F22 Core Interaction: Reading Responses
Please post a short reading response (1 sentence comment, reflection, or question about the overarching ideas in the article) that will inform our in class discussion. Reading responses are due at the start of class.

I’ve always equated Google and Apples’ branding as minimalist-- but at a closer look, I realize how much Google’s branding coexists with playful and childish motifs. Google’s entire selling point is its ability to accommodate childlike curiosity-- we don’t know how to do something, so we simply “google” it, innocently invoking our inner child. There’s a lot of depth there, and I hadn’t realized it until now. 

I find it interesting how more simplified and minimalistic designs are considered more ‘modern’. I assumed that our society would shifts more towards more graphic, almost chaotic designs that express more creativity. However, after reading about apple’s designs it is clear that our society finds simplistic designs more appealing since (as the article states) it is more cost-efficient. My question is if we will be experimenting with coding logos/using templates at any point? 

I thought the comparison of Apple to Google was intriguing because of how they are both simplistic and modern, but in such different ways. Whereas Apple is glossy and futuristic, Google is primitive and a bit childish. Yet they both value function over form, minimalism, and lots and lots of white. How can two such different brands fall under the same overarching category? Why does it seem that many brands are falling into this excessive modernist/minimalist approach these days; is it just a design trend? 

I found this reading interesting due to how it talked about how we’ve come to associate modern design with simplicity and minimalism, free of excess or even sometimes arguably needed details. However two companies most famous for their use of minimalism, have applied it in two very different ways. Apple is one of the prime examples of minimalism, from its products to its stores growing more minimal and sleek by the year, but we can see this minimalist “modern” style started decades ago, in architecture and statues. Google also employs a similar sense of minimalism in their design and website interface, however it has a definitive level of childness from the google doodles to the multiple use of colors in their logo. My question is will we see a rebellion in design against the over abundance of minimalism? 

Apple’s logo uses a sans serif font while Google’s uses a serif font. To what extent do serif vs sans serif fonts affect if a design is read as minimalistic? Is sans serif seen as more modern? If so, why? What other elements significantly determine if a design is modern or not?

I thought it was very interesting that the reading talks about both Google and Apple brands. I definitely associate both brands as simple, minimalistic, and modern; however, I never thought Google had a “puerile” look until I read the reading. The colors and doodles may make the brand seem very childish, but Google’s homepage looks fundamentally the same and has yet to change. I thought it was fascinating that Apple has a very different clean, sleek look, yet they are both changeless and loved by many for their modern appearance. 

I can’t help but wonder how future historians will perceive the “modernism” of our time in ways that we see the past. Will we ever reach true simplicity and if so do the people like it? There are so many roots in eurocentrism and ideas of “purity” and its connotations with colonialism that I find it difficult to believe we will be able to reach that sort of utopia any time soon. 

I personally found this article quite interesting, because we generally see Apple and Google designs daily - but we never pay too much attention to them, do we? Both companies use modernist and simplistic designs, however in different ways. Apple’s design is more minimalistic and elegant, it is in sans-serif and everything Apple is generally non color - black, white and different scales of gray. The design of Apple platforms and products is timeless and its cleanness and simplicity are surely key when it comes to drawing the attention of an audience. Google, on the other hand, has changed its design over the years. We all know google as being serif, however, in the last couple of years it has become sans-serif. I personally preferred it when the font was serif, however now I see the way this new sans-serif font is more modernist. Something that has always struck me about google is that its main colors are primary colors (red, blue, and yellow) however the “L” has always been green. I personally feel like the use of these strong colors, along with the features Google adds in for festivities are perhaps a little childish. This said, the design of Google also remains timeless.

While reading this article, there was one line that really stuck out to me, “Modernist style still succeeds in evoking newnesses even when wholly “unoriginal” because it so successfully dehistoricized.” I think this concept is fascinating. Even though san-serif fonts have been around since the early 19th century, and the concept is far from new itself, the minimalist style of a san-serif font will always evoke a modern feeling. In the Bauhaus era of German design the san-serif fonts became popular as the era was rejecting historical influences in art. The serif fonts evoke a feeling of history as they are the first style of writing, and felt more serious or ornate due to the decoration of serifs on each letter. Whereas a san-serif font feels more modern because of its simplified form.  Companies such as Apple and Google want to appeal to the masses, they want to be seen as new and fresh, inventive and welcoming. More and more companies these days are switching to san-serif fonts for their branding as it evokes a feeling of  innovation and modernity. 

