Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Design Reference
{ Activist Design }

Article | How to Use Centered Alignments: Tips and Examples - 0 views

  • Join us as we take a look at why centered alignments tend to be weak, where you should avoid them and how you should be using them.
  • Centered Alignments One of the first things that you’ll learn in any basic design layout class is that centered alignments are weak. Now, that’s a blanket statement that might immediately cause you to protest, but we’ll explore this more in-depth in a minute. Centered alignments are by no means something only used by beginners and non-designers, but they do in fact tend to be the go-to option for these groups. The reason for this is complicated. For some reason, we instinctively feel that things should be centered. We know that design is about balance and centered alignments are nothing if not balanced, so they make sense. Secretaries, CEOs, teachers and all other manner of other professionals that dip their toe into design almost always run straight for centered alignments on any project. In practice, centered alignments are often the source of trouble in a layout. Learning both how to identify and how to fix these problems is a major step in your early design education.
  • The Problem with Centered Alignments It’s difficult to explain the faults of pure centered alignments with theory alone so let’s take a look at an example. Let’s say you’re making little flyers to hand out for an upcoming party. The result that a non-designer will come up with will almost always look something like this: This isn’t a hideous flyer, in fact I’ve seen far worse in the real world. However, for a number of reasons, it’s definitely not what you would call a strong design.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • If you handed me the flyer design above and told me to improve it as much as possible in only three minutes while keeping the overall personality, this is what I would give back to you: This design simply feels better, and not just because I refuse to ever use the “Party LET” typeface, especially when typing the word “party”. I also split up the content a little better added some emphasis points and, most importantly, changed to a left alignment. Notice how the left alignment feels very anchored. The text on the page has a clear starting point and you can follow that hard edge all the way from top to bottom. Despite the fact that the first flyer feels “balanced”, it doesn’t feel anywhere near as structured.
  • When To Stay Away from Centered Alignments All right, so you get the point: left alignments are good, centered alignments are bad, so what? The reality is a little more complicated than that. There’s nothing inherently bad about a centered alignment, you just have to know how to properly yield one if you’re going to implement it with any amount of success. The first thing you need to learn is when not to implement a centered alignment. The answer here is pretty simple: when you have a lot of content. As we saw in the last example, centered alignments are pretty poor for large blocks of text. The lack of a hard edge makes reading difficult and erratic. The same goes for relying on a centered layout for your page as a whole, most of the time, it’s simply not the best idea. The website wireframe below is quite problematic from a layout standpoint. Now, don’t read that as advising against centering your content on the page. There’s a difference between building a website that uses a centered container and a website that uses a center alignment. You can easily have left or right aligned content that is still centered in the browser window using margin: 0 auto. That’s another conversation entirely.
  • Aesthetics Also, don’t confuse this as a matter of aesthetics. As the page below shows, you can create beautiful sites that rely heavily on centered alignments.
  • Quick Tip: Wrap It Up One of the simplest and most useful tricks for implementing centered text alignments within a larger layout is shown in the example below. First, look at this page as a series of blocks. Notice that all of the have a fairly justified alignment. With the exception of the left-aligned navigation, there’s both a hard left and a hard right edge that defines the content. Now, within that framework I have a little more freedom to play around. Notice that “Box One” and “Box Two” actually contain centered content, but the containment devices keep them looking perfect within the overall layout. Anytime you have some center-aligned content that just doesn’t feel like it’s working, try wrapping it in a box that conforms to the overall page layout to see if the design improves.
    • { Activist Design }
       
