same

Absolutely amazed by the lack of awareness from designers here about the power of design to distort and carry an agenda. The "mirror" argument is flawed since who designs the mirror shows what if seen. A documentary is not intrinsically neutral the same way a typeface isn't neutral. The person doing the designing or shooting comes to it with their own notions and views of the world, subconscious or otherwise. This underpins the concerns behind the lack of diversity in tech where a homogenous group of designers is creating a supposedly neutral product.

Those trademark books are design classics and are definitely a source of inspiration for me personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a designer decided to straight-up rip off that logo and shoehorn it into their design process.

This is great! It's like a web based Craphound.

Web/print Gainesville, FL 40k annually $65/hr freelance

I used to work in online education, specifically making a course templates for Canvas (www.instructure.com) at UF.

I had written a very long response waxing poetic about the "why's" and "how's" of designing for education online but the comment box ate it so I'll just leave this presentation I did last year about my work here.

Not even a nod to Akira... http://kotaku.com/the-2020-tokyo-olympics-were-predicted-30-years-ago-by-1276381444

Oh my god the guitar solo and voice over after the intro... this webpage has it all. Literally GODMODE

Enjoying the cognitive dissonance here, where you'll find threads on DN obsessing over border-radiuses and "flatness" but lots of people here saying "meh, how women are depicted doesn't seem like a significant detail".

Are aesthetic details more important than social (as in society/culture) ones? Who are we designing things for?

To the people who don't think these details are significant, should we continue to use these icons for black, asian, mexican, indian people? http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/gmdh02_00146.jpg

http://www.zombo.com/http://originalhampster.ytmnd.com/