While working on our final projects and posters recently, we've been talking about effective design and aesthetics. Coming from an engineering background, this kind of thinking is very new to me. I think it's so interesting to compare the way an engineer designs to the way a planner does. (I'm making broad generalizations here, so take these with a grain of salt.)
A planner considers their product--either a report, poster, powerpoint, portfolio, etc.-- a visual object meant to entertain and inform the viewer. It is not enough for the product to convey the information; it has to do so in a way that is "visually appealing." Suddenly, there are other aspects that are just as important as the data or information, aspects such as the color scheme, even the font! An engineer couldn't care less about the font; as long as the diagrams are legible and the information is present and conveyed, they're happy.
This distinction came to mind when I walked through the civil engineering labs on the third floor of building 1. On a chalk board in the hallway, a professor had scrawled "PhD defense for student xyz Thursday 1pm". There was no punctuation, no emphasis, no color; just a basic description spelled out in the clearest way possible. The theses themselves are similar, formed by a combination of plain font and direct language that results in a somewhat lackluster visual, in my opinion.
I wonder if there is a way to blend both styles, the direct and clean approach of engineers with the more aesthetically focused and lively approach of the planners. I think that the negatives of each style are balanced the positives of the other. I'd hope to reach some kind of middle ground, perhaps in this class but also in others and after MIT. I think this blend is a really valuable point of view to use, and I'm glad that I've come into this class with an engineering background because it's helped me see the strengths and weaknesses of both.
A planner considers their product--either a report, poster, powerpoint, portfolio, etc.-- a visual object meant to entertain and inform the viewer. It is not enough for the product to convey the information; it has to do so in a way that is "visually appealing." Suddenly, there are other aspects that are just as important as the data or information, aspects such as the color scheme, even the font! An engineer couldn't care less about the font; as long as the diagrams are legible and the information is present and conveyed, they're happy.
This distinction came to mind when I walked through the civil engineering labs on the third floor of building 1. On a chalk board in the hallway, a professor had scrawled "PhD defense for student xyz Thursday 1pm". There was no punctuation, no emphasis, no color; just a basic description spelled out in the clearest way possible. The theses themselves are similar, formed by a combination of plain font and direct language that results in a somewhat lackluster visual, in my opinion.
I wonder if there is a way to blend both styles, the direct and clean approach of engineers with the more aesthetically focused and lively approach of the planners. I think that the negatives of each style are balanced the positives of the other. I'd hope to reach some kind of middle ground, perhaps in this class but also in others and after MIT. I think this blend is a really valuable point of view to use, and I'm glad that I've come into this class with an engineering background because it's helped me see the strengths and weaknesses of both.
Paula,
ReplyDeleteInsightful blog post! As an engineer myself, I absolutely agree with you. Consider yourself lucky that you're able to gain the best skills of both worlds. You are in a unique position that you can easily work in both environments, understanding the perspective of the group you are working for, while also bring a new, unique skill set to your team.