In examining the DST “Storyshowing” blog I made a few key observations that were really interesting to me.
· When I looked at Joe’s initial designs I could really relate to how literal they were. They all made use of the course title and they had very literal interpretations of the words “digital” and “storytelling”. Generally speaking, the initial concepts are not the best, but I enjoyed seeing how elements of the initial designs evolved and informed the final design.
· As someone who has received a lot of bad feedback in the past, I really appreciated reading the feedback from the initial designs in part 4. I think a lot of people assume that constructive criticism means specific tips or ideas, but what I really enjoy about this feedback is how conceptual it is. There are a lot of evocative action terms like “upward momentum” and “pixel blur”. Terms like this get the designer thinking without forcing a specific concept on the designer.
· Part 5 is where the biggest conceptual leap happens. The decision to not rely on using the full course title really frees up the designs and pushes them in the right direction. Here there is a return to thinking about the specific audience (students) that are going see the design, and how it could be incorporated into the lesson plan. Thinking about the specific audience really gives the concept some purpose beyond the simple visual translation of “digital storytelling”.
Reading about this process reminded me of how many ideas usually need to be explored before finding that “eureka!” moment. I drew a lot of Fugu fish for this design, but the "pokemon" style really captured the silly disposable concept of Pop Punk and resonated with the band members.