About this blog

It’s pretty simple really, the idea is depth before breadth. I have believed for some time that the rise in popularity of short-form journalism is skewing our perception of information consumption. What is tolerated these days (2010) as a ‘news article’ both in print and televisual media is just not what it used to be and more importantly, not what it should be. I find my generation (Y) satisfied with getting their updates on world events in no more than 140 characters – we haven’t got the time right? We’ve got places to be and people to see. As long as we have these one sentence summaries of important world events we’ll appear knowledgeable when the time comes to have a conversation around the dinner table with our friends and family, providing we still have the time to share a meal.

I read a lot of design books and in my recent readings I’ve come across a few thoughts from some of the most respected members of the design industry who, in their own way seem to agree with me; one in particular though is Japanese designer Kenya Hara in his book “Designing Design”.

Mr Hara discusses that society suffers not from ‘information overload’ but rather ‘information fragmentation overload’. He argues that, biologically, our brains love complexity and depth of information. The greater the depth of information the better our ability to not only recall that information but process it, make connections and form knowledge – something that robotics experts have been struggling to mimic for years with artificial intelligence systems. As we move in to a faster paced, info-on-demand society, our brains are being layered with tidbits of information that it struggles to process because no piece of information can be easily connected with another – we simply don’t know enough about each bit to become knowledgable.

What I aim to achieve in each article on this blog is a complete argument. It’s really that simple. Each article is tagged with roughly how long you would need to read each one with consideration taken to allowing your brain the time to process the information and possibly form your own opinion. So please, don’t scan, the articles aren’t written that way. Find the time in your busy day to sit down and contemplate one. I would be pleased if you would provide your feedback on a post via the comments. It will be completely unmoderated of course (with provision taken for obvious spam) and I will aim to respond to critique of the ideas or the writing as best I can.

A Considered Approach will not be updated everyday because complete arguments take time. They require research, observations and a little editing to get right. I don’t pretend to be a trained journalist, I’m a trained designer, my business is visual communication. Designing words though is something I’m very interested in and leads to the inevitable question:

What’s in it for me?

The aim of this experiment isn’t actually to benefit readers. I see the knowledge-building of others as a by-product really. My aim is to:

  • Develop my writing: As Rick Poynor said, in his 2009 talk to AGDA in Melbourne; designers need to be more articulate in the way they discuss their work and their industry. I simply believe that this skill is essential and the blogging medium is an excellent way to put my writing in the public domain for the critique of others.
  • Create a body of work/ideas: My goal here is to, after some period, have a body of writing that I am proud of. Arguments that are thorough, specific and constructed in such a way that, years from now, may still hold some value in the discussion and critique of the design industry; one I am very passionate about.
  • To keep my eyes open: I aim to use the blog as a key motivator in opening my ‘observer eye’ – to notice the connections to design with politics, sport, art, technology and so on. As my first professor at University, Professor John Gero, once said to our class when discussing why he was so passionate about design, “Design is everything.”