Heirarchy in Packaging Design – Thinking About How to Lay Out Your Trade Dress

Alright, last time we visited this RCA package, we talked about logo placement, and that was pretty key, right? Well, today, I’m going to talk a bit about information hierarchy. What is this hierarchy? It is the pecking order of the product’s sell points and specifications on the package.

Contrary to what marketing people will say, there can be only one most important thing on a side of a package. One focal point that draws in the customer. After that everything else trickles down to zero in terms of importance. It is very important to think like this, especially when you have a product with a very small bit of packaging to strap on sell-points. The best sort of main point is a claim of quality or usability or something that states how the product is better. It could be the better stain fighter or it could be the longest lasting or maybe even the cheapest.

After the main point (and there are many names for this main point) comes the supporting information or sell points. These are the details that either re-enforce the main point or talk about other secondary points. They are the kind of catch-all that brings in the fringe shoppers and go something like this: high-powered spotlight for dark areas, bleach-free scrubbing power or up to 20oz. free.

The next level of importance usually comes things that are basically specifications that re-assure the customer that they are buying the right sort of item.  Specifications are hard product facts like 7ft. long, 4 AA battery capacity or safety blue.

So, to put this in list form:

1. Main marketing statement!!!

2. Supporting detail 1
3. Supporting detail 2
4. Supporting detail 3

5. Specification 1
6. Specification 2
7. Specification N

There’s a lot of talk about certain things jumping in front of various things in this list. One dubious thing is for the product name as the number one thing. I’m not talking about ‘Crystal Lite’ for example, I am talking about the need for ‘Fruit-flavored drink’ to trump the former. This is dumb. It will make your product look generic and while you may need this to keep Legal happy, NOBODY shops for a ‘Fruit-Flavored Drink’. People search for a drink that has far more flavor or is lower calorie or something but certainly not to make sure they’re buying a ‘Fruit-Flavored Drink’. Remember also that chances are where your product is in the store, will probably be in the same location as other ‘Fruit-Flavored Drinks’ -and probably in the ‘Drink’ aisle – so the customer pretty much knows what they’re looking at already. Keep the description on the package for sure, but don’t make it your headline.

The other bit that you will hear people talk about is that the brand has to be number one on the package. In a way, they are right, but then again, they may not. In the instance of the above network cable, we are not selling ‘RCA’s, we are selling network cable right? Nobody wants to buy an ‘RCA’ – whatever that is – they need to connect their computer to the interweb. The brand isn’t in this list because the brand is the frame around the product. It is the aura that grounds the product but allows the product to shine through, just like an ornate frame around a classic painting in a museum. The frame could be a work of art in itself but it mainly focuses attention to the wonder that is the painting.

So once, you have your list of points set out, the next thing to do is to locate the most prevalent portion of the package. That is where the main point should go. On this RCA card, that spot is just above the product blister, but below the hang hole.

Moving on to the supporting bits, things get a little trickier. This package doesn’t really do any favors, in terms of real estate, so you have to be a little creative like the previous designers have. Taking a page from them, the next most visible places are on the sides, going vertical, next to the blister. (I’d be remiss in not pointing out that there may be a savvy way to jam one under the primary point at the top.)

Finally, this brings us to specifications. These, while important to be sure, are relegated to the peripheral corners of the package, as those are the last visible areas to play with – and seemingly under-utilized on this example. The best corner would be opposite the logo at the top of the card , but care must be taken to not overshadow the brand logo. It’s to have these specifications at the corners as it allows for easy searching for the right dimension – think of shopping for pants and how great it is to see the sizes on the colored hanger tabs. Same thing here.

Now, all that took a lot more breaths than I anticipated so it looks like there’ll be a third installment, so stay tuned. I know it’s riveting!

Logo Placement on Packaging Is Important

I found the packaging example above in a recent store visit and I figure I am going to talk about it for at least two posts, as it points out a number of things – both good and bad.

Being that I’ll be talking about both good and bad, I’d like to extend this caveat regarding the product and the brand: I have nothing against RCA from any standpoint and would like to further point out that the network cable above is of good quality and is working great. Now, if you’re listening RCA, I can really help you with your branding and packaging. I am slightly expensive but I work really fast, and do great work! *nudge, nudge*

Now, getting to the point of this entry, let’s think about where RCA has determined to place their logo mark – the bottom of the card. Not a lot of companies dare place the logo at the bottom of packaging for a number of reasons. I know an oldster who NEVER wants to put the logo at the bottom. I think mainly it’s about being a big stickler for ‘the higher on the package, the more important a thing is’ line of thinking. The logo, in his eyes, is most important. It never is the least important, thus never on the bottom. I like to think a bit more situationally regarding this thought, so I have my doubts about this one.