      This is an utterly brilliant rule for how to use centered alignment when you have a lot of text. Even in text heavy flyers this works.
  • Very Little Content One of the first places you can start to think about implementing a completely centered layout is when you have very little content. Check out the example below. This makes perfect sense, if the main problem with centered alignments is that they don’t hold up well with a lot of content, then they’ll likely be just fine if you only have a few items. In fact, they’re usually better under these circumstances. If you implemented a left alignment with the design above, the page would likely look very empty. However, with the current centered layout, it looks classy and well-spaced.
  • Selective Application Avoiding centered layouts for anything but the simplest designs sounds like an awfully restrictive way to design, and it is. The key is to not avoid them all together but instead to apply them selectively within a greater design with a stronger alignment.
  • A beginner’s layout class might teach you to grab one alignment and stick to it, but as you improve you’ll find that mixing alignments is often a great way to add some variety to a design. As an example, check out the awesome page below from Assistly.com. Here we see, on the whole, the layout contains fairly consistent left and right edges. However, there are very specific portions that revert to a centered alignment. The headline is the most natural and most popular place to attempt this. Large, centered headlines and subheads look great in justified layouts. Also notice the smaller areas like the three columns in the bottom left, another natural place for a centered alignment to be implemented. Once again, each of these blocks contains a fairly small amount of content so the result isn’t overwhelming.
  • How to Use Centered Alignments Now, with all of that said, there is no reason that you should abandon using centered alignments altogether. To do so would be to remove a key element from your layout toolbox. Once again, you just have to know how to use the tool to be successful with it.
  • Conclusion To sum up, centered alignments are weak, but not bad. There’s a very important distinction there that you really must grasp to be a good designer. “Weak” implies that they can easily be taken too far and are easy to abuse. However, you can and should be using centered alignments in your designs. Make sure that, if your entire layout is built on a centered alignment, you have a very simple design with only a few items. Once you start adding big blocks of text and lots of images, the centered alignments starts looking messy. Also, try building a solid left, justified or even right alignment for your page as a whole, then experiment with selectively dropping in centered alignments in key areas such as headlines. Finally, as a quick trick when you’re in a jam, try wrapping center-aligned portions in a box that goes with the flow of the rest of the page.
  •  
    Citation: Johnson, Joshua. "How to Use Centered Alignments: Tips and Examples." DesignShack.net, February 8, 2013. http://designshack.net/articles/layouts/how-to-use-centered-alignments-tips-and-examples/.
{ Activist Design }

Article | Is Photoshop dead? - 0 views

  • I guess a more suitable title might be ‘is Photoshop still an appropriate tool for designing typography on the web?’ But that lacks the dramatic appeal of the above.
  • I would be full of enthusiasm, energy and excitement explaining my designs to a developer, toggling layer states on and off to try and illustrate my vision through Photoshop but would always be slightly disappointed as my shiny, polished design was transformed to what I would see in the browser. Sure, it would look like my design… And I kind of recognised the typefaces but it lacked that sharpness that I remembered from my compositions. It wasn’t that the developers hadn’t coded it well, more that the typography I had created in Photoshop had not translated into code.
  • When choosing fonts there are few things more important than whether a font is easily legible or not. In Photoshop, that is not so much of a problem because everything looks great. It doesn’t matter what font you use, at what size or weight (within reason) as it will render perfectly on screen. Unfortunately, this does not extend to the browser. Often when viewing my design in the browser, the relationships between elements and type were all wrong.
    • { Activist Design }
       
      This is when Fireworks, bought by Adobe but originally designed by Macromedia, is particularly more useful, in my opinion.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • For designers who have an understanding of CSS, you can use tools like Firebug to effectively make your own design tweaks in the browser, noting down all the CSS changes in one document that you can then pass on to a developer to implement.
  • You can use the Firediff plug-in to save a record of all the changes that you make within Firebug, which is great as it saves you having to note every change down in a separate spreadsheet for later. The biggest issue with this method is when you begin to introduce web fonts into the equation as any chosen fonts must be installed to your type kit or they will not appear in the browser. This makes things far more difficult and less free to experiment easily with different fonts as you can’t just quickly trial fonts.
  • ABOUT THE AUTHOR Javier Ghaemi is a multi-disciplined designer with experience in working across print, web and product design. He has worked on websites for brands such as GQ and Vogue and is excited by responsive design, web fonts and designing for touch devices. Follow him at @onlinedesigner2 or at www.javierghaemi.com.
  • Photoshop isn’t the industry standard for nothing, and there will be some of you out there hyperventilating at the thought of dropping it to design in the browser, after all we are creatives not coders. Well, put down the paper bag as there is still a way you can create beautiful typography using web fonts in Photoshop. Extensis have created a plug-in which can be installed to Photoshop versions CS5 and higher that will give you access to all WebINK and Google Web Fonts to use for free, directly inside Photoshop.
  • Another valuable plug-in that helps ease the transition between Photoshop compositions and browser compatible CSS is the free, cloud based plug-in from css3ps.com. One of the main reasons that many designers work with Photoshop is the control you have over layers and shape elements. Being able to easily and quickly experiment with shadow, glow, colour, texture, rounded corners and more is almost second nature to most and something that even experienced designers struggle to replicate exactly in the browser. For those, this plug-in is perfect as it lets you create your compositions in the way that you know best but then let’s you easily convert your shape’s styles into browser compatible CSS3. This method is ideal for designing buttons, navigation or anything else that you may have styled a shape for.
  • Services like Typecast make it much easier for designers to work with web fonts and I pretty much do all my typography for the web using it. It allows you to create typographical mock ups (just like you would in Photoshop) using its visual interface to assign fonts, styles, weights, colours, line height, margin, padding and more to your typography. The best thing about using Typecast is that it is all working within the browser so you are making decisions on type exactly as it will be rendered for the user. Does a certain font not look too hot at 19 pixels? Bump it up to 20 at a click of a button, back down to 19 before finally settling at 18 pixels in size, all done in seconds rather than hours sitting with a developer.
    • { Activist Design }
       
