| |
MINE EYES!!! |
| |
swirlythingy (11:57 31/1/2011)
monkeyson2 (13:09 31/1/2011)
nunfetishist (14:14 31/1/2011)
qUE (15:08 31/1/2011)
moss (16:58 31/1/2011)
nunfetishist (17:11 31/1/2011)
filecore (18:20 31/1/2011)
tribbles (18:35 31/1/2011)
filecore (20:16 31/1/2011)
trevj (20:18 31/1/2011)
qUE (23:58 31/1/2011)
filecore (00:18 1/2/2011)
qUE (02:50 1/2/2011)
swirlythingy (19:23 1/2/2011)
filecore (20:53 1/2/2011)
nunfetishist (09:54 1/2/2011)
monkeyson2 (13:09 1/2/2011)
|
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #116393, posted by swirlythingy at 11:57, 31/1/2011 |
Posts: 460
|
http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=6739
Never seen a better summation of all that is bad about Microsoft, presentations, corporations, incompetence, and bullshit. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #116395, posted by monkeyson2 at 13:09, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116393 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
They forgot "taste".  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #116396, posted by nunfetishist at 14:14, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116393 |
 Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
I seen things only a step or two above that in presentations at RISC OS shows. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
qUE |
Message #116397, posted by qUE at 15:08, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116396 |
Posts: 187
|
I seen things only a step or two above that in presentations at RISC OS shows. Haha, too true! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #116398, posted by moss at 16:58, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116397 |
Posts: 9348
|
I seen things only a step or two above that in presentations at RISC OS shows. Haha, too true!
Far too true. Embarrassingly so. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #116399, posted by nunfetishist at 17:11, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116398 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
I seen things only a step or two above that in presentations at RISC OS shows. Haha, too true!
Far too true. Embarrassingly so.
But don't let that stop us having a pointless Microsoft bashing. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #116400, posted by filecore at 18:20, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116399 |
Posts: 3868
|
Nice bandwagon you lot have. Get it repainted recently? It continues to run surprisingly well for something so old.
And out of curiosity: why is this Microsoft's problem? Give a moron the tools to be a moron, and he'll be a moron with them. Let's give these morons iLife or OpenOffice, and let them make moronic presentations with those instead. Then do we get to bash Apple and the broad spectrum that is Linux?
[Edited by filecore at 18:23, 31/1/2011] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Tribbeck |
Message #116401, posted by tribbles at 18:35, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116400 |
 Captain Helix
Posts: 929
|
My neighbour made a leaflet for his DIY services in December that looked very much like this.
He asked me what I thought - being tactful, I said "You're not afraid to use fonts, are you? And colours...". |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #116402, posted by filecore at 20:16, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116401 |
Posts: 3868
|
 |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #116403, posted by trevj at 20:18, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116400 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
<rant>
Are any of the above software products packaged with tutorial coverage of DTP basics? ISTR that when I bought Impression Style, it was accompanied by such a (printed) book. It's an idea so simple that it can be easily (and deliberately) omitted.
And anyway, why include a decent book with your software when you can receive royalties from any number of books for which you give 'certified approval'? How does the user decide which is a good book? Who cares, they'll probably keep buying them, until they find something they can relate to! (And don't get me started on public libraries and their dubiously imposed spending criteria either!)
The relatively low cost of technology now means that practically anyone can "save a few quid" by producing such literature (or presentations) themselves - rather than paying a "professional" company or in-house service to do it for them. And anyway, why should they do that when the same mistakes may well be made by employing such a service (particularly with respect to grammar and spelling)?
Is there a relevant trade organisation for signwriters and other producers of publicity material? Not that I know of (in Britain). Do the vast majority of such companies do any sort of proof reading?
</rant> |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
qUE |
Message #116404, posted by qUE at 23:58, 31/1/2011, in reply to message #116403 |
Posts: 187
|
<rant>
Are any of the above software products packaged with tutorial coverage of DTP basics? ISTR that when I bought Impression Style, it was accompanied by such a (printed) book. It's an idea so simple that it can be easily (and deliberately) omitted.
