Speak Up Archive: Not so Kinky

I’ll be the first one to admit this: I don’t care for Design is Kinky. And it’s nothing against them personally or their purpose or their intentions. I just don’t. But this is not so much the point here. In a critique by Rick Poynor for Eye magazine he takes a look at DiK and their doings. Their claim to 11,000 visitors a day, the mugshots, the interviews, the profiles, all the good stuff. In great Rick Poynor style, he goes deeper than the pretty exterior to give us some interesting insight.

Johnstone [of Dik] presents this material to the reader more or less as he receives it, with minimal editing, leaving frequent misspellings and wonky grammar uncorrected.
The site would gain in authority, impact and precision of communication if he paid the same attention to the craft of text production and presentation that he naturally pays, as a designer, to the craft of design.

I think this is very important. Typos and bad grammar say a lot about the people behind a web site. Mistakes like that deduct credibility from such ventures.

At this point in its life, DiK is perhaps poised between two kinds of activity. The friendly, non-critical tone and regular features such as a gallery of personal mugshots sent in by site visitors suggest something sociable, inward-looking, cliquey and not especially serious. But the site’s intention to act as a forum and participate in a global design discussion also implies wider responsibilities and, if it’s to be convincing, a commitment to higher standards of thinking and presentation.

This is one of my main concerns with DiK, they seem to be this great “forward-thinking” design forum, but there are times when they look more like a collegial Designer-Fraternity house.

If the aim is to sharpen perceptions of young Australian design and encourage real debate — and not simply to provide yet another occasion for self-referential �celebration’ — then a more critically aware approach is essential.

It just sums it all up, doesn’t it?

I feel the same way (though I am endlessly careless with my spelling.) It is taken a lot more seriously in the print world where your product is set in stone once the press run starts and correcting mistakes costs real money (yes, correcting mistakes on the Web costs money, too, but less so.)

There are those who say if your ideas are powerful enough, who cares about little grammar details, but people tend to trip over little things like that. It makes you look dumb.

On Jan.16.2003 at 10:46 AM

Wow - so you stick up a site so all your designer mates can mouth off about what they feel, like or dislike about the field in which they work, and one day Rick Poynor decides to crit your site. And he slams it too.

I never thought designers were meant to know how to spell.

I liked DiK back when I first cam across it - there was nothing else like it. I enjoyed the introduction to other designers' work and opinions. It did stray well away from "art in industry" though - or in trying to position itself as independent from other corporate sell-out designers.

However - you do have to wonder what 11,000 people a day are going there for. I guess there are more people working at home these days.

There is quite an advanced difference between the attention to detail someone puts in publishing online and where someone hasn't - and DiK keeps the attention of those who simply don't mind or consider it to be a requirement.

On Jan.16.2003 at 11:38 AM

> It is taken a lot more seriously in the print world

It definitely is taken more seriously in print, but that doesn't make it more forgivable in web. We started a discussion on this a few months back.

>There are those who say if your ideas are powerful enough, who cares about little grammar details.

Those are lazy people. Attention to detail is what separates the great from the not so great. No offense intended to anyone.

>I never thought designers were meant to know how to spell.

Shouldn't everybody be meant to know how to spell? Designers are in charge of setting text, so we always need to keep an eye out for typos.

I don't want to turn this into a typo/grammar discussion. I would like it to be more oriented towards why is DiK such a hit even when the quality of the content and delivery isn't quite there?

Not that I want to tell anybody what to write about, but you know...

On Jan.16.2003 at 12:16 PM

My apologies for bringing it all down to spelling.

I don't think DiK is that much of a hit, in that it definitely serves a particular segment of the design community that is currently online. I think of it as an MTV version of community design websites, where it probably won't ever grow up, but will possibly be a constant for that type and age, of designer.

I think it is best summed up by a quote from Zeldman himself, from the interview on DiK,

"Even if your site is terrible, if it sticks around long enough, it will get some kind of momentum."

