<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Graphically Speaking &#187; Publication Design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/category/publication-design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gs.designbymk.com</link>
	<description>Mental Meanderings of an Art Director</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:36:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Simple, clean, bland?</title>
		<link>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/07/simple-clean-bland/</link>
		<comments>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/07/simple-clean-bland/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MK</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Publication Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gs.designbymk.com/wp/?p=85</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Less is more. Simple is better. Clean is good. You&#8217;ve heard them all. Maybe even said them yourself. But just because a design is simple doesn&#8217;t mean it is better. Perhaps it is just a case of word choice. I&#8217;ve &#8230; <a href="http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/07/simple-clean-bland/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="title"><img src="http://gs.designbymk.com/images/july04/lessmoretitle.gif" alt="Is less more?"></p>
<p>Less is more. Simple is better. Clean is good.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve heard them all. Maybe even said them yourself. But just because<br />
  a design is simple doesn&#8217;t mean it is better. Perhaps it is just a case<br />
  of word choice. I&#8217;ve been told there are no synonyms in design; every<br />
  word has its place. Maybe minimalism is a more accurate word choice, but the<br />
  word simple and less just seems to evoke, &#8220;I didn&#8217;t really work<br />
  hard on this,&#8221; or, &#8220;I pulled this out of my&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
<p>Minimalist style is great, and there could be more of it than there is, when<br />
  done well. It evokes a modern and classy feel that can be dressed formal or<br />
  casual. Lots of white space and minimalism go hand in hand. Young designers<br />
  have the tendency to want to fill the white space on a page/screen. Doing a<br />
  school project in the minimalist style is a great way to break that tendency.</p>
<p><img src="http://gs.designbymk.com/images/july04/VWsmall.jpg" alt="Think small ad">Sometimes minimalist design is appropriate. Sometime it&#8217;s not, just like<br />
  any other style. One example of the minimalist style, the best I&#8217;ve seen,<br />
  is the VW &#8220;Think small&#8221; ad. Minimalism at it&#8217;s best. The design<br />
  fit the copy. A cohesive package that worked. Let&#8217;s face it, if the Beetle<br />
  flopped it wouldn&#8217;t be recognized today, but it was an effective communication<br />
  tool for VW. So, communication should always influence the design process, not<br />
  just because it looks good.</p>
<p class="footnote">For web designers, Paul Scrivens wrote about <a href="http://9rules.com/whitespace/design/rant_about_minimalist_design.php">minimalism<br />
  in regards web design</a>. A good read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/07/simple-clean-bland/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quark vs. InDesign</title>
		<link>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/05/quark-vs-indesign/</link>
		<comments>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/05/quark-vs-indesign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2004 09:19:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MK</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Publication Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gs.designbymk.com/wp/?p=67</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The battles have been fought. Paragraphs have been destroyed. Entire documents slaughtered. What for? To test the skills of both QuarkXpress and InDesign. First Things First It doesn&#8217;t make a bit of difference which program you use if you don&#8217;t &#8230; <a href="http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/05/quark-vs-indesign/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The battles have been fought. Paragraphs have been destroyed. Entire documents slaughtered. What for? To test the skills of both QuarkXpress and InDesign.</p>
<p><span id="more-67"></span></p>
<h3>First Things First</h3>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t make a bit of difference which program you use <em>if</em> you don&#8217;t<br />
  know how to design. Page layout programs are just <em>tools</em>. They don&#8217;t<br />
  make anything without the human touch. A layout will not evolve from nothing<br />
  if the computer is left idle for a long period of time.</p>
<p>However, if you are knowledgeable in the area of graphic design (which I&#8217;m<br />
  guessing you are since you are reading this), there is a large margin of difference<br />
  between the two programs. Capabilities, productivity, and flexibility will be<br />
  covered in this review. </p>
<h3>Round 1: Capabilities</h3>
<p>Both programs can be used to layout absolutely stunning pages. Quark (6.0)<br />
  has been the standard for years. It&#8217;s typographical treatment has been revered.<br />
  But with InDesign (3.0), Quark will have to put up a hard fight. The hyphenation<br />
  and justification rules in InDesign work far better than any page layout program<br />
  to date. The paragraph composer helps eliminate rivers and large gaps between<br />
  words in full justified text.</p>
<p>Preview renders in Quark have always been a bit qwerky. Pixilated images and<br />
  rough text seemed bearable, but took out the joy of seeing the layout come together.<br />
  InDesign&#8217;s settings for the viewing quality allow you to work at the best resolution<br />
  your computer can output, or preview in rough mode, especially helpful when<br />
  working with large images and multiple layers.</p>
<h4>Round 1 Winner: InDesign</h4>
<h3>Round 2: Productivity</h3>
<p>I can safely say that nearly every graphic designer knows how to operate QuarkXpress.<br />
  Many of those people have never known anything else, and may not want to. Productivity<br />
  is so important when meeting deadlines, and no one is going to put the job on<br />
  the line to learn a new program.</p>
<p>The best part about InDesign is it&#8217;s interface. For those familiar with Illustrator,<br />
  or even Photoshop. working in InDesign will be a breeze. It&#8217;s new, Quark-like,<br />
  toolbar provides the user with parameters pertaining to the currently selected<br />
  object. The slide out drawers hold other adjustments and the styles. </p>
<p>Just because of the pre-established user base, Quark comes out a winner on<br />
  productivity. </p>
<h4>Round 2 Winner: QuarkXpress</h4>
<h3>Round 3: Flexibility</h3>
<p>Working with pure Photoshop and Illustrator native files is a dream, and can<br />
  only be done in InDesign. Quark&#8217;s picky input and output makes it a pain to<br />
  work with most all of the time. Printing seems to take forever on a good day.<br />
  I don&#8217;t even want to mention how horrible Quark is at .pdf output. InDesign<br />
  is still a young program, but its features already fathom those of Quark&#8217;s.</p>
<h4>Round 3 Winner: InDesign</h4>
<p>Designers will adopt InDesign more and more. I think it will soon replace Quark<br />
  as the industry standard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2004/05/quark-vs-indesign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lorem ipsum dolor sit ame?</title>
		<link>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2003/11/lorem-ipsum-dolor-sit-ame/</link>
		<comments>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2003/11/lorem-ipsum-dolor-sit-ame/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:01:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MK</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Publication Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gs.designbymk.com/wp/?p=22</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So you think you know what &#34;Lorem ipsum dolor sit ame&#34; is? well it&#8217;s not just dummy text anymore. this site goes in to more detail about the origin of traditional text placeholders (aka dummy text). indesign has the ability &#8230; <a href="http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2003/11/lorem-ipsum-dolor-sit-ame/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="firstcap">S</span>o you think you know what &quot;Lorem ipsum<br />
  dolor sit ame&quot; is? well it&#8217;s not just dummy text anymore.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lipsum.com/">this site</a> goes in to more detail about<br />
  the origin of traditional text placeholders (aka dummy text). indesign has the<br />
  ability to create dummy text from lorem, but if you want lorem for the dreaded<br />
  quark xpress, well im sorry but your going to have to get it from <a href="http://www.lipsum.com/">this<br />
  site</a>. either way give it a try. you might learn something<em> today</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gs.designbymk.com/archives/2003/11/lorem-ipsum-dolor-sit-ame/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

