









I enjoy using Fireworks as it very efficiently produces JPEGs and GIFs I can use for web design. If I really want to it can also produce HTML ready websites but I'm guessing that the code it produces is worse than that of Dreamweaver! But Fireworks is a good program to use as it enables me to quickly see how a website might look and preview its functions in a browser.






This report published by the Design Council recently, picks up on a thread I was writing about earlier: that marketing and design are inextricably linked through business performance.
In fact this report goes further to say that the more investment in design (actually those that "use designers") that the company makes into its product or service, the better return it will have. Yup. What designers have always known: design helps sell products, it's not about tarting it up. In fact it amazes me the amount of times I'm asked to tart up something from a purely aesthetic point of view.
What this report doesn't address (can it ever?) is whether the design has to be necessarily good or bad! Obviously the design needs to address to the core client audience, otherwise nobody will be engaged. But I've worked for clients who are Venture Capital funded and these guys are tight! Ducks don't come anywhere near it. And they're not extremely wealthy for no reason! I'm sure being canny with their money on a small as well as large scale is one way of getting rich. Frequently, though, Venture Capitalists want as much as they can get out of you for as little money as possible. But this is not my gripe: this is the way of the modern economy, n'est ce pas. My gripe is with those VCs who see design as a non-integrated part of the business and marketing process. They plug designers into the "selling" process as and when they need them. I argue that placing a manager of design (or design marketing, marketing design, I'm not fussed) with a full emphasis on the design as well as marketing would be a much more powerful proposition and give them a better return on their investment! As proved by the Design Council report above. Design should be a continuous process managed along the way : constantly looking a the product or service and thinking about how to better serve the client or customer. This is design. Thinking is design. It's an integrated thinking, marketing, design, finance approach. (I used to think it was about drawing pretty pictures. )
Still. There'll always be the client who knocks you hard on price saying: "But a colleague of mine got his website designed for £50 and a bag of Tudor crisps". Well my friend I can say but one thing. Adios.
Mostly this is seen on PowerPoint presentations where business people have pinched a logo from a website and crammed it onto a heavily laden slide (the contents of which can't be digested anyway) and omitted to give the logo some breathing space. OK- not so critical, but check out this on the new Grand Arcade building in Cambridge:
The following is guidance only! I'm not a lawyer so if in doubt contact one!
I was asked whether there were any rules on how to apply the TM sign on logos and icons to protect them. I have done this some time ago for companies but needed to refresh my memory so here is what I've found out: You can apply the TM sign on any of your trademarks at any time to claim rights in it. The C-Circle can be applied only once the mark has been registered. (Ref 1) (Ref 2)
If you are concerned about this ruining the layout of your brochure as you have to dot the TM symbol throughout then fear not fellow creative as you can add it to the first mention in the text or the most prominent usage of it. (Ref 3) "When in doubt, err on the side of “over-marking.” "
And what about your beautiful logo that you've designed? Will it be ruined? Well all I could find is this mention:
"Remember that apart from marking, a trademark should also be properly used (e.g., used as an adjective and distinguished from surrounding text by capitalization, distinct typeface, color and/or size)." (Ref 4)
And...
"These symbols are often put in superscript (smaller, raised) form." (Ref 5)