Designer of Foot Of The Mountain CD cover, Martin Kvamme, has published images of the complete cover art at his site. Personally I enjoy parts of the design, but for my taste there is a little too many directions and style for the whole thing. But then a-ha never was really as great on cover-art as on music - unfortunately.
There’s a lot of a-ha news these days - can’t say anything else than me like. Latest issue of Massiv - a free lifestyle magazine for the more well off among us - features no less than three different front pages. One for each of our guys. Apart from the fact it is a-ha news, this is of course also interesting from a design and editorial view. A good play on the three strong personalities?Seems like something I just need to hunt down then.
This nutcase blogging on c-net is blessing the world with his competence on why Apple should NOT in fact release a sub-notebook kind of computer. He first goes on to rant about all the usual drawbacks of such devices currently in the market, and then he manages to end up with the presumption that Apple will make something like what’s already there - or as he himself puts it:
Now, after reading over the general design of a subnotebook, does that design sound anything like a product Apple would sell? Not a chance.
Not a chance indeed. He apparently fails to see exactly how Apple works. The one thing that is certain, is that if Apple will do a sub-notebook, it will NOT look like anything that is out there. Whenever Apple designs a new product, they start with what is today, then they look thoroughly into all areas where they can improve on the thing. If they can’t, they won’t release it till they can.
One of the most interesting things to observe when Apple enter a new category or release a new/redesigned product is how it is so far ahead of and/or differentiated from other products catering to the same market. In fact, so different that they at the very minimum expand the market category, and sometimes even creates completely new markets (even unintentionally).Look no further than the iPod and iPhone, but also iTunes, iLife software and so on. This is the Apple DNA, no less.
Not all products Apple releases are instant successes of course, but the past 5-7 years I would be hard pressed to find any product that has really flopped (last one I can think of was the Cube). Apple has grown a sense for not releasing a product until both they themselves and the world is ready for it. Which means it can be designed with excellence in mind, be very useful for the consumers and be manufactured for a reasonable price. When all these three aspects are met, the product will be successful (the Cube failed miserably, as we know, on the last one).
I think the consumers are more than ready for a sub-notebook that changes the ballgame, I also think it is now possible to manufacture. It remains to be seen if Apple is ready. I am rather convinced they are.
[EDIT] I have been pointed also to the iPod HiFi thingie as a sort of lately flop. Could agree to that, and it also falls into same category as the Cube. However the HiFi was hardly a high profiled product.
Microsofts ad for their System Center grabs some attention around. At least it pulls off one criteria as a good ad then. Maybe this even is how Microsoft view themselves - and want others to as well. Huge, old fashioned, uninspired. The analogy actually does the opposite of what it should. Yes, the building (and corporation) is obviously huge, with all of those 659 floors. But if this is what you think of as a clever interface for handling that hugeness, I am a little worried about what is on the other side of that wall. Only Microsoft would think it ingenious to put the readout almost unviewable and smallish up in the corner (as opposed to directly in front of the user), and only Microsoft could think of a panel where you must stretch and bend to be able to get to all of that interface. The most funny of it all though, is the tagline; ‘Your potential. Our passion’. Right. This ad just screams passion at ya.
‘But, if Apple had made this ad, all the Apple fanboys would declare it an act of genious’ they say. The problem is, Apple would never ever pull off an ad like this. Apple rarely uses analogies (last one I remember happened around 1984). They might include references of sorts, but most of all, Apples ads are USP based, clear and simple. In fact, they are all about what the impression Apple wants for its products. If Apple were to make a ‘System Center’ product, they’ll make damn sure the product was as simple to use as putting on your sneakers in the morning. And the ad would not include some confused looking guy wondering what button to push. It would show the glaring simplicity of the real interface, how easy it is to use it - and what it does for you in real life. Now, that is how designed for great looks like.
Via Daring Fireball
Damien Guard has a nice piece about exactly how superiour (in my opinion) the OS X font rendering is to Windows. Especially for a designer, but I believe everyone deserves to percieve the real beauty of type as much as they do with other kinds of graphics. How would you think about Windows forcing you to see photos with only one aspect ratio, forcing all images into a predefined format - just because someone thought it would look more tidy onscreen? There are plenty typefaces that are excellent for onscreen viewing, and I’d rather see Microsoft implementing/suggesting to use these rather than destroying what in my opinion is art. Windows font rendering is actually pure vandalism, and I suspect it has less to do with philosophy and more about ability.
