Here’s a great writeup by The Yukon News about the Design Deck.
Here is the printed version of my anti-fracking poster:
The purpose of this poster is to increase the general public of the dangers of hydraulic fracturing. It assumes that the audience has a basic knowledge of what fracking is, and attempts to illustrate one particularly nasty danger of the practice—the leaching of poisons into the water supply. After seeing the poster, people should have a greater awareness of the dangers of fracking.
This poster was designed to stand out on crowded walls and bulletin boards. Its dark, ominous colour scheme and unique, charred texture will set it apart from other colourful posters.
Although the text is also very important, the strongest feature of the poster is a spider-like fracking crack that occupies the centre of it. It will attract people’s attention, and once they come closer to look at the poster they will be able to read the words. The poster is clearly about a negative issue, so the copy is written in a scientific, neutral style, so as not to overwhelm the viewer with the message.
Another important criterion for the poster is for it to look very professional. It seems that often anti-oil campaigns can look quite amateur, as there is usually not much financial support for them. It is easy to dismiss a message if it is on a cheap-looking poster, so this poster was designed to look professional and to delver the message in a classy way. This was done using the font DIN pro, a neutral but elegant sans serif, and a muted, dark colour palette. There is lots of space around the words and objects, which makes the poster look calm and intentional.
A goal of the poster was also to convey the idea of fracking destroying the earth, but in a symbolic, simplified way. This was achieved by using increasingly darker greys going down the poster to show layers of the earth, and a geometric yet random-ish spider shape for the cracks. There was a thin layer of blue at the top of the poster to represent the drinking water table that fracking destroys.
All of these elements combine to create a poster that catches people’s attention with its creepy imagery and then delivers the message that hydraulic fracturing poisons water supplies.
Here is the digital version:
I’ve recently been working on my poster trumpeting the cause of banning hydraulic across the land. There are many potential approaches for this topic, including Pathos (emotion), Logos (logic), and Ethos (ethics). I think that most good campaigns would use a combination of the three, but below is a little experimentation with using them individually.
After playing around with hand drawn ideas, I decided to move things onto the computer and try a few more ideas. The methods of Logos and Ethos were appealing to me more than playing with people’s emotions. I think that trying too hard to pull on people’s heart strings can cheapen the message, and especially with such a strong, persuasive case such as banning fracking, there is no need for it. I find that logic and ethics lend themselves to a simplistic, clean design, so that the message really shines through. Below are a few of the poster trials from my experimentations.
As I thought more about the final product, an ad campaign I had seen in the Toronto subway system came to mind. It is an ad for homelessness awareness, which could be a very emotional, sappy issue. But instead of going for your emotions, this ad presents a clean wall of text that tells a story about a day in the life of a homeless child. It doesn’t assault you with its message, and gives the viewer the freedom to read it or not. And I have a feeling that a lot of people do!
Inspired by this, I thought I would try the idea of a “wall of text”, and use it as a figurative representation, as well as a means of delivering lots of information. I use the text to represent the ground that is being drilled into in the fracking process. The drill line and subsequent fractures wind through the text, parting it as they go. I typeset the text at a small enough size that from a distance it looks almost solid, and there are enough words on each line for them to fit around the fracture lines.
At the top and bottom I put the tag line “Could you please frack off?”, which is supposed to be an edgy play on the profane-ish sound of the word “frack”. It is in a messy, bold typeface called Fingerpaint, that looks a little like smeared oil or blood, and gives it a rough, organic texture that contrasts with the rigid smoothness of the other text.
I chose to make the poster very long and skinny to play on the incredible depth of a fracking site. Some of these sites can go up to 10,000 feet deep. Making the poster thin gives it an interesting look, sets it apart from other standard posters, and lets the concept come to life.
I’m going to keep developing this concept, but I like how this poster works on two levels: the initial impact of seeing the obvious representation of a fracking well, and also the more subtle but substantial information delivered when the viewer comes closer and reads the body text of the poster.
I was recently given a job as Graphic Editor at The Globe & Mail newspaper in Toronto for the summer of 2014.
I’m tremendously excited about this opportunity, and was quite honestly shocked when I got it!
The initial part of the application process was to submit what they described as a creative résumé. They didn’t give much info beyond that, but they said to “surprise them”.
I thought I would take the opportunity to practice a little custom typography, photography, and graphic design. I was pretty happy with the results, and apparently so was the G&M, as they put me through multiple interviews and then gave me the job!
Here it is:
I’d love to hear what you think of it! It was a lot of fun to work with photographs and digital design.
As a lead-up to my How to Choose a Typeface flowchart, I did some experiments with type and image layout, using a simple grid system.
Below is a screenshot of the many different formations I played around with before deciding on my favourite three. It is a great exercise, as it promotes free thinking and total flexibility it your layout, as there are no expectations of the final design.
And here are the final three that I chose as my favourites.
I am staring to work on a graphic design project around the issue of hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas extraction. What follows is the research conducted by my partner Joel Eckel and me.
