My transition from the first sentence to the second is not the best, but in the ‘utopian’ job description, we should always consider what the audience may find useful, and not always what the audience may find ‘fun’. I’m as guilty as wanting to do ‘fun’ design as the next, so it’s also a reminder to myself to what I should be doing. And Burger King has definetly won the round on fun, and it is also where my allegiance lies. I do hope they follow McDonald’s lead on the nutritional information however.

Let me see if I can surmise what Donovan was saying. I would venture to say that he was contrasting “visually communicating” to what many designers do by just “making it pretty”. There is plenty of that out there as well. I don’t think he was trying to make a definitive and ground breaking definition of design.

I think it is everyone’s goal to blog for the betterment of designkind. Sleep well Armin.

(For the rest of the class, you can visit this post and this thread to put “snotty” in context.)

So they added nutrition facts to the burger wrappers? As revolutionary as that sounds, my allegiance still stays with Burger King…

> As designers, it should be our job to visually communicate ideas and information.

It “should”? Last time I checked, that is what most designers actually do. Among the many different and confusing definitions of design those four things (visual, communication, ideas and information) are pretty common threads. So, whammy #1… what is that sentence supposed to oppose… that as designers it should be our jobs to milk cows?

> Adding nutritional information to my fry container is what I consider an effective use of the space.

Whammy #2… How does that first sentence lead to this non-payoff of a second sentence? How does this utopian job description lead to adding nutritional information on a burger wrapper?

I really wanted to let it all go, but if we are all blogging for the betterment of designkind we gotta poke when, and where, it don’t make sense.