Stylish! Retro! Sciency!
When in doubt, label your icons.
When not in doubt, you probably should be.
The fascinating story of Charles K. Bliss and his symbolic language:
The writing system – originally named World Writing in 1942, then Semantography in 1947, and finally Blissymoblics in the 1960s – contains several hundred basic geometric symbols (“Bliss-characters”) that can be combined in different ways to represent more complex concepts (“Bliss-words”). For example, the Bliss-characters for “house” and “medical” are combined to form the Bliss-word for “hospital” or “clinic”. The modular structure invites comparison to the German language; the German word for “hospital ” – “krankenhaus” – translates directly to “sick house”.
Some lovely little animation experiments from Cameron.
In this days of monolithic frameworks, I really like seeing modest but powerful patterns like this—small pieces that we can loosely join.
A terrific piece by Rob that is simultaneously a case study of Pro Publica work and a concrete reminder of the power of separating structure and presentation (something that I worry developers don’t appreciate enough).
Don’t get stuck on what different types of information are “supposed” to look like. They can take whatever shape you need them to.
Tim explains why that neat trick of making a really big JPEG with quality set to 0% is no longer necessary, and how the savings you make in bandwidth with that technique are nullified by the expense of the memory footprint needed.
This is impressive—a fully featured graphics app for creating SVGS right in your browser.
Metaballs, not to be confused with meatballs, are organic looking squishy gooey blobs.
Here’s the maths behind the metaballs (implemented in SVG).
Data visualisations created for The Times, complete with code.
A Weekly Journal of Visual Essays
Some lovely data visualisation here.
Are you a UI designer? In Brighton? Well, feel in this form if you’re interested in gathering with like-minded people.
This local, monthly and free meetup will let designers show their work, share any methods, processes and tools and ask for the odd critique.
Having spent half a decade encouraging people to make their pattern libraries public and doing my best to encourage openness and sharing, I find this kind of styleguide-shaming quite disheartening:
These all offer something different but more often than not they have something in common. They look ugly enough to have been designed by someone who enjoys configuring a router.
If a pattern library is intended to inspire, then make it inspiring. But if it’s intended to be an ever-changing codebase (made for and by the kind of people who enjoy configuring a router), then that’s where the effort and time should be concentrated.
But before designing anything—whether it’s a website or a pattern library—figure out who the audience is first.
An illustrated history of digital iconography.
Here you go: a free book on icon design in three parts, delivered via email.
But, like, have you have ever really looked at your hand?