      Citation: Ghaemi, Javier. "Is Photoshop Dead?" WebDesignerDepot, February 14, 2013. http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/02/is-photoshop-dead/.
  •  
    This is an excellent article detailing the issues around web design and Photoshop. It offers really good alternative tools for bridging the gap.
{ Activist Design }

10 Great Google Font Combinations You Can Copy | Design Shack - 0 views

  • Here’s why @font-face wins. First, a pure CSS solution is one that developers can get on board with. Next, the fact that @font-face fully supports text selection and actions such as copy and paste means that usability experts love it. Finally, the fact that you can easily cook up an @font-face recipe for just about any font means that designers love it because they have a wide range of properly licensed fonts to choose from. If you get developers, designers and the usability guys on board, it’s game over for Flash, JavaScript and image-based solution.
  • Now, within the @font-face world there are many competitors. My personal favorite solution is just to use FontSquirrel’s @font-face kits, whether I’m downloading one of their pre-built options or uploading a font file so the site can churn out the rest for me.
  • Contrast is King Next, when you’re combining two fonts, go for contrast. Try pairing a bold slab with a light sans-serif. If you mix two fonts that are fairly similar, the lack of contrast makes it look more like something is slightly off with the typography rather than the intended impression of two different typefaces. Make it clear to designers and non-designers alike that two distinct styles are present.
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • Use Font Families First of all, when possible, check out the various fonts within a single family. These fonts have meticulously been designed to work together and are therefore the safest method of varying your font without creating visual discord.
  • Go Easy Also, limit yourself to only a few typefaces. If you can get by with two, do it, if not, stop at three. In all but the most experienced hands, lots of different fonts wreak havoc on the cohesiveness of a design. It’s easy to end up looking like a kid who just discovered the font menu in Photoshop for the first time.
  • Think About Which Fonts Are Appropriate Finally, let the content play a big role in your font choice. If your content is modern and professional, stick to fonts that suggest these qualities. If it’s supposed to look like something from the 1700s, Helvetica Neue Ultra Light might not be the best way to go.
  • Lobster & Cabin Lobster is one of my favorite scripts of all time. It’s bold and beautiful while remaining quite readable, attributes not easily found in other scripts. To complement this strong statement, you don’t want anything that competes for attention. Instead pick something plain and simple like Cabin.
  • Raleway & Goudy Bookletter 1911 Raleway is a super attractive font, but it’s so thin that it doesn’t always work the best on body copy. For this reason, it’s best to keep it as large as possible whenever you can, which makes it a perfect font for your headers. I think the combination of Raleway and the fairly ornate old stye Goudy Bookletter 1911 make for a super classy pair. Be careful though, this particular Goudy is a little too complex for tons of body copy and I definitely wouldn’t want to read a big page full of copy written in it. This combination is probably best for scenarios with minimal copy.
  • Allerta & Crimson Text Allerta is a moderately bold sans-serif with a personality. If you don’t want something boring or something crazy, it’s a good middle ground that looks great in both a headline and body copy. Crimson Text is a straightforward font with strong serifs but little to no differentiation between the thicks and thins. This makes is retain a good amount of readability even when its small.
  • Arvo & PT Sans No font selection would be complete without a good slab serif. The Google Font Directory only has a couple of these and Arvo is currently one of the boldest options. I really like most of the characters but admit that the “S” feels a little awkward. I paired this with yet another great sans-serif: PT Sans. There are several variants of this available but the plain version is the best for body copy. I really like how round the characters are, it makes for a very friendly feel.
  • Dancing Script & Josefin Sans Scripts are hard to implement properly, especially when they’re not as widely applicable as Lobster. Dancing Script, shown in the example above, definitely isn’t my favorite script but it’s one of the better ones available in the Google Font Directory. Since Dancing Script is a lot more feminine than Lobster, I paired it with Joesfin, a really thin sans-serif to further this style. This combination is definitely appropriate for any products or websites with a female skew.
  • Allan & Cardo I typically hate comic-type fonts, but Allan is really eye-catching and attractive. I love the boldness of the font and the italicized feel. My pairing with an old style font (Cardo) seems almost a conflict of time periods but I really liked the way they looked together. Feel free to opt instead for a light sans-serif.
  • Molengo & Lekton Molengo and Lekton together feel like an old school attempt at a technical feel. Largely due to the typewriter feel of the latter of these. This combination is something I would expect to see on a website with a parchment texture background along with photos with a polaroid effect and maybe even some coffee stains.
  • Corbin & Nobile If you’re a fan of Cooper Black, Corbin is an excellent free alternative. This fat and toony serif is perfect for anything that should have a 1920s feel to it. Nobile is a more modern font with letter forms that appear vertically stretched. The minimal styling here keeps your focus on the bold headlines.
{ Activist Design }