Another very important point regarding logos at the bottom of packaging design is that when things are merchandised, there is a very good chance that the logo will be covered by secondary labels and structure. This may not be a big deal, as long as one accounts for it when making the merchandising elements – as well has having a strong enough trade dress to pull it through.

When we look at this card we can see that with the above head on shot, the logo seems pretty prominent, mainly due to the awkward, centered location (nothing else is centered) and more so the use of the stand-out red on the white field.

When the card is peg-hooked the situation becomes different. If this package is looked at any downward degree, the logo is obscured by the clamshell and product within. With the logo gone and no other discernible trade dress to carry the brand (which is another topic, all together), the package has lost all of its RCA brand cache. The product now falls into that area of ‘misfit toys’ populated by cheaply sourced, questionably made items people put low trust and value to.  This is probably one of the reasons why these cords were $4 (and on sale for $2) while similar cords with a bit more nascent branding were selling for $10 at Wal*mart.

If we compare the RCA product with this product from Singer, you can see how much of a difference the prominence of the Singer logo location has over the RCA. The size and the location broadcast the brand far more effectively. It would seem that Singer may be much more proud of their products than RCA is, leading customers to think that perhaps the Singer may be of better quality than the RCA. After all, the person who takes responsibility is far more trustworthy in people’s eyes.

That oldster was right about one thing: branding is very important and perhaps the logo mark is the most important item on your package. The reason for the importance is that by placing your logo on all your products you are, in essence, saying that you guarantee the same level of quality across all of the items with this logo. What does that mean for the customer? It means that if I buy this CAT5e cable and it works great, then the chances are high that this other RCA product will be just as good of a value.

Obviously, this works best when you actually care about your products, but if you do care about your products and you want to get that loyalty then you have to make it as easy as possible for the customer to spot your products and you do that by having a strong trade dress and a distinct and immediately legible logo mark, otherwise you risk falling into the indistinguishable sea of commodity items.

Billboard Space is Important to Brand Packaging Design

If you want to build your brand then you need to be serious about your packaging’s billboard space. What do I mean about ‘billboard space’? This is the area you have on your package available for messaging, and more importantly, your brand messaging. Obviously. the most important area is the space available on the front of the package.

There are other considerations about how much space you could have. Issues like available shelf space, standardized packaging or the sizing dictated by shipping requirements.

I see a lot of die lines where area has been sacrificed for whatever reason. Sometimes it’s for a better look at a product or perhaps it’s a mis-guided attempt at saving a little materials cost. There is savings to be had cutting back on materials, and there can be a lot said about showing your product, to be sure, but what about your brand?

There are a lot of great reasons to spend a bit more or put more focus on branding in packaging. The most important in my mind is that when the brand features prominently on a package it tells me that the company is proud enough of its product to broadcast authorship. Perhaps it’s the brand’s promise.

Some companies do a really good job of going out there and making more billboard space than what more cost conscious folks do. Take this Swiss Miss package. Seems like a fairly compact package, just about the size for 10 servings?

Having a look inside suggests otherwise. This is exactly how it looked when I opened it.  Yes, there was 10 packets in there ( and I guess we all know that I am a bit waistband-conscious)! Now, I have to say that there could be a number of reasons for Nestle’s selection of this size, but the real benefit is that they gain much more space to tell their story on the front. They get to own twice as much shelf space as well.

If you look back at the first image you can see that artwork and elements are really un-hurried on the package. There is room to allow everything to breathe, giving the product a feeling of confidence that you couldn’t have in a smaller form factor. Nestle uses nearly all the space on the front for its logo, making a large distinction from every competitor on the shelf and certainly from private label brands.

Certainly, the back panel also sees the rewards of the larger size, making room for a lifestyle photo that supports the product’s healthy lifestyle posturing. On a package with only the necessary size in mind for 10 packets this certainly would not be available.

