Read on Twitter
“Our party isn’t even online, not in a real way that exhibits competence. And so, yeah, they were vulnerable to these messages, because they weren’t even on the mediums where these messages were most potent.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/aoc-biden-progressives.html?fbclid=IwAR14Ql-cIakvEar1DhZfb1VPkENg6EN3zo0tXjr-qFEZPFWOt1Zxf5lZfTk
Meanwhile from @AustralianLabor @AlboMP -
(In visual design terms alone this visual is in a failed state. It’s a mimic of a successful design pattern deployed both incorrectly and badly, probably because the designer didn’t understand the principles, and it chills my bones.)
(In visual design terms alone this visual is in a failed state. It’s a mimic of a successful design pattern deployed both incorrectly and badly, probably because the designer didn’t understand the principles, and it chills my bones.)
To unpack - I have consistently found that artefacts are the clearest window into culture & process. Want to know how design is valued in an organisation? The answer is the number of walls available for design work. It’s never failed.
So if the comms artefact uses a pattern badly, fails on legibility, doesn’t understand the baseline, uses opacity incorrectly, and uses emphasis on multiple words that don’t benefit from emphasising, and no-one stopped that happening, the org has no design competence.
...and, I suspect, only a mimic-based (if that) understanding of how people communicate online.
Labor can and should win the next federal election but if the comms are keeping people out? And no-one realises because the artefacts look a bit like that other thing that looks cool?
Labor can and should win the next federal election but if the comms are keeping people out? And no-one realises because the artefacts look a bit like that other thing that looks cool?
Please continue your joyscrolling, I’m done, ta very much 
