Drawn.ca has posted 2 interesting sources of atypical imagery which, I realized, can be great design inspiration:
First, Dogfoose uses close-up images of produce in his illustrations. The sample below uses broccoli as treetops for a kids magazine illustration:
What an amusing way to channel the miniature look (achieved through tilt-shift photography) for infographics purposes! Is this is a subliminal technique to get children to eat their veggies? Or just a quirky case of nonsequitur?
It doesn’t matter if these questions get answered or not; what matters it that these questions were asked because of the design.
Next, we have Dark Roasted Blend’s otherworldly microscopic images. This one’s from the Olympus BioScapes competition, a photo of Drosophila larva eye neurons:
We’ve gotten so comfortable with tiled textures, but why not take an asymmetrical, unpredictable image as a cornerstone for your design concept?
Why not make trends like photographic backgrounds your own and experiment in unchartered waters? These unusual sources should be a good starting point.
I’ve noticed this trend to screenshot tweets instead of copy-pasting their texts in blockquotes for some time now. On web design and technology blogs, no less. You’d think these sites who constantly write articles about HTML, CSS, web standards, usability, semantics would actually listen to their own advice.
What do people get out of doing it, though? Is Twitter really that much of a game-changer that you can now break the conventions of quoting people in articles on websites? Is it really that big of a deal to debate on how you should add tweets to articles—which is so obviously linkbait?
Are tweet pages designed so much prettier than your default blockquote designs that you feel compelled to use them instead (that’s definitely an “unsuccessful designer trend” isn’t it)? Though, consider the construction: large text, a clear indication of who said the tweet, and a fuzzy timestamp. Maybe that’s what blockquotes should aspire to be?
Are tweets such special data forms that you need specialized plugins and scripts like WP Quote, Twickie, QuoteURL to display them? Or do those exist to up one’s geek cred and feed the third-party Twitter apps machine?
Still, those aren’t as bad as web apps like tweetshots. Want to share a tweet on Tumblr? Use the Quote post type. WordPress is getting custom post types in its next major release too. But publishing platform or no publishing platform, that’s what the HTML tag <blockquote> is for.
Let me channel Steve Ballmer and say: Blockquotes, blockquotes, blockquotes, blockquotes, blockquotes. They’re not that hard to use, certainly not more than taking a screenshot and uploading it.
I understand why on some occasions using images instead of text and other data formats is preferred. They’re usually more portable when passed around in email, forums, social networks, and other communication platforms. More people know how to deal with images than URLs too. But for the purpose of quoting tweeple on websites, I see no excuse for displaying text as images.
I’ll spell it out for you in <strong> and <em>: display text as text, not as images, damn it!
Sure, screencapping tweets may not be as grave a sin as using tables for layouts, but back when that was the dominant method of creating websites, it was a pragmatic choice to make do with the technology available. The choice to use images for text is illogical today. It is confusing behavior that is inexplicably linked to Twitter’s success.
Update (June 14, 2008): Victor says his project, vi.sualize.us, has been around longer than the sites I’ve mentioned here. So, again, this is another image bookmarking site worth checking out.
I smell a web trend. In the last few weeks I’ve discovered two new image bookmarking sites in addition to the insanely famous but still exclusive FFFFOUND!—We heart it and typeish.
To those who are asking “but why?”, normal bookmarking services aren’t visual in nature. Whether it’s social bookmarking like del.icio.us, or social voting like Digg, or serendipitous discovery like StumbleUpon, users decide if a website is worth visiting by looking at its name, description, tags, and popularity.
Granted, those sites are getting smarter by taking snapshots of what the sites look like, or by isolating thumbnails for if it’s an image or video being bookmarked. But it’s nice to have a dedicated tool that satiates your hunger for all things eye candy. The question is, are these image bookmarking sites effective?
more
*/