What are the effects of these increased capabilities? Overall, the Swiss Miss packaging comes off far more confident than competitors and there is also the feeling that Swiss Miss stands behind their product far more than competitors due to the larger-than-life logo. The confidence comes directly from marketing managers being able to step back from extolling every virtue a product has and cluttering the faces with blips of marketing points. The uncluttered look also supports the notion that you are, in fact, purchasing a far higher quality product than others who rely on myriad marking blasters for convincing.

In a nutshell Swiss Miss is saying, “we are the best product on the market and we want to make sure you to know it” – and that is successful packaging.

Doing Something Different with Packaging Design

Lately, I’ve been rather intrigued by food packaging, perhaps because I have been focused NOT in food packaging for so long. Whatever the case, I have noticed that, for the most part, food packaging design has seemed to have been boiled down to a basic formula. The formula has what is essentially a frame or maybe some banding that contains the trade dress and logo. Below the top band of branding-work is the name of the product. The remainder of the packaging is the standard perfect product preparation shot and finally around that there’s a sprinkling of violators that yell out some sort of benefit.

All in all, it’s a very effective way to make packaging. You hit all the high-points and supposedly answer all of the customer’s questions. The down-side is that everyone is doing this very same thing. In that context, does this plan work all the time?

Here is an excellent example of one brand doing something different in the fry mix segment of your groccer’s shelves. Crispy Frymix by Drake’s

This packaging nearly completely walks away from the standardized format of modern branded packaging. There’s no product shot at all on the front. They opted instead for a very simple colorful line-work image. The obvious downside is that you can’t really say what Drake’s fry mix looks like compared to the others.

This brings me to a theorem that I have been considering for quite some time: I believe that shoppers understand what they are looking for and are reasonably capable of finding the general area where to find items in stores. For instance, understanding that in the bread aisle is where they’re going see bread. Now, that seems pretty simple, right? Almost dumb-simple, but consider how many companies demand that on the most valuable packaging real estate the basic description of the product needs to be seen – and big (BREAD!).

Think about this: if you’re standing in the bread aisle, surrounded by bread that all kind of looks the same, do you really need to announce that it’s bread on the front of the package? The other supporting point is that for the most part, people know generally what products should look like and if they don’t they usually ask for help. Everyone knows what bread is and what it normally looks like, because it’s looked the same for longer than there’s been most countries. It would be different if the bread they were making was purple and had hair  like a porcupine…

Bringing this all back from the lack of bread design diversity in modern shopping centers, the crux of my argument is that on most common, maybe even commodity products, the prepared product image is redundant when you take into account the consumer. We all know what a breaded coating is supposed to look like.

The real goal of packaging from a sales point of view is to get that product in the hands of a buying consumer. I think the best way to do that is to create some sort of emotional connection with the consumer. Obviously, there are many ways to do it and it can be argued that these standardized product shots do just that, but when they are faced with a shelf full of similar offerings as above, it is the Drake’s package that stands out in a sea of all-too similar boxes. People will be drawn to the package that is not like the others, and they will certainly have a far easier time remembering the duck product (especially if it works well) on their following visits than any from a row of formula-designed packages on the shelf.

New Allegorical Iconography in Rug Design.

When people think of Persian rugs, I don’t think it really comes to mind that the shapes included within the weaving is sort of telling a story. The iconography is pretty distinct as well as the choices of color in the design of the rugs – this is an aside from the signature design dialects which vary from region to region in the Middle East and adjoining producer areas.

It’s kind of like the allegory one can find in Renaissance/Romantic painting. What saddens me a bit is that I know that this carefully woven-in information is, by and large, lost on most of the viewers of such things. Perhaps it’s that we’ve moved past this sort of story telling?

Then I happened upon these new rugs from Florian Pucher & Sophia Liu Bo which are woven depictions of aerial-view geographic land features.

The color blocks are described by land usage of farmers or bisected by street patterns. My thought about these visually interesting rugs is that perhaps we’re actually seeing a change in our iconographies, in our visual story telling. It would be nice to think that there were certain weavers who live in the country who’d produce works that would reflect their locality and still others that would make rugs reflective of their cities, but obviously, these come from one source.

I think they’re still rather invigorating iconographically – perhaps these rugs then describe the owners’ interest rather than the maker’s? I suppose back in the days before mass-market carpet manufacture, a Persian rug was created for a specific person. I think I recall that they were created for special events and given to the lucky recipients (don’t quote me on that!), thus commemorating an important time their lives and the significance compounded by a visual representation of the event woven in, like an engraving.

