A post to the members forum at ATypI (Association Typographique Internationale) just pinged the following – Text Matters are hiring. Here's the skinny:
Web/information designer
Text Matters, an information design practice based in Reading, UK, is looking for a web designer to work on a variety of new and existing sites. See www.textmatters.com for our approach and some examples of our work.
The right person will be a creative designer who understands information design & typography and is happy to work with a small multiskilled team.
Apart from visual design talent and some web-design experience, they will need have these skills:
– Good understanding of HTML, XHTML, XML (and the differences between them)
– Good understanding of usability and accessibility (and the differences between them)
– Fluent CSS
– Good understanding of information architecture
– Good writing skills
– Ability to work smoothly with clients and programmers
Nice-to-have skills include (most important first) some selection of:
– Python
– Zope/Plone
– XSLT
We do not use Flash.
We are really looking for someone to work with us full time in Reading, but we are prepared to consider other options.
Please express your interest by sending a CV and [links to] examples of sites you have worked on to markb at textmatters.com.
--
Mark Barratt | Text Matters
Information design: we help explain things using
language | design | systems | process improvement
––
No point making stupid things look great
So why am I plugging a job ad for Text Matters? Because this is the kind of place I'd want to work at if I wasn't already happily engaged as a partner at OptaDesign. Specifically it's TM's emphasis on attributes complementary to the overused and fluffy 'creative' that rocks my boat*.
Not that being 'creative' isn't important, it's just that in more complex design jobs – well any job let's face it – being a stylist concerned only with a superficial veneer just doesn't cut the mustard in the long-term. You might feel you're getting away with it for a while (see here how to do just that: link via reddit) but this is difficult to square with those nagging little voices saying 'there must be a better way.'
Transformers – definitely NOT robots in disguise
Robert Waller and Michael Macdonald-Ross (when they were both at the Open University) sum up this desire to good stuff in a piece of design writing I count as highly influential, when they wrote 'The Transformer'.† Here's a nice snippet:
'The transformer starts with what to say, and then resolves how best to say it. Naturally, this distinction must not be overdone. What you want to say does partly determine how you say it and, in return, the content of a message is always altered to some some extent by the way it is put over. Nevertheless, the distinction is a useful one. First one discusses the content of the message with the experts; later one works out the exact form of the message with the help of illustrators, photographers, programmers‡ . . . and other technical people. The skills faced differ at each stage. The cycle is complete when the transformer discovers what effect the message has on the reader.'
So that's what I aim to be as a 'creative designer' – a transformer. As the editor of the abstract in the Penrose version of 'The transformer' wrote:
'Break down the barriers in the interests of the reader. Take responsibility for the success or failure of the communication. Do not accept a label or a slot on a production line. Be a complete human being with moral and intellectual integrity and thoroughgoing technical competence.'
Definitely not a robot then. Wonder if I'll ever get there? Beep . . . .
*Hugh's definition of creative
is a must read for anyone trying to get a handle on that side of their
personality – you know the bit that really likes to make things, good
things, better than what they see around them. As Paul Graham says 'Great work usually seems to happen because someone sees something and thinks, I could do better than that'.
†Written in 1974 while the authors were with the Open University, this paper first appeared in the 1976 Penrose Annual. See 'The transformer revisited in Information Design Journal (IDJ) 9/2&3 (2000) pp.177–193.
‡I've cheated slightly here . . . prize to the first one who picks my hack at the original ;o)
[Disclosure: I studied Typography & Graphic Communications at Reading – and TM have close links to the University as you can see from their 'our people page'.
