Oh Crap

I found Wysoki’s document a good refresher for the CRAP principles, and why they work. I also found Wysoki’s tone personal, but not helpful to the document. While there was merit to most everything in this article, at the very beginning I laughed because while it is true that your eye indeed stops there and atheistic does help this happen, really the fact that there is a half naked woman on the page does more to draw attention, than “the lightest… large round shape”.

The definition of a good graphic is ultimately an opinion, so how can any one technique be perfect?


Anyways Wyoski continues to contrast Williams’ principles against Arnheim/Bang’s,  and Kant, and ultimately (unless I missed her point (which is entirely possible)) I think the point is, there is no perfect way to design a graphic, but if you can argue why you did what you did, then chances are you have eliminated many of the obstacles that cause ineffective graphics. So, the overlying insight that can be taken away is that there is really no forty-two (ultimate answer) to what a perfect graphic is, however, what separates good from bad is the thought into how they are prepared.

A question I have would be what are some principles/ techniques you use to create graphics that may lie outside the basic CRAP principles?


I found Wysocki to really support the CRAP principles, and  explain how her eyes follow the particular advertisement cited in the text. I thought her breakdown of why certain parts of the picture stood out was great, and was helpful in understanding how some small things that may be overlooked, can actually make a lot of the difference in the effectiveness of some designs. Later, she goes in to talking about judgement and a person’s reaction to a design. People have different reactions to things, and so just following CRAP principles won’t necessarily make your design stand out. There are different sensations that are uncontrollable, but she talks about how you can appeal on a person’s human traits to maybe guide that sensation.

Overall, I found the article to be a nice refresher on CRAP principles, and also a great breakdown for them. I know when I’m designing something for a client, I don’t always think CRAP while I’m designing, but it becomes almost intuitive to maintain these principles. Something I found interesting was the introduction of sensations that I hadn’t really thought about. I think it’s important to understand that not everyone will have the same reaction to a design as another person, and so it’s important to understand that. “When we see an object that is formed according to universal structures, then the particular and the universal are harmonized, and beauty is created” (164). I think this quote really stands out, since it effectively is saying harmony is beauty. Basically, universality is important. Keep elements in your design consistent, and if they work well together they will be beautiful.

I’ve always thought Nike has had some of the best advertisements. The subtle elements of this work is what stands out to me, the fractures on the text are fantastically done to represent explosive, as well as a trail of debris that seem to also be explosive. But otherwise the art is so simple. I think this is a great example of using the CRAP principles to make an effective design that guides your eyes through the information.

Wysocki says sensations are uncontrollable, but are there any ways to guide a viewer’s viewing experience to help them experience a certain sensation?

Wysocki, Kant, and Jackson Pollock Walk into a Design Studio…

Anne, Anne, your rhetorical and visual analysis is top notch. Although long, I found her refreshing and easily readable. Maybe it is that I am far more interested in the way she thinks than some others… Tufte.

Wysocki is analytical but still creative taking the ad that she first discusses and taking it through William’s core values. This is what she uses, not as a model, or a way to analyze but as recognition that advertisements and visual effects are organizations. It’s a simplistic answer to sum up all visuals this way, but it’s supposed to be a generalization. She negates Wiilliam’s principle because they are not universal. I honestly go lost when she started talking about Kant. What I am getting from Wysocki is that she doesn’t want people to think of visuals as a formula. She brings this up in her Kant section as a means of exploring other forms of beauty and visuals. BUT then she goes off and makes it analytical. I’m just getting a lot of whiplash from Anne. She’s sort of like the scene in dead poet’s society when they talk about what makes good poetry. There’s a scale, but then they disregard it. I feel like that’s what Wysocki needs to do. Beauty can be analyzed- yes. Good design contains principles- yes. But, that doesn’t mean that we should negate design that doesn’t follow the rules. At least I hope that’s what she’s going for.

