge and I thought I would post a little about the process I went through.

Before I get started I must thank Troy Sobotka for doing his usual best and being a great soundboard for ideas and great creative discussion. It’s good to have someone around who’s willing to encourage but also throw out some really honest opinions on things - even if you don’t ask for them!

I emailed the developer back and asked for some background information on the project. Its primary use was on model aircraft, so the audience for this would most likely be aircraft enthusiasts. Also figuring that they’d be more technically minded, I knew I wanted it to be simple, but interesting. The goal was to give the project an identity that was modern, and which expressed a feeling of quality and accuracy. After all, would you want to risk your expensive model aircraft by using an autopilot system consisting of duct tape, and a few bungee cords?

I first frittered around and sketched a few things. The first idea I had involved a sort of ‘horizon flyover’ concept:

A quick trip to Inkscape yielded this:

That initial quicky mockup felt devoid of any character to me - and it looked a bit too thin and wispy. The bottom line was that I didn’t like it, so I dropped it and decided to pursue other ideas.

More sketching yielded this sketch of a sort of takeoff flight path:

While I thought it had some potential, it looked like it would end up too complicated for a logo. So I simplified the concept somewhat and came up with these:

The lower one really caught my fancy as something that had real potential so I chose to pursue it. First I attempted a traceover of the sketch in Inkscape but immediately realized that I’d get the perspective all wrong, so I dropped that and decided to model a simple square path in Blender to get it right (the initial part of the path is semi-transparent so that I could see the shadow beneath):

I took the result into Inkscape and traced that. An initial mockup gave this:

This really had potential. Unsurprisingly, I made my usual mistake of going a bit far with gradients and shadows. This was too complicated and fiddly for a logo. Troy suggested stripping it down until it broke - and that didn’t take long.

I found that without the gradients I lost the feeling of slope in the path. And without the drop shadows.. well, let’s just say it broke - big time. I had to try playing with the path more to get that elevation feeling without the drop shadows and gradients.

I found that by crossing the path over itself, I could ensure that the path moved ‘up’ in elevation. Even better, I found that by adding some subtle breaks in the path I could even give the feeling of a shadow at that crossover:

At this point I also had to confirm how this would work in monochrome options as well:

Two things became apparent. First, I had the happy accident of getting the letter P in some of those orientations. Second, it was so much better to have the plane going up instead of heading down. Even with the paths crossing, (arguably) inferring increasing elevation, the overall direction of the plane is downward. And that can’t be good.

So the next iteration involved horizontally flipping one of the options and coming up with:

In addition to rotating the logo slightly to better achieve the ‘P’ effect, and squaring off the dark grey background pill, I also decided to have a play at the text. While I hadn’t been terribly disappointed with it, I wanted to try something different just to see:

I felt I was almost there. Troy suggested I man up and create a simple style guide for the logo. This would better guarantee against misuse of the logo (stretching, colouring, bling-ifying etc) and may teach me a thing or two about how these things should actually be done in the ‘real’ world.

Also useful is that creating a style guide can surface issues you hadn’t initially considered. In fact at this point I had to come with a horizontal orientation of the logo for potential uses as a wider format web header graphic. I simply hadn’t thought of that. Of course Troy had to stage a mock conversation between a few swarthy Italian-Canadian web designers over Google chat for me to understand how this situation might arise. If you don’t believe me, I’ll post the chatlog.

The final logo with alternative horizontal layout turned out like this:

I’m proud of the style guide as well. Not proud that I used Inkscape instead of Scribus to do it. That’s kind of like using the back of the pliers to hammer in a nail. It works, but it’s far from the best way. In any case I plead newbieness for mistakes like that. It’s all a learning process.

Here’s the completed style guide if you want to have a look.

OpenPilot Logo Style Guide

This was a fun project. I’m proud of the logo because it took a lot of work (at least compared to most things I’ve worked on in the past), it proceeded rather logically, and I feel good about the result. As usual I learned a lot of useful things along the way which can’t be a bad thing either.

These things really do look quite nice. The only drawback I can find is that I think the latest round of Google Reader improvements (with things like the ‘like’ button etc.) don’t appear to be included.

One’s called Helvetical and the other, unsurprisingly, Helvetireader. Here’s a peek at what they look like on my linux laptop:

I don’t use many user styles for sites (I think I’m using BetterGmail2 but can’t honestly remember!). Does anybody else use custom themes for certain sites?

NB. Beauty of course is in the eye of the beholder. You may find these styles completely daft. After all, people did buy the Pontiac Aztek