Article | A Crash Course in Typography: The Basics of Type - 0 views

  • Typefaces vs. Fonts: Difference? A lot of people use the terms “typeface” and “font” interchangeably. But they’re two very distinct things. Before we get started talking about typography, let’s get our terms straight. A typeface is a set of typographical symbols and characters. It’s the letters, numbers, and other characters that let us put words on paper (or screen). A font, on the other hand, is traditionally defined as a complete character set within a typeface, often of a particular size and style. Fonts are also specific computer files that contain all the characters and glyphs within a typeface.
  • Classifying Type There are a number of different ways to classify typefaces and type families. The most common classifications are by technical style: serif, sans-serif, script, display, and so on. Typefaces are also classified by other technical specifications, such as proportional vs. monospaced, or by more fluid and interpretational definitions, such as the mood they create.
  • Serif Serif typefaces are called “serifs” in reference to the small lines that are attached to the main strokes of characters within the face. Serif typefaces are most often used for body copy in print documents, as well as for both body text and headlines online. The readability of serifs online has been debated, and some designers prefer not to use serifs for large blocks of copy.
  • ...19 more annotations...
  • Old Style serifs (also called humanist) are the oldest typefaces in this classification, dating back to the mid 1400s. The main characteristic of old style characters is their diagonal stress (the thinnest parts of the letters appear on the angled strokes, rather than the vertical or horizontal ones). Typefaces in this category include Adobe Jenson, Centaur, and Goudy Old Style.
  • Transitional serifs date back to the mid 1700s, and are generally the most common serif typefaces. Times New Roman and Baskerville are both transitional serifs, as are Caslon, Georgia, and Bookman. The differences between thick and thin strokes in transitional typefaces are more pronounced than they are in old style serifs, but less so than in modern serifs.
  • Modern serifs, which include typefaces like Didot and Bodoni, have a much more pronounced contrast between thin and thick lines, and have have a vertical stress and minimal brackets. They date back to the late 1700s.
  • Slab serifs have little to no contrast between thick and thin lines, and have thick, rectangular serifs, and sometimes have fixed widths. The underlying characters hapes often more closely resemble sans serif fonts.
  • Sans-Serif Sans-serif typefaces are called such because they lack serif details on characters. Sans-serif typefaces are often more modern in appearance than serifs. The first sans-serifs were created in the late 18th century. There are four basic classifications of sans-serif typefaces: Grotesque, Neo-grotesque, Humanist, and Geometric.
  • Grotesques are the earliest, and include fonts like Franklin Gothic and Akzidenze Grotesk. These typefaces often have letterforms that are very similar to serif typefaces, minus the serifs.
  • Neo-grotesque typefaces include some of the most common typefaces: MS Sans Serif, Arial, Helvetica and Univers are all neo-grotesques. They have a relatively plain appearance when compared to the grotesques.
  • Humanist typefaces include Gill Sans, Frutiger, Tahoma, Verdana, Optima, and Lucide Grande. These are more calligraphic than other sans-serif typefaces, and are also the most legible (hence the popularity of some of them for website body copy). They’re more calligraphic than other sans-serifs, meaning they have a greater variation in line widths.
  • Geometric sans-serifs are more closely based on geometric shapes. Generally, the “O”s in geometrics will appear circular, and the letter “a” is almost always simple, just a circle with a tail. They’re the least commonly-used for body copy, and are also the most modern sans-serifs, as a general rule.
  • Script Scripts are based upon handwriting, and offer very fluid letterforms. There are two basic classifications: formal and casual.