Maybe these rugs could be read something greater than “they look pretty” and more about something about the owner, perhaps the owner is from a rural location where the farming fields are reminiscent or what would be even better is if the process could be automated where someone could send in the local that they would like and it could be made. It would be  mass customization with a bit of meaning rather than just styling. The world needs less styling (or ‘design’ as most say) and much more meaning.

Interactive Design: Where Does 2D Art Go From Here?

I have a degree in Fine Art as well as in Graphic Design. I think quite a bit about both. Lately, I have been thinking more about the former. I really think about what the future of fine art is. For the most part, I think that fine art, and when I say that, I mean the 2D art of painting and the like, met its last high point during the abstract expressionist period. I justify that as that was the point when the theory of art brought us to a pinnacle of thinking and interacting with art in a new way. Past that point, the art world has been fumbling around with what to do next.

There has been plenty of interesting works from that time until now, to be sure, but really, the next step has failed to materialize. I think the community in general kind of feels that way, but keeps it to themselves. The paths taken now are either refinement of techniques or retooling previous ideas. Nothing evolutionarily new has really shown up. I guess the question is what is there left to paint? Perhaps the better question is what if the action of artistic painting has been surpassed by society?

Maybe painting has been made irrelevant? In the times when painting was big, it was basically the television of the day – the works were packed with allegory. People could read them like a drama. This reading modern people have lost, for the most part and paintings have fallen to whether or not they are pretty. Making the work’s reason for existence more about decoration than meaning.

Perhaps some other form will replace 2D art? I am not sure what that is. I think it actually might be a form of graphic design. That’s a pretty funny statement as graphic design has always seemed to be the redheaded stepchild of the art community and certainly looked down upon by the fine art community. The reason I think this is that while fine art has lost its story telling capability, graphic design was specifically designed to do just that. In fact, a lot of the ‘fine art’ of antiquity was actually conceived as a sort of advertising, so it seems only fitting that the art world coast back to it.

To be honest, I think that graphic design, at least in terms of print work doesn’t go far enough as the standard-bearer for the next fine art movement. I think really that ‘media design’ is what will really take us there. Technology will drive us to new perceptions of what fine art will be. It will probably be interactive and time-sensitive and it will be nothing like looking at frescos or going to a specific place to view them. Art will just happen, if we want it to and sometimes even if we don’t. I am not sure how you would ‘own’ the art or how to monetize it but there will be structures in place.

Perhaps we can look to music to understand what sort of changes are in store. Initially, one had to go and seek out music at venues. Travelling had to occur and if you wanted a particular sound. Great geography had to be forded to find something specific or wait in hopes that it might come to you. Then music found the capability of distribution through specific tangible media, like piano rolls and records. Even greater means of dissemination, but still people spent concentration listening to music. Next came portable reproducers where people could have music anywhere at any time. People could hear music as they did other things. Music became an environmental item that was no longer an event of focus and finally with the electronic distribution capabilities it is merely a commodity, like a print on the wall, that brings the scene together. To make music matter, again people go to live performances.

How does this relate to fine art? I think that fine art is at that stage where it is a commodity rather than an item of focus and it is waiting for the performance aspect to make it relevant again. I guess it must become an interactive event.

Trust Your Designer’s Brand Packaging Color Selection

I was reading through an article on Inc. Magazine’s site about how to choose the right color for your brand earlier in the week. Although it’s really one of those flowery, 100,000 ft overview articles that sometimes wash ashore at the magazine, I found that one particular quote struck a nerve with me:

“Color has been one of those things that’s been left up to the designer to select something. The CEOs or management say ‘oh I can’t do that, I’m not artistic.’ But my argument is that it’s not about being artistic – it’s not any different from making any other strategic decision for your business.”

I guess I can take this with a grain of salt, after all, it was written by a ‘color consultant’, who’s probably angling to justify her job, but this is untrue. The selection of your brand’s color should be precisely placed in the hands of your designer. Not trusting your designers abilities with color is akin to taking the structural design of an automobile out of an engineer’s hands and giving it to a marketing manager. Your designer has gone to college for just these sorts of things and if your designer is of good quality, they know, without a doubt, that the selection of color has absolutely nothing to do with artistry. A design degree revolves around the cultivation of decision-making when it comes to color.