Here’s the problem that I have with Wysocki. She briefly notes that motion is better understood when it could happen personally. When it comes down to it, design, color, the priniciples vary from culture to culture. Some are biologically recognized- humans like patterns and organizations, but not all. She says as much towards the end of her analysis. However, we all experience motion the same way. We know that gravity is going to affect a duck the same way that a boat does. Motion is limited in such a way that we are forced to recognize it in design. I believe that the works of Jackson Pollock demonstrate both Wysocki and my point. The art of Pollock could be recognized as beauty despite negating the design principles at place. However, the movement of the piece is what is most striking. It moves constantly despite not being animated.

wysocki photo.jpg

How do we resolve design and the abstract? Should we even try? Will the evolution of animated graphics become abstract? Should it?

Wysocki the Wascally Webel

I don’t know exactly what but somehow I am reminded of Tufte’s tone of sour criticism when I read Wysocki’s work. Basically, Wysocki feels that our current approaches are incomplete and “assume a separation of form from content, emphasizing form to the point of the content’s disembodiment” (Wysocki, pg.3”) It’s amazing to read 27 pages about form and beauty, including complaints about a simple magazine ad and how abstract William’s CRAP principles are. But what got me thinking (and one of the few things I got out of Wysoki) was something from a telling of two other authors, Arnheim and Bang, that Form comes from one’s egocentric experiences and one takes pleasure in seeing those experiences comfortably inscribed in other objects.(Wysocki, pg 11).

Wysocki seems to compare Arnheim and Bangs approach to William’s crap principles by noting that Willaim’s approach is more neutral. Arnheim and Bang allows for equal emphasis and a sharper sense, whether affected by genders or not. Willaims and other approaches to visual composition are basically seen by Wysocki as a dehumanizing way of tying form and design to place, time, messiness and complexity. (Wysocki, pg. 23) in order to divert this, Wyscoki believes we should move towards more social and temporal expectations and rebel against the current accepted principles. They way, we can push out our boundaries further and try new things, because form is universal. At least, that’s what I got out of it.

I am currently enrolled in AD 105, which deals with a lot of using William’s CRAP principles. And I have to admit, there isn’t a lot of free thinking about design done in that class, at least without confinement. Going back to Arnheim and bang’s telling of form, I am much more inspired by shapes that relate to my own experiences that shapes stamped down in order to comply to design principles.


The girl ad above can be seen demonstrates Arnheim-bangs idea of form. Due to experiences with moms and other females from point of birth, I am immediately drawn to the girl’s face, before gravity draws me down the rest of her body. The ad also shares some CRAP principles, but this idea of form seems to offer a little more explanation for accessing the ad’s information.


I found two girl ads on my own to briefly share. (seems to be relevant to Wysocki’s views, due to the peek ad in the article and the fact that Wysocki’s a girl). My question for you guys would be to compare the two ads. What design strategy’s do they use, and which ones do you think apply more to Arnheim-Bang/Williams? Which rhetorical cases do you think each would work best in?

Form it real

When we look at a picture in our daily life, what could be the first thing you think of? Is it the color combination? Is it the drawing technique? Or could it be the reality of that image? Usually we would consider about its form in the first place. We may not know how good that picture could be, but we definitely understand whether we are comfortable seeing that or not.

As Wysocki writes in his article, he argues about the importance of forms in visualizations. Starting from the New Yorker Ad, we see the ad with a woman’s picture. He first addresses William’s design principle that people would first concentrate on the lightest and roundest shape on the body, so in this case it is the hip that is brightest and most attractive. However, Wysocki doesn’t agree because he thinks that William’s principle contains neither context nor comments. There are denials that are more trustworthy because they have histories and consequences.

According to Johanna Drucker, it is important to ease your audiences’ access to your information. That is obvious since we do want others to catch the most valuable part at the fastest speed. Also due to Arnheim and Bang, our view on 2D space is affected by our experience of directional gravity in the real world. That’s why visual elements’ positions take effects when we are reading them. In other words, when an object is universal and structured, it is harmonized and shows beauty to our eye balls.