Up through the years I have been asked quite a lot why I prefer the Mac over a Windows box. Until this last year I have been hard pressed for more than “I just like it better” and the usual suspects of stability and virus/malware issues. But at one point it suddenly occured to me why I “liked” the Mac so much better. It’s all about precision.
I was actually quite reluctant to move to OS X because of what I felt as less “solidness” than the old Mac OS 9 (RIP) - and it’s not before Tiger I’m getting rather comfortable with it.
I find the Mac in almost all aspects - software and hardware - to be a precision machine. This is also why “everything just works” sticks. The Mac does exactly what you want it to do, it is solid state hardware (that also looks good, mind you) but most of all it is the software. Everything is pixelsharp - you’re never in doubt exactly what and where you are clicking (or if you’re clicking at all), response is logic and swift. And most of all, it shows off with precision. Printouts are what you see on screen, colors are what they seem and foremost fonts look the way they really should.
Most of my day I work with documents intended for print, and for me it is pure pleasure to work with a system that really shows the font the way it is going to come out in print. I would be hard pressed to find one good reason for any of these beautiful fonts to be forced into a “pixelgrid” to make them “sharper” and “more readable” onscreen. For what? They are not supposed to be read onscreen anyway. When I read stuff onscreen (or make things for onscreen viewing) I use an appropriate font for that specific purpose. Just like I try to use appropriate fonts for everything else I design.
But I guess some people just have to do their coding/scripting in Bodoni…
via Daring Fireball
I have to see these things live I suppose. But - does it now look a bit odd with the white plastic keys on the new alu-keyboard, white cables and the white plastic mouse - alongside all this aluminum and even what appears to be black on the back of those iMac’s? I know we have white mouse/keyboard with the Mac Pro - but the box is under my desk, and the display also has white plastic insets.
Gallery at AppleInsider for better look.
At last - along with the new iMac’s - the norwegian Apple site is also launched in the new design Apple implemented with the iPhone in June. I really like this design. A lot of companies should learn more from Apple about how to present themselves and their products.
Notice how your choices always are narrowed and relevant and concise. You never have to wonder where to click - for the most part you are very much held in hand through the site and can make your perfect decision of where to go at all times. Also the consistancy throughout the site is great (except for some weird changes between black and white background). Everything is built so it is easy for you to make your choice and buy the product. It actually invites you to explore the site and products, giving you confidence that you can easily find your way. In my opinion Apple’s site is a classbook example of excellent web-structure.
Whereas at Microsoft (who has cleaned up a lot) and Dell for example you really have to make a thinking where you want to go next.
Example:
You want a new computer. At Apple you are (pt) presented with 4 choices of what to do; 1. click the Store (obvious if you want what to buy), 2, click Mac (if you want to compare the various versions of computers they offer - or 3./4. click on iMac or Mac mini promos to check out those specific machines. All of them offer intuitive links to the Store and information on other models. You can’t go wrong.
Dell does not offer you a direct path to buy anything. The company claiming to have invented the direct sale model for computers does not have a link directly to their store on the front page. They do offer some product categories though. Ok, so I want a new desktop… but hey, mouseover and I have to choose if I have a home office, small office, medium office… So - a choice to make. Why do they make me think about this, and why can’t I easily see a lineup of all desktop offerings? Oh, yes - there is a link on the side there - solutions for different kinds of businesses. Maybe that’ll offer some clue on what I am looking for. Right? Wrong. Now the categories changed names, the “icons” are replaced and I have to decide if I want a desktop or a workstation. So, what is really the difference here? Do I need a workstation or just a regular desktop? So turns out I get the workstation choice again when choosing desktop, with three different other alternatives. All this while I am still uncertain if I should have clicked small or medium business in the beginning.
Try it for yourself - you have to dig down 4 clicks to get to some hard facts on any product - on Apple you are down to it on maximum 2, and with everything else just 1 click away at all times. That aside from the fact that Dell’s site alter it’s appearance on any click, changing width and with all kinds of menustyles ever invented. If you click one level deep, you are presented with a site using a tabbed menu with dropdowns at the top , a sidebar menu with some slightly different tactics and menuchoices, a Flash banner with a built in dropdown menu, a main area with tabbed menu and some links at the bottom. I think there is an engineering degree needed to shop anything from this site. At least it is essential that you know precisly what you need and for what befor starting - otherwise you just end up with more quetions than there are answers on this site.