What is the nature and scope of the issue?
Hydraulic Fracturing, or “fracking”, is a controversial method of extracting oil and natural gas from the ground. It is performed by injecting highly pressurized liquids into depleted oil and gas deposits in the Earth’s crust to cause the rock to fracture and release additional fluids. The liquid injected is usually a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals such as hydrochloric acid, ethylene glycol, and isopropanol. The quantities of material used in modern fracking are massive, with up to 8 millions gallons of water and 320,000 lbs of sand being used per well. While the technique is very effective, and has created a large upsurge in the amount of oil being produced worldwide, it is associated with many serious health and environmental concerns.
These include the contamination of ground water supplies, risks to the health of people living near fracking sites, increased seismic activity, increased atmospheric emissions and and reduced air quality.
Fracking has come into more common use in the last decade, as the world’s supplies of oil and gas have begun to dwindle. A company can use the practice of fracking to extract large amounts of additional oil and gas from deposits that had been depleted using traditional extraction methods.
This is a worldwide issue that directly applies to any country that has natural gas or oil deposits, and indirectly applies to all other countries due to the widespread environmental damage it can cause. The issue is particularly contentious in Canada, the USA, and Europe, where there has been oil and gas extraction occurring for hundreds of years, and fracking could extract substantial amounts of additional resources.
The arguments for hydraulic fracturing are :
- It is necessary for providing the world with the energy it needs.
- It brings economic prosperity to the locations where it occurs.
- Burning natural gas is less environmentally harmful than coal, so it is doing good by offsetting coal burning.
- Fracking uses extraction sites that have already been drilled, and does not cause as much environmental damage as starting a new drill site.
The arguments against hydraulic fracturing are:
- The toxins injected into the ground leach into groundwater and poison all the animals and humans that drink the water.
- The gases released into the air through the fracking process do damage to the environment and speed global warming.
- The actual fracturing of the stone causes unnatural seismic activity that can disturb the environment.
Who are the players involved in each side?
There are three mean stakeholders involved with fracking. The Industry, The Public, and The Government.
The primary goal of The Industry is to extract natural gas through the means of fracking with the intention of satiating the increasing global energy demand. They do this in the most economical means as, like any business, the end goal is profit. However, the extraction of natural gas often incorporates some negative externalities, especially in regard to the environment. As a means to promote fracking, the industry hires lobbyists to persuade the government to create legislation in favour of fracking. This legislation affects the prominence of fracking by either restricting social and environmental regulation or by granting them autonomy.
There are two main contributions from The Public in regard to the prominence of fracking. First, the public actually creates the demand for energy, which then creates a necessity for fracking as the demand for natural gas is substantial. Additionally, there are those in the public the gain financially from the profit that fracking creates in the oil and gas industry. This is often where the government finds most of its pressure to deregulate fracking. Conversely, there are groups in the public such as NGO’s, scholarly institutions, and community action groups. Most of these groups fund research on the industry, present their findings, or petition the government against fracking. Therefore, there is a dichotomy created within The Public as some have intentions to profit form the industry while others see it as a destructive means to provide energy.
The government is in charge of the legislative decisions that affect the fracking industry. They are primarily concerned with preserving the countries natural resources, while simultaneously meeting the demand for its energy needs. They are pressured from the industry to promote fracking through lobby groups, as it is a profitable business, and they are also pressured by the public to restrict fracking as they see the externalities too destructive. In some regard it is a fickle balancing act that is often contested.
What are the historical roots?
The practice of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas extraction was first used experimentally in 1947. Its first successful commercial use occurred in 1949, when the Haliburton Oil Company licensed the technique and began to use it in many of its oil extraction projects, fracking 332 wells in the first year alone. The company reported 75% production increases.
Other companies caught on to the new invention, and by the 1950s, 3,000 wells a month were being fracked. Since then, over a million wells have been stimulated using the technique. The chemicals mixed with the water have changed substantially over the years, and now there are more than 600 different chemicals that are used in fracking fluid. There is currently a worldwide discussion occurring about the acceptability of fracking, with no definitive answer forthcoming.
Are there any marginalized or oppressed social groups as a result of the issue?
Fracking creates two main groups that become marginalized.
Environmental Organizations and National Parks:
This group is marginalized because much of the fracking happens close to, or on national parks. The drilling operations require roads to be built, which destroy habitat; there are emissions created from fracking camps, which damage wildlife, and in general the practice of fracking necessitates deforestation to gain access to the natural gas.
People who live near fracking operations often have contaminated water supplies. This kills livestock, pollutes water systems such as streams and ponds, and contaminates drinking water reservoirs. Also, fracking requires millions of gallons of water. This is often extracted from local wells, which drains resources from nearby communities.
My stance on fracking is that it is a necessary means to provide natural gas to a nation with a substantial energy demand. Not only does it contribute to the oil and gas industry as whole, which is one of the most profitable industries in the country, there is still no way to replace natural gas as our primary energy source. For that reason, it makes sense to completely harvest the natural gas from one deposit rather than beginning to drill another.