And anyway, why include a decent book with your software when you can receive royalties from any number of books for which you give 'certified approval'? How does the user decide which is a good book? Who cares, they'll probably keep buying them, until they find something they can relate to! (And don't get me started on public libraries and their dubiously imposed spending criteria either!)
The relatively low cost of technology now means that practically anyone can "save a few quid" by producing such literature (or presentations) themselves - rather than paying a "professional" company or in-house service to do it for them. And anyway, why should they do that when the same mistakes may well be made by employing such a service (particularly with respect to grammar and spelling)?
Is there a relevant trade organisation for signwriters and other producers of publicity material? Not that I know of (in Britain). Do the vast majority of such companies do any sort of proof reading?
</rant> Actually, it's interesting you bringing up people doing type setting, graphic design as a profession. Some people are actually very good at it and will give you something in the design which personally I can't put my finger on, but it looks very good, generally uncluttered and gets the point across simply. Of course like any other industry it's full of arseheads which give you a load of crap for your money. Best way to probably weed them out is through samples, but then how can you be sure they haven't just ripped someone elses work :/
I also find different people have different apsects on what is good design, the people who tend to be very good at design have a style which is somehow palettable with a broad range of people.
I expect there's a massive amount of R&D in it, maybe should look at that instead of tutorials 
[Edited by qUE at 00:01, 1/2/2011] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #116405, posted by filecore at 00:18, 1/2/2011, in reply to message #116403 |
Posts: 3868
|
Is there a relevant trade organisation for signwriters and other producers of publicity material? Not that I know of (in Britain). Do the vast majority of such companies do any sort of proof reading? The answers are "probably not" and "not usually". Most people consider their own English good enough, and are blind to their own mistakes - and of course, anyone pointing it out is a pretentious grammar snob. I speak as a professional editor and proofreader working with the translation industry, and sometimes when a client-written text arrives already in the target language (in my case, English), I will work on it and send it back - and sometimes the client will argue with me, because they think their text was good already! But those are at least looking for justification; the fact that they already sent their text for proofing shows their commitment to correctness.
I also find different people have different apsects on what is good design, the people who tend to be very good at design have a style which is somehow palettable with a broad range of people. Well, just look at anything for that (because pretty much everything involves design, structure or aesthetics at some level). From spelling (some people consider "paedophile" to be more aesthetically pleasing than "pedofile" and vice versa) to technology (I personally can't stand Apple's bland surgical whiteness, but neither do I like the garish bling of case modders' neon lights and case windows), to cars, the shape of female bodies, font selection and layout, musical style, and anything else you want to consider.
Although some things are clearly favoured by the majority, it's very obvious that "good" design is, like all those other things, in the eye of the beholder. I point you to both the London 2010 "Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob" and the Office of Government Commerce "firm grip on public spending" logos as prime examples. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
qUE |
Message #116406, posted by qUE at 02:50, 1/2/2011, in reply to message #116405 |
Posts: 187
|
Is there a relevant trade organisation for signwriters and other producers of publicity material? Not that I know of (in Britain). Do the vast majority of such companies do any sort of proof reading? The answers are "probably not" and "not usually". Most people consider their own English good enough, and are blind to their own mistakes - and of course, anyone pointing it out is a pretentious grammar snob. I speak as a professional editor and proofreader working with the translation industry, and sometimes when a client-written text arrives already in the target language (in my case, English), I will work on it and send it back - and sometimes the client will argue with me, because they think their text was good already! But those are at least looking for justification; the fact that they already sent their text for proofing shows their commitment to correctness.
I also find different people have different apsects on what is good design, the people who tend to be very good at design have a style which is somehow palettable with a broad range of people. Well, just look at anything for that (because pretty much everything involves design, structure or aesthetics at some level). From spelling (some people consider "paedophile" to be more aesthetically pleasing than "pedofile" and vice versa) to technology (I personally can't stand Apple's bland surgical whiteness, but neither do I like the garish bling of case modders' neon lights and case windows), to cars, the shape of female bodies, font selection and layout, musical style, and anything else you want to consider.