I’ll give a case in point here about the decision-making that went into concept-work for a client. We were contracted to create new packaging for a glove manufacturer. They make work gloves and those high-tech mechanics gloves. There’s a lot of competition for the market, so you have to do things to get noticed and this is where color plays a giant part.  As the article mentions, and I had mentioned a while back, color is the first thing that people see.

Bringing this to the work glove market, the dominant colors are yellow (because people think ‘safety’), red ( because it’s masculine), blue and of course, the leader by far, black. In fact, when you look at the other offerings all you see is a sea of black. The packaging is predominantly black and the gloves are black as well. All black.

We wanted to stand above the competition, just like the quality of the gloves does. We can achieve a bit of this through conscientious design, but most importantly, through color. Our thinking on the matter lead us away from black in any combination. If you want to be noticed you have to stand apart.

The easy color schemes of black & yellow , black & red, black & silver/gold and black & blue are well overused in the segment ( and in most ‘masculine’ areas). The color palette had to be different from the other offerings, yet still retain the feelings of toughness that the client wanted re-enforced. Our answer was to go to browns – the color of earth and hard jobs. It was a color heretofore not used in the segment and at the right hue, it certainly broke free from the competition.

To give further emphasis, we placed a bold stripe of white across the card. This helped do several things. Firstly, it’s a beacon to the brand in the sea of black, drawing in attention. The white makes an excellent field for placing important text and finally, the stripe is placed in a manner that helps define the glove from the background.

Speaking of the background, structurally, we designed a different card than the rest. Our card was larger – larger than the gloves themselves. Through a bit of research we found that we had a lot more room to put a bit more structure in than our clients had anticipated. This created a frame about the gloves where, due to the proper selection of the hue of brown, this frame not only separated the glove from the surrounding products, it also served to define the glove by disallowing it to recede in a predominantly black scene.

Was any of these decisions based on artistry? No. They were based on observation of the situation and critical ‘Design Thinking’ ( I think I might be loathing that term) that allowed for differentiation to occur in a highly competitive market.

Do I like brown? As a designer, I don’t ‘like’ colors. Colors are tools in my vocation’s toolbox, as most designers think of them – like engineers have rivets or springs. Who should you trust with your most important asset? A person in marketing or business who, if they’re lucky, had a class in PowerPoint, or a designer who wields color every day with the deft touch of a skilled craftsman?

Imitation, Flattery and Packaging Design

I had this happen before, but admittedly, it has been a while. A friend had turned me onto a deal on a chainsaw at a store that shall go nameless. It was electric and since I wasn’t going to use it start a lumberjacking side job, that was cool. I drove around with it in my back seat for a week making sure I remembered to deliver it to my parents. When the day came, I pulled it out and finally had a look at the packaging. It was then that I realized that whomever made this box used a lot of my perspiration as their inspiration.

What am I talking about? Well a few years ago I got to redesign the packaging for ECHO outdoor power tools. We did some really killer work on it – for tool packaging which you’d really think would be pretty killer in general but not so much. Anyways, the trade dress actually won an award.

The cool stuff about it was that due to the weight and size of the sorts of tools in the box, you couldn’t really create solid enough structure to hold them and have a window. We decided to show elevations of the tools at full size on every panel so that when a customer looks at the box they get a feel for how big the product is.

Another thing we did was to have the backgrounds on which the tool elevations sit change with the tool category. Hence, leaf blowers would have a leaves behind them. Grass Trimmers had lawns and chainsaws had logs.

The top panel contained the product feature walk-arounds. The features were aligned to one white line that went the length of the box and on the other side of the features arrow lines extended at angles to the feature in question. The reason for the walk-around on the top was due to the manner in which these products were faced and stored on the shelves, you couldn’t guarantee which side faced out but could guarantee that it wouldn’t be the top. This makes more sense when you get into the larger and more awkward sizes.

Bringing this back to the new chainsaw, what did I see? Well for starters, it has a similar die line shape as the ones we did for ECHO. admittedly, we didn’t do the die work on this one, I believe International Paper did, but the configuration is darn close, except made out of corrugate. The reasons for this is that it allowed for far more fully-assembled chainsaws per area, because you could nest them, rather than having lots of boxes with empty space. The corrugate still reaps these rewards, although not to the degree the ECHO ones do.