DiK feeds a need, and as we often experience in design or other industry - development or creation is done for the intermediate of expectations, since that is the largest segment. (I'm grossly repurposing Alan Cooper's principles of interaction design) Thus, expectations are moderate to low, and the standard to which DiK is held is lower than say that of an Eye publication or even this one.

On Jan.16.2003 at 01:21 PM

I find it funny how out of that whole article all you guys have done is focus on the negative comments that Poynor brought up. The first 2/3 of the article is very positive and yet all you do is bring up the negative. It's pretty pathetic and your site is worse off for it.

On Jan.16.2003 at 03:21 PM

>The first 2/3 of the article is very positive and yet all you do is bring up the negative.

The first 2/3 of the article are facts about DiK; with a few mentioned highlights like DiK's memorable name and their easy navigation, so it would seem that it's all positive.

>It's pretty pathetic and your site is worse off for it.

This is interesting. With our recent online poll we've been getting a lot of requests for more "Critique". Critique at Speak Up can be positive or negative, but always constructive and with a purpose. So what I don't understand is why when we critique something or somebody we are set to be the bad guys. When we talk nice about people everybody is on board, but why can't we be able to discuss the shortcomings?

Perhaps that's why DiK is so popluar, they are always happy and merry and it's more sunny on their side.

On Jan.16.2003 at 03:35 PM

Oh, please. The first 2/3 of the column is essentially the first 2 or 3 paragraphs, little more than expository information, after which Poynor himself brings up the typos and "rather unappetizingly" arranged blocks of text.

While the overall piece isn't negative, the criticism is more the point of it than the support. The tagline "[...]high on content, low on critical awareness[...]" sums it up before you even get started.

On Jan.16.2003 at 03:42 PM

Yeah fair enough. I do essentially agree with a lot of Poynor says, and I am all for criticism, but i also think that he has missed the point entirely and is showing his age. The fact is that not all publications, especially online, actually care about proffesionalism. About things such as spelling. They are simply there to be enjoyed not run over with a magnifying glass and picked apart for their faults.

I have been a viewer of DiK for a few years and have corresponded with Andrew and I know that he runs this whole thing by himself (the news is the only thing the other members help with) in his spare time. Unlike Poynor he does not have a major publication behind him to finance his proffesionalism. That affects things like this greatly.

I also know that Andrew is a lot more casual about design and proffesionalism that someone like Poynor who is getting on in years and is still stuck in the early 90's. He simply does not understand the ideals of younger designers and creators and maybe it's about time he thinks about that before weighing in and using his influence to put down a harmless project like DiK.

On Jan.16.2003 at 04:18 PM

>I find it funny how out of that whole article all you guys have done is focus on the negative comments that Poynor brought up.

Yes - you're quite right I ment to fokus on the elevin thousand poeple that vizit the site daley. Thats a positive - no?

If you're going to create something, something that people will use, be guided by or even listen to, then at the least - take responsibility for it, do it well and the constantly be restless for self-improvement, not just the redesign of the same stuff. (I'm not suggesting anyone here is doing anything less)

I got from Poynor's piece that it seemed like a shame that DiK didn't deliver more or in a better way, but that also it had the potential to do so.There's nothing wrong with that - if its your cup of tea.

Its not easy trying to push an organic community in a direction, and encourage real discussion and thinking, though it is made easier by thoughtful and provoking input.

On Jan.16.2003 at 04:19 PM

Ok, I haven't actually read the article (note to self: must buy new eye this weekend), but I really have to comment on the spelling issue.

>[Poynor] simply does not understand the ideals of younger designers and creatorsThe fact is that not all publications, especially online, actually care about proffesionalism. About things such as spelling. They are simply there to be enjoyed not run over with a magnifying glass and picked apart for their faults.I never thought designers were meant to know how to spell.

On Jan.16.2003 at 04:53 PM

I'm tending to side with Fergus' thoughts on this.