What will modern design look like in 50 years? Where is modern design headed?

Jon Wiley saying that he wasn’t sure if the design would fundamentally change is so interesting to me. The Google homepage hasn’t changed in terms of layout since 2014 but the logo on the homepage definitely has. It’s the illusion of achieving total fulfilment that’s interesting here. I wonder what’ll come after post-post modernism.

“The joke’s on Gopnik, of course; he concludes that Apple’s design endgame is pure featurelessness, a design so recessive that it appears as pure function—but there’s nothing so modernist as a claim to stylelessness.” This point intrigued me. How modern can “design” turn before there’s no “design” left? I’m interested in how modern design revolves around simplicity or sometimes purpose. Google on one hand uses colors and a “playful” font whereas apple seems to be designed as a more “professional” or more “expensive” company. 

I think it’s interesting how in the 1990s and early 21st century, the UI design of Google, Apple and other leading tech companies was all about rendering interfaces into gradient buttons and icons into what they would look like in real life. However, coming into the 2010s, they collectively adopted a minimalist style and focused on how interfaces they visually communicate messages instead of attempting to simulate everything realistically 100%.

I think that the overall take on Modernism that Cecire critiqued was interesting when compared to Apple. She took on Loose’s idea on efficiency and cost effectiveness and applied it to Apple Inc. For example, the design is simple and gives off a clean image, while their products are cheaply made and manufacture. The design however tries to convey the opposite. Since Modernism started, it has been a symbol of innovation, technology, and the future. Cecire shows that today there is an aspect of overseas manufacturing and cheapness that comes with the Modernistic simple look. 

What I learned from this reading is that there are so many coding languages and each one is good (and bad) for certain coding purposes. One question I have is that since I know Java is very popular, would you be able to get by doing most coding things just using Java? Another question I have is if you are a coder and you only know one language, such as Python, would you be able to get a job, or is the standard for a coder to know a couple coding languages?

I learned more about the vast process that goes behind programming and the various languages coders use (ie. simple processes we use on a daily basis, such as typing the letter 'a',  go through an entire process of receiving a signal from the keyboard, looking at the version in memory, and going through the lines-and-circles version that is sketched on the screen.oraperl coding). A question I have is what are some of the main coding languages we will be learning (Java, C, JavaScript, Python, Perl, PHP, SQL, Clojure, and XSLT). Also, will we be working on PHP?

Code is a powerful tool, meant to dictate and support our actions on our computers. Code acts as a vast library, giving a computer and therefore its user access to tens of thousands of files and data, sometimes even using the data to perform a function. Languages simplify code into a usable medium-- depending on the language you use, certain functions become easier. I think the best part about programming is how much open source material there is-- everybody shares their inventions and their insights, and the community is all the more strong because of it.

Code is a tool, a important powerful one but a tool none the less. It is not capable of producing itself, at least not in the ways imagined in science fiction, instead it is up to the humans for now to create the code and find a way for it to complete its purpose. Whether it be for programming a television, for running a animation software, or even adjusting the controls on a “smart” fridge. You reverse engineer, starting off with a purpose, a goal in mind and walk your way backwards till you are at the start of the road, showing that code is all about the journey, not the destination. One question  I have is which code is best to learn as a graphic designer? which ones will be the most used and the one that will look best on our resumes to have it stand out from the hundreds others. 

Coding is a prevalent part of our day to day lives, but it goes on easily unnoticed. So much of what we do on a daily basis is made up of code, social media, homework on drive or canvas, online shopping, watching television, all of these only work because of coding that has gone on behind the scenes to make them function. There are many languages of code and nuances within the languages that set each one apart. Each code has a different purpose and is applicable and tailored to meet certain needs, so every language is not useful all the time. This is why it is valuable to be fluent in a number of languages. Which languages would be the best to learn first, and can you use multiple code languages on one project? 

Is it always ok to copy someone else’s code? When is it not ok?

The article talked about different languages and the most commonly used ones which made me think: What do people from different countries do? I understand that there are different languages from various countries, but if the most common ones are English, does everyone who code have to learn it? Won’t it be more difficult to those who’s languages do not derive from Latin?