That lead me to the next bit… there are product elevation images on every size and full size. I will point out that there are zero other power tool manufacturers who do this but ECHO. There is even a product feature walk-around (granted, on the side panel) laid out nearly identical to ours, including the alignment line and the angled arrow lines! There are even pictures of logs that look curiously similar to our logs (Perhaps that’s what you get when you use stock art)!

Obviously, there are a lot of dissimilarities as well, like the color and the remainder of the layouts…

Now, I don’t think that ECHO has anything to fear, in terms of market share but it is interesting, perhaps even fun to see someone else reiterate your thoughts so closely!

Value-Add Packaging

Packaging really performs three functions: to protect the product, to prevent theft, and to sell the product. Usually, after a product is purchased, the packaging is discarded. This poses a lot of questions about waste and to some managers, it also poses questions about utility. The optimum solution would be to get rid of packaging altogether but in our world of transoceanic shipping and giant stores with understaffed stewards, this obviously can’t be done. Another intriguing solution is to have the packaging provide some sort of second function, so the package can have a longer, more useful lifespan rather than a quick trip to the bin. Solutions like this have been popping up and I have been trying to take note of them. I have two here, below.

These examples are sourced from big box stores in the area (and are going on my bed, soon!). They both probably have the same amount of shrinkage-protection and occupy nearly the same foot print. Leaving aside the sell-ability of the items, lets talk about the structure: The principle thing these packages do is provide a way in which people can tactilely investigate the product, while not having to compromise the enclosure. The plastic one does it through a zipper, while the fabric one does it far better – not only allowing people to touch the fabric inside, but to even sidestep the opening of the package by making the package of the same material as the product. Consumers see what the item is like and in a large-enough swatch, without peering through plastic to do it. Well done!

There was a third way of packaging sheets, and that was just shrink wrapping them and leaving enough un-labeled area so you could see the product through the plastic. People really want to see what these things are like, and they should – they spend eight or more hours a day with them. Breaking the package is the only answer, or returning them after purchase. Either way, the enclosure is compromised as well as the resell-ability.

Bringing this back to the thoughts of curtailing the immediate obsolescence of product packaging, when you buy either of these products and use them, you are left with two reusable containers for other purposes (let’s face it, there is no-one on earth who can put the sheet genie back in the packaging bottle!). I posit this: the fabric container would be reused far more than the plastic container,  even though it comes with an easier re-closure method: the zipper. Why? because the plastic, although a higher quality than other bags, is still considered a throw-away item, whereas the fabric has a connection that makes people believe that it has an intrinsic worth greater than the garbage can.

I think there is a lot to take away from the fabric container version, for life-cycle concerns for sure, but even more importantly for the interactivity of the enclosure. Tactilely, there is probably a definite preference in store, for sure. That’s an invaluable connection with the consumer, if you can make it. It’s a great sales tool and answers questions in a way that preserves your enclosure.

Redesigning my Graphic Design Portfolio Site and Why

I recently finished up redesigning my personal Graphic Design-oriented website. It was well past time and I figured the previous one had over-stayed its welcome. A new look was needed.

So, what was I thinking about with the new site? There was a number of things, really. Initially, I was thinking of making it hip and cool, perhaps even info-graphic-like – something barely legible and perhaps even a bit alien-like. Then I realized that in order to really do it right, I’d have to build it all 3-D with a lot of functionality on top of it all. That really wasn’t me.

My other thought was that after perusing other’s portfolio sites, it seemed that (most times) the more intricate and interactive they got, the more usability had suffered, as well as splashing them with Flash seemed to just make it worse.

Then, there was how to really put in some of my personality into the mix. As Graphic Designers go, type tends to be a pretty big thing. It says a lot about you – to other people in the industry and if those other people don’t pick up on that, you probably don’t want to hang with them.

What to do? I figured the best thing to do is go simple. The important thing is to get the information across as quickly as possible. My audience is the not the dawdling sort. Straight HTML with easy small image maps were the way to go, so things load fast.

To add in a bit of a personal touch, I used my own handwriting instead of typesetting.  While it might be a bit more difficult to read (and show that I might be an axe murderer by my handwriting skill), I think it gives a more honest feel. I think it also goes to a chalk-talk, white board allusion, after all, I am billing myself as a more conceptual thinker 😉 and removes the paralysis by analysis of choosing a typeface.

All the important stuff is in there, like my downloadable portfolios, a few work samples and some general thoughts about how I work… that’s about the bulk of a portfolio site.

What do you think?