The appeal for me of DiK is in its friendly, loose, vibe. It's a window to a clique of people for whom design is important, but its not pretending to be too much of an authority. To me it's more like a zine, and I've never been bothered by the sloppiness of zines. I wouldn't go quite so far to say that it's part of their appeal, but labors of love need not be perfect, IMHO.

That beng said, its amateurishness does effect its appeal over time. (Like most zines.) But when I first discovered DiK, my thoughts were "this is cool!" not "this could really be improved by a more serious and professional approach."

On Jan.16.2003 at 07:06 PM

I see DiK as being a art site, not really a site focused on graphic design as a profession.

Nothing wront with that of course, but it's really just a bunch of eye candy, so it's not really something that needs to be critiqued (as art is mostly subjective).

On Jan.16.2003 at 10:34 PM

Here is another thought, and this goes back to discussions like $25 dollar logos. If 11,000 (or less) log in every day to DiK and this is their exposure to what Design is I think that's an issue. What does this say about all designers? That we are sloppy, that we like to get our mugshots taken and that we love doing 3d polygon explosions for every project we can.

Yes, it might jus be a fun 'zine, but whether they like it or not, DiK is one of the most influential (if you can call it that) web "design" communities. To me, and I'm sure I'm going to be called a bunch of bad names here, DiK is far from what design is about. I know I'm deep in it now, but what the hell? those are my opinions.

On Jan.17.2003 at 08:57 AM

Where did the 11,000 daily visits stat come from? All be its lonesome, it doesn't contain a whole lot of meaning.

...and this is their exposure to what Design is I think that's an issue.

Do you think anyone expriences DiK as their solitary example of design? I don't. In Western media-driven culture, we're basically awash in examples of design everyday, many good, many bad. But, just because something is explicitly labeled as graphic design doesn't make it authoritative. The development of our aesthetic sense is much more complicated than that and a single source has to be awfully influential to overwhelm the tide of incidental examples we are molded by everyday.

On Jan.17.2003 at 09:15 AM

>Where did the 11,000 daily visits stat come from?

From Poynor's article : "Johnstone, a designer based in Sydney, now claims to receive as many as 11,000 visitors a day."

>Do you think anyone expriences DiK as their solitary example of design? I don't.

You are right I did generalize a bit. But ask any young designer (they are the most influentiable) what "design on the web is to them" and they will say K10K, DiK or Stereotypography.

>we're basically awash in examples of design everyday, many good, many bad.

Nobody pays as much attention to these examples of everyday design as designers do.

On Jan.17.2003 at 11:11 AM

Let's pause for a minor technical note on server stats, which people tend to ascribe undue importance to.

I don't see "unique" before that "11,000."

On Jan.17.2003 at 02:07 PM

I think it's plain to everyone here Armin that you have some personal problem with DiK and are therefore just using this article to try and get your digs in. Personally I think it's just jealousy and hope you get over it eventually. I was actually enjoying your argument until you threw in this, "and that we love doing 3d polygon explosions for every project". For you to honestly believe that this is what DiK (or K10k or Stereotypography) does or asks others to do shows that you have no idea what your talking about. The fact that your own work is quite plain and un-interesting also tells me a lot about why you continue to try to argue your point.

Perhaps sites like DiK are just not for you, which is totally fine, but it is sad that you feel the need to use this site to try and put them down. And don't try to use the excuse that you were being "constructive" because it's plain to everyone of moderate intelligence that that was not your intention at all.

On Jan.17.2003 at 03:31 PM

>I think it's plain to everyone here Armin that you have some personal problem with DiK

Yes I do. It's not against Johnstone himself, I don't know the guy. Sites like the ones you mentioned do bother me. You might like them, I don't. Everybody has their own preferences and we are free to express them. Like you just did, you made commentaries on what I said and it's Ok. I'll take them or leave them, but you said what you wanted.

>Personally I think it's just jealousy and hope you get over it eventually.

Believe me, I wish I had thousand and hundreds of visitors a day flocking to my site and driving my badwidth nuts. But for the price of what? Poor content and endless eye candy? Thanks, but I'll stick with the few people that enjoy what's going on here.