  • Formal scripts are often reminiscent of the handwritten letterforms common in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some scripts are based directly on the handwriting of masters like George Snell and George Bickham. There are modern creations, too, including Kuenstler Script. They’re common for very elegant and elevated typographical designs, and are unsuitable for body copy.
  • Casual scripts more closely resemble modern handwriting, and date back to the mid-twentieth century. They’re much less formal, often with stronger strokes and a more brush-like appearance. Casual scripts include Mistral and Brush Script.
  • Display Display typefaces are probably the broadest category and include the most variation. The main characteristic is that they’re unsuitable for body copy and are best reserved for headlines or other short copy that needs attention drawn to it. Display typefaces can be formal, or informal, and evoke any kind of mood. They’re more commonly seen in print design, but are becoming more popular online with the use of web fonts.
  • Also included among display typefaces are blackletter typefaces, which were the original typefaces used with the first printing presses. Since that time, better, more readable fonts have been developed.
  • Dingbats and Specialty Typefaces Dingbats are specialty typefaces that consist of symbols and ornaments instead of letters. Wingdings is probably the best-known dingbat font, though there are now thousands, often created around themes.
  • Proportional vs. Monospaced In proportional typefaces, the space a character takes up is dependent on the natural width of that character. An “i” takes up less space than an “m”, for example. Times New Roman is a proportional typeface. In monospace typefaces, on the other hand, each character takes up the same amount of space. Narrower characters simply get a bit more spacing around them to make up for the difference in width. Courier New is one example of a monospace typeface.
  • Mood The mood of a typeface is an important part of how it should be used. Different typefaces have strikingly different moods. Commonly used moods include formal vs. informal, modern vs classic/traditional, and light vs dramatic. Some typefaces have very distinct moods. For example, Times New Roman is pretty much always going to be a traditional font, which is why it’s so commonly used for business correspondence. Verdana, on the other hand, has a more modern mood. Some typefaces are more transcendent, and can convey almost any mood based on the content and the other typefaces they’re combined with. Helvetica is often considered one such font.
  • Weights & Styles Within the majority of typefaces, you’ll find more than one style and/or weight. Weights are often classified as “light”, “thin”, “regular”, “medium”, “bold”, “heavy”, or “black”. Each of these refers to the thickness of the strokes that make up the characters:
  • There are three general styles you’ll find with many typefaces: italic, oblique, and small caps. Small caps are often used for headings or subheadings, to add variety to your typography if using a single typeface. Italic and oblique are often confused or used interchangeably, but are two distinct styles. Oblique type is simply a slanted version of the regular characters. You could create this using the “distort” function in Photoshop, although sometimes a separate oblique font is included within a typeface. Italics are slanted like obliques, but are actually a separate set of characters, with their own unique letterforms.
  •  
    From the Website: "In this part, we'll talk about the basics of typographic theory, including the different kinds of typefaces (and how typefaces and fonts differ), as well as the basic anatomy of a typeface. And each part will also offer more resources for delving deeper into typography."
  •  
    Citation: Cameron Chapman, "A Crash Course in Typography: The Basics of Type," Noupe, 28 Mar. 2011, online, Internet, 7 Feb. 2013. , Available: http://www.noupe.com/design/a-crash-course-in-typography-the-basics-of-type.html.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20 items per page