I feel the same way as the researchers do. I work with 3D space more often and I know how bad I feel about crappy models because they don’t look correct at all. It is more apparent to see when you have an awful mesh in your modeling process. It doesn’t attract us, doesn’t follow the rules, and of course doesn’t serve the form of beauty.

screen-shot-2016-11-13-at-11-46-55-amThis is the “3-year animation series” movie done by Reality 3D. They are people who make parodies from anime and movies using awful 3D techniques. By saying awful, it seems to be obvious that those characters are not rigged in the correct movements and posing. How can you expect reality and beauty from something that doesn’t even follow the universal rules? Clearly this is an example of bad form.


Now how would you feel about this model? It looks better, doesn’t it? The reason is simple: it is universally acceptable, it is well posed in structure, and so it gives us the feeling of reality. It is really essential that when you are creating your visualization, think of it as something that could be from fantasy but also following the rules. There are all kinds of exaggerated images or models in the world. However, only those that are based on real life win the applause from the audience. Because it fits the logic of people’s mind. You can be creative, but you do need to form it real.

The question I want to ask is: “what aspects should 2D painting be careful with in this case?”

The New Age of the Internet.

Jenkins connects on his attempt to bring light to the use of parody in areas of high seriousness and low natural humor. I thought the style of this reading was very conducive to the information that Jenkins was trying to convey, and the layout of info helped me stay focused on what the point of the afterword was. Jenkins starts out by describing an event in political history that can be seen as a first in its kind. The 2008 democratic presidential candidate debate that is discussed by Jenkins is the first time American citizens questions are brought in from the internet, specifically in this scenario, they are brought in from Youtube. The questions are as you would expect from a platform where anyone with a camera and some free time and will can submit a question that has the ability to be seen by millions of viewers. Ranging from topics like gun control, to gay rights. The highlight of the night however is a video producer who uses a clay snowman to comically convey his worries about global warming. The video gets a lot of play in the media , so much so that when the same debate format is brought up for use on the republican side of debates, candidates refuse to take part because of the Snowman video and the possibility of videos like it that republican candidates deem not serious enough for the stage they are on.

Jenkins talks about the effects of humor in areas in youtube and how it an effect things like the election. Specifically he talks about how things like humor in high places can easily create dissent. I think this is appropriate in lots of places, but especially that of politics. Saturday Night Live is very famous for its parody of political figures and candidates, especially around debate and election time. Shows like Saturday Night Live post highlights of their programs to Youtube, like many shows do now a days in an “on demand” consumption of media type culture. These videos garner millions of views and it’s how I watch them myself. While spoofing the recent debates between Trump and Clinton, the show takes a obvious angle to exaggerate Trump’s many faults and mannerisms, while doing much less of this to Clinton. Whether these jokes towards the candidates are fair or not, they can create a level of dissent towards someone who may be unfamiliar with each candidate, and if this is the first exposure they are getting to what a person seems to be like, they make take it as what is actually the truth.

While SNL’s pokes at Trump may be rooted in fact, they can create come across as factual to the uninformed viewer.

Is the expansion and influence of the internet going to eventually cause things like presidential elections to embrace the internet, as to not get run over by it?

New Media Platform

The first half of the article mainly talk about the feature of new media platform youtube and its comparison with old media channel such as CNN.

At beginning is the event that CNN and Youtube cooperatively run a online political debates among president runners of Democracy Party. The questions are selected from thousand of video public made and submitted onto youtube, and no one knows what the question is or who the questioner. Everything is unpredictable which become a challenge to most candidates. There are many questions never been issued in the previous rounds of political debates, and some are presented in a funky way, for example, a video of a snowman who asked can his son live in the future. This is a question about global warming and candidates response to it in different way.

One of the conclusion of this online political debate is, the president runners of Republican Party refuse to participate in such kind of event. And this can partially reflect how challenge it can be to those candidates.

New media platform in fact represent the grassroots culture, and its feature is public participation. Everyone can speak out instead of just listening to the voice from mainstream media. They can choose what to listen and what to talk with others. Youtube, as one of the most successful new media plat form, meet these three distinct levels, production, selection and distribution.


Above is a video which encourage people vote for Trump. The maker is a niche online media. It may holds its opinion or hired by Trump. It has 12729 views in 3 days, and there are thousand of such video on Youtube. Even political election can not ignore the power of Youtube as an important new media platform.

My question is what is the future? How conventional media and new media mix together in the future?