And yes, I'll get over it.

>The fact that your own work is quite plain and un-interesting also tells me a lot about why you continue to try to argue your point.

I won't even go there.

>but it is sad that you feel the need to use this site to try and put them down.

See first answer.

On Jan.17.2003 at 03:41 PM

>Believe me, I wish I had thousand and hundreds of visitors a day flocking to my site and driving my badwidth nuts.

�badwidth’? At this point, I can't distinguish between sarcasm and carelessness.

On Jan.17.2003 at 04:14 PM

I'd amend that say "nobody pays attention to any design as designers do." Any design. But we all learn aesthetic unconsciously. This is how fashion works, for example.

On Jan.17.2003 at 11:25 PM

Unfortunately, consutrctive criticism was only given by Poyner. If you're going to run a critical website, which I am all for and totally support, say something that wasn't just said in the article. Critique is not helpful or constructive when you start out with essentially saying "Nothing against them or their purpose, etc. I just don't like it." C'mon Armin...put aside that meaningless badgery and say something critical rather than re-stating Poyner.

Related to the article...I agree with Poyner and acknowledge the potential that DiK and other community design websites have. Becoming more of a forum and a place of discourse is what I would prefer rather than a link database of portfolio websites. Thats why I enjoy reading Speak Up from time to time. There's actual discussion about current design.

On Jan.19.2003 at 08:31 PM

>C'mon Armin...put aside that meaningless badgery.

Again, I don't know why everybody gets so upset when I say I don't like something. Is it so bad to not like what everybody likes?

>and say something critical rather than re-stating Poyner + say something that wasn't just said in the article.

First of all, It's Poynor. Second, the point of my post was to bring light to that article, so I think quoting it was rather important.Now, let's give some constructive criticism:

- Don't call it Design is Kinky, call it Links are Kinky, or Mugshots are Kinky.

- Don't mention "Graffiti" as part of design. I think it's closer to art than to design. And we all know art and design are very different.

- I like the site's design, it's easy to navigate.

- Spell Check

- The mugshots are very infantile, they detract from the site's seriousness. Which is not much.

- Great wealth of links. I find that I enjoy an approximate 3 out of 10.

Those are just a few of my objective opinions on DiK.

On Jan.20.2003 at 08:54 AM

i agree with the critique about Dik. that's why i stopped going there a long time ago... waste of my own time.

armin - why let it bother you? there exists an enormous amount of information on the web. your strong opinions prove that you've spent too much time at dik... why? problably for the same reason that 10,999 other people do too.

and don't worry about dik's influence on the design community. their audience is not going to make a difference in the world of design anyway. real designers don't surf the web.

On Jan.20.2003 at 02:52 PM

>why let it bother you?

I don't know, I wish it didn't, but it just does.

>your strong opinions prove that you've spent too much time at dik

Not that I can prove this or anything: but I've visited DiK 10-12 times in my life.

>real designers don't surf the web

I disagree strongly with that statement. What would make a "real" designer noy surf the web?

Not even for porn?

On Jan.20.2003 at 03:09 PM

I agree, never cared for DiK. I never understood how they got to be so 'popular'. Yeah they have great friends, but that shouldn't be the sole factor on why people would enjoy the bland nature that DiK has developed. the site is just bland when you look at all the other portal sites out there.

I will state that they are decent at their craft, and have great projects (books, shirts,etc), but the site it self is a one visit every couple months if that sort of site.

On Jan.20.2003 at 05:45 PM

I thought I'd add to some critique discourse.

I don't see DiK as a "design community" website. However, I think it's more of a designers' hobby sorta thing. I know many designers, me included, have a strong foundation in art history and art skills. Appropriately, I have a strong interest in other forms of visual creativity. I sometimes dabble into experimentations of my own. We all do, you might call it "design for design's sake".