My viewpoint is that the cons of fracking drastically outweigh its pros, and that it should be universally banned. There are dozens of ways in which fracking devastates the environment and compromises the health of the people living in areas where it is performed.
Instead of turning to ever more harmful ways of extracting energy from the ground, we should be focusing on environmentally friendly alternatives, such as solar, hydro, and wind.
Here is a mind-map we created to help us explore this complex issue:
In the couple weeks that I’ve been working on my flowchart to help people choose a typeface, my design ideas have evolved significantly.
I found it very useful to examine many flowcharts online to help choose which style would best suit my project. And then, with a general knowledge of how many elements would need to go into my chart, I hand sketched some different layouts, as seen below. I chose a layout with a strict grid system, as I thought it would better reflect the organization of typographical systems, and most of the other options looked a bit messy.
I also considered a number of font options before I settled on my final choice. The main options I considered were:
- Ideal Sans
Any of these would have been good options, but Ideas Sans won out. It is very legible, but has a lot of funky personality too. It has tons of weights, and just fit a little bit better than the other 4.
Here are a couple links to other flowcharts that inspired my design of this one:
The image below is an early draft of what the flowchart would look like, where I had established the general grid format and shapes of elements I would use in the final product. It changed substantially since then, but it was a good experience to see what it looked like transferred from paper to computer.
I recently complete work on a flowchart poster to assist people in choosing a typeface. I will post it shortly, but in the meantime I thought I would share a little bit about my creative process.
The following images show some design thinking exercises that were very useful in coming up with ideas and considerations for my typeface poster.
Other Points of View:
The Mind Map:
I also spent some time documenting my process of choosing a typeface as I was working on some design projects. Here it is:
“In all honesty, I choose most of my typefaces in a very time-intensive and thorough way. I have never used any kind of formula before. I put the right words in roughly the place where they will go in the finished design, and start going through every single font, starting from the As and going to the Zs. And I have over 800 fonts, so that can be a very time-consuming process. When I see one I like, I’ll “alt-click” and drag to duplicate the font on the side of my page, and then keep on looking. I thought that there must be some way of speeding up this process. I likely will still go through all of my fonts fairly regularly, but this could certainly streamline things a little bit. Below is an image of my scrolling through countless fonts and leaving them on the sides of my page.
So I tried to think about what I was really looking for when I was scrolling through all those fonts. I came up with: personality/funkiness, professionality/approachability, strength/softness, body-text/titling, modernity/old-fashioned-ness. Of course, a person is looking for something different for each font they are choosing, but if I can provide some criteria, that will help in their thinking process.”
I’d like to tell you all about the most recent typeface I’ve purchased, called Gibson.
It is a gorgeous, subtly designed typeface that is really elegant and versatile.
It is reminiscent of Gotham, by H&FJ, and Museo Sans, by Exljbris, but I would say it is superior to both in many ways. It has the bold strength of Gotham, but it works way better as a body font. And it has a true italic, not just an oblique, which adds real flair and class.
And the best part is, it is only $48, which gets you 4 weights, and their italics. In case you’ve never bought a font before, this is VERY affordable! The comparable package of Gotham is $200. AND, all of the proceeds go to graphic design education in Canada. The typographic deal of a lifetime!
Here are some more experiments with the typeface PMN Caecilia, this time using it as a body text.
Here are some initial sketches that I did when I was thinking of ideas for layout of the text.
Caecilia is quite a pleasant font to use for body text for a few reasons, as follows:
• The letters have a smooth, even texture. When they are put together in body text, they create a relatively uniform, grey covering of the surface, which is quite pleasing to the eye. To get an idea of this texture, try looking at the examples with your eyes out of focus. Mmmm, smooth.
• The font has excellent kerning. Someone has taken many long hours going through Caecilia and figuring out how each letter should fit together, and it shows. This means that the typeface looks perfect in body text without out any modification. Quality of kerning is an easy way to distinguish between a professional and amateur typeface. Even if the letterforms look great, the kerning will often be incorrect in amateur fonts, while it is usually spot-on in a professional font.
• Caecilia has “true” italics and small-caps. This means that the italics are not simple slanted versions of the original roman font (referred to as obliques), but fully redesigned italics that have different forms from the roman. The letters “a” and “f” are usually the most noticeably different between the roman and italic versions of fonts.
Take a look at Gibson, by CanadaType foundry, the most recent typeface I’ve purchased. The roman “a”s and “f”s are very different from the italics.
Also, GO BUY THIS FONT! It is only $48 for 4 different weights + italics, and it is really beautiful and excellent for titles and body text. I’ll do another blog post on it soon.
And here are the final results, using a hilarious quotation from Woody Allen. (And let’s just try to ignore the nastiness that is going on with Mr. Allen right now and appreciate this quotation as a separate entity.)
My typographic treatment of the text plays on the theme of moving backwards through life and finishing in an orgasm. The first exercise also gives a kind of summary of the passage by separating all the key nouns and putting them in small caps on the right side.