Although some things are clearly favoured by the majority, it's very obvious that "good" design is, like all those other things, in the eye of the beholder. I point you to both the <a target=_top href="<a target=_top href="http://www.globe-net.com/media/150664/london_olympics_logo.jpg">London">http://www.globe-net.com/media/150664/london_olympics_logo.jpg">London</a> 2010</a> "Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob" and the <a target=_top href="<a target=_top href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1901656/OGC-unveils-new-logo-to-red-faces.html">Office">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1901656/OGC-unveils-new-logo-to-red-faces.html">Office</a> of Government Commerce</a> "firm grip on public spending" logos as prime examples.
IMHO Apple's current style is clearly inspired by 70s sci-fi sets. Sterile, clean and no sharp edges.
I can't work out those logos (and similar ones from b3ta), either the person that devised them was a bitter genius on minimum wage or a complete moron probably on an average persons annual wage per month 
[Edited by qUE at 02:51, 1/2/2011] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #116407, posted by nunfetishist at 09:54, 1/2/2011, in reply to message #116400 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
And out of curiosity: why is this Microsoft's problem? Give a moron the tools to be a moron, and he'll be a moron with them. Quite. Hence my comment about pointless Microsoft bashing. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #116408, posted by monkeyson2 at 13:09, 1/2/2011, in reply to message #116407 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb1aQVpT-60 |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #116410, posted by swirlythingy at 19:23, 1/2/2011, in reply to message #116405 |
Posts: 460
|
Is there a relevant trade organisation for signwriters and other producers of publicity material? Not that I know of (in Britain). Do the vast majority of such companies do any sort of proof reading?
Nope.
Oh, and, not strictly proofreading, but this one is funnier.
Most people consider their own English good enough, and are blind to their own mistakes - and of course, anyone pointing it out is a pretentious grammar snob. Story of my life. I once knew a woman who, along with being a WordArt career criminal (and, to be fair to bad spellers, a nasty piece of work in general), was fond of rewriting the laws of grammar. Colons were strictly forbidden, with semicolons considered an acceptable substitute in all circumstances. Use of a dictionary was a sign of weakness. Every phrase must end in a full stop, even when blantently inappropriate (this extended to queries as well as the obvious problems with headings). She also had an unhealthy fascination with that particularly vile light blue wavy text, using it for almost anything. I once saw a line of the stuff with so much text squashed into such a restricted space that the letters overlapped each other, and deciphering it hurt your eyes.
The only justification she ever provided for not learning how to write was that it was 'her own personal style'.
You might think my bitterness is unjustified, but I saw that woman and her posters every day for two years and they grated. (I have other reasons for hating her as well, but in this case she just happened to be the best example of trenchant stupidity.)
...Office of Government Commerce "firm grip on public spending" logos as prime examples. Sorry, I'm awful at 'magic eye' pictures (I really had to struggle to see Lisa Simpson too). What's funny about it? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #116412, posted by filecore at 20:53, 1/2/2011, in reply to message #116410 |
Posts: 3868
|
Nope. Reminds me of an article I read about how, if you jumble all the letters of a word except for the first and last, the brain will automatically unscramble them. I think the example was: self-edit, turns out some people think it's a fake. Still intriguing anyhow.
Oh, and, not strictly proofreading, but this one is funnier. Ha, yes, I remember that one.
Colons were strictly forbidden, with semicolons considered an acceptable substitute in all circumstances. Ugh. I know people like that. An old schoolfriend on Facebook always overuses ellipses. Not unusual, you may think. However, he uses commas instead of periods,,, his sentences all look like this,,, lol,,,,,, its really anoying lool,,,
...Office of Government Commerce "firm grip on public spending" logos as prime examples. Sorry, I'm awful at 'magic eye' pictures (I really had to struggle to see Lisa Simpson too). What's funny about it?
I'm also terrible at Magic Eye pictures and any type of stereogram really. The Lisa Simpson one is basically how the 0 of 2012 looks like her jagged hairdo, and the Z-shape of the 2 looks like she's kneeling. The central dash is a penis of the opposing 'figure'.
In the OGC one, it's actually clearer. Think of it as a stylised stick figure. O for the head, and two C shapes for the torso/arms and the legs. Only with a G instead of a C, you now have a hand reaching in and, yes, an erect penis being held in the aforementioned hand. Thus we have our homographic sexual innuendo. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