DiK and related websites seem to have that "gray area" quality to them, art? design? Obviously they're both different realms, but have a lot of overlap. I haven't been much of a visitor to DiK as I used to. After they posted a cover of mine I started to make distinctions of my own between the two. I can appreciate both but have grown tired of the million and a half individual portfolio links.

On Jan.20.2003 at 06:31 PM

I wanted to join this discussion a while ago, but got sidetracked. I think its an important one and I'm a little disappointed that 'bickering' always seems to come into these discussions. As a (relatively) young designer, DiK was a godsend when I first discovered it three or four years back. It was responsible for introducing me to web design and in many ways opening up the door to the larger field of graphic design as well.

That being said, I don't like it very much anymore and hardly visit it these days. But I dislike it for different reasons than Armin. In fact the one part I do still like about it are the mugshots! That aspect of the site is unique, quirky and about the closest thing DiK has to call itself a community... So what don't I like about it:

1) Community. DiK is not really a community site. A community site should allow people of like-mind to communicate with each other. There's no forum, message board etc.

2) Design. In my opinion the site is pretty badly designed and kind of an eyesore to look at. White boxes seemingly carelessly placed on gray, thin CAPS everywhere, the breakdown of the content doesn't really make sense... And to be honest I think the navigation ius really clunky. There's very little definition between what are buttons and titles, rollovers in some places, image maps in others, the news stays up when you go into a separate section and then when you choose a section a different layout/navigation appears... I could go on for a while but I won't.

3) Quality. A lot of the links don't even rank in the eyecandy factor, never mind design. The quality links can generally be found elsewhere (note: I like k10k, I personally don't think DiK and k10k should be lumped in the same basket.) and that''s all the news feed is, a list of links with hardly any commentary unless its about their 'friends'. As for the rest of the content, the focus section is pretty much a link with pictures... and the theory questions pretty uninteresting.

The reason I've taken the time to write all this is that I agree with Armin, I think its detrimental if DiK becomes the representative of Design for a generation. I grew out of the eye-candy phase once I discovered the beauty of 'real' (ugh, I'm going to get it for that one) design, hopefully others will too.

There is a similar and equally interesting discussion going on at another 'community' site that I think stands out nicely in contrast, alt.sense.

On Jan.21.2003 at 12:42 AM

>White boxes seemingly carelessly placed on gray

hahaha... man... your site is basically white boxes placed on a grey 45� striped background (very original mind you)!

haha.. your hilarious. practise what you preach man

On Jan.21.2003 at 03:17 AM

Fergus just emailed about this place. Pretty cool. Just wanted to say thanks a bunch for all the cool feedback. Great to hear peoples differing opinions. I am going to try and make sure the profiles are mistake free from now on. Although please forgive us if I miss one or two.

One thing that you all might keep in mind (especially Armin as he'll find out soon enough running a site like this) is that you simply can't please everyone, so it's best to just please yourself and do what you feel is right. Call me simple but that's how I do things.

good luck with it all!

andrew

ps. Yeah I did bump the visitors up when talking to Rick Poynor. It's more like 9,000. But the guy is from the big daddy of design mags so I had to hype things up a bit didn't I? ;)

On Jan.21.2003 at 03:36 AM

>Fergus just emailed about this place.

Ha. Why doesn't that surprise me.

>is that you simply can't please everyone, so it's best to just please yourself and do what you feel is right.

That is very true. I did discover that right away. This is not directed to you Andrew, but I think if you run a community site, a real effort must be made to respond to people's likes and dislikes while maintaining your own stances and beliefs.

>But the guy is from the big daddy of design mags so I had to hype things up a bit didn't I? ;)

Hey! if you have the opportunity to spread the word to such a huge audience, why not?

To finish: Andrew, I'm glad you didn't come in cursing us (specially me) about all the stuff we have said. As I've said since the start, it's nothing against you.

On Jan.21.2003 at 10:35 AM

the reality is that design is kinky will most likely continue to garner much much more traffic/interest than this, and many of the others that are reviewed as "higher quality" design portals.

On Jan.21.2003 at 12:29 PM