> Take them in order: the article on China explains the joint report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, presenting an exposition of the Powers' stand in the Chinese muddle. What it says is less important than what it is. It was "made public by the State Department to-day" with the purpose of presenting to the American public a picture of the State Department's position. Its source gives it authority, and the American public tends to accept and support the State Department view.
> The report of Dr. Pritchett, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, is an attempt to find the facts about this Jewish colony in the midst of a restless Arab world. When Dr. Pritchett's survey convinced him that in the long run Zionism would "bring more bitterness and more unhappiness both for the Jew and for the Arab," this point of view was broadcast with all the authority of the Carnegie Foundation, so that the public would hear and believe. The statement by the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, and Secretary Hoover's report, are similar attempts to influence the public toward an opinion.
> These examples are not given to create the impression that there is anything sinister about propaganda. They are set down rather to illustrate how conscious direction is given to events, and how the men behind these events influence public opinion.
----
That's interesting, but I think there's another layer happening (admittedly outside the scope of this article). The very skill of design is becoming democratized, and that's bringing the era of the design studio to an end, while people who wouldn't otherwise call themselves "designers" are learning design, and applying those skills in their day-to-day jobs.
The design industry used to survive through the complexities of the craft. Pasting up layouts and setting type took more resources, training, and investment than most companies could reasonably take on themselves.
Now, the tools are so widely available, everyone is a "designer." If I say "Helvetica" or "Times New Roman," most people will have images pop into their heads of what those typefaces look like. That wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago.
People who wouldn't otherwise call themselves "designers" are already learning design, and they're using those skills across all levels of all professions to create presentations, websites, etc..
Of course, there's much more to design than just being able to use the tools. There are visual communications components such as typography, colors, and shapes.
Many people think of design as something that someone is "just wired for," but it's a skill that can be learned, is being learned, and will increasingly be learned by more people – just so they can do their jobs better.
Source: I used to win fancy-pants design awards, but quit that to write a book called "Design for Hackers" (http://designforhackers.com ). I teach non-"designers" about design. I have doctors, scientists, business consultants, software developers – even a chef – taking my courses.
This production work is coming to an end, the value of a design agency in their years of experience working in the field in practises too many mention here is not being given the shoulder in favour of inexperienced word processors, unless it's Ralph from accounting making a so-so boilerplate christmas card for a law firm. When you want to reposition your firm as a leader in immigration rights cases and communicate that effectively, who you gonna call?
Classically trained designers and alums from design masters courses offer a skill set outside of basic production. Take a look the design maturity scale [0] to see what I'm taking about. Valued designers have moved on to (like the OP article mentioned) applying design principles and design viewpoints to affect structural, organisational, long-term change across a wide number of industries and social endeavours. Choosing a nice grotesque for your h1 is not on the same level as designing a conceptual poster to rouse the heartfelt concern for audiences you're trying to make take action on a social issue.
I'm sorry David, but for you to come here and ply you're wares of "Top 20 Typefaces To Use" and herald it as the downfall of the independent design industry is shortsighted, ignorant and quiet frankly insulting. You're marketing here, so by all means work away – but I'll not have that spiel stand un-countered, where design skills are the equivalent to a new swish suit some wall-street head is showing off to his friends, pointing out the finer details of his cuffs. Jesus wept. /rant
[0] http://www.sjef.nu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/design_maturit...
One thing the author neglected to mention:
UX is becoming a function and domain of IT.
That's why you're seeing IBM hire UX people in drove, because IBM wants to make UX bigger part of its IT services offering.
And it makes sense. Whether you like it or not, IT can make or break success of UX.
I manage a small ux team in a fortune 50 and I've come to conclusion that it's basically impossible to instill design centric thinking to business and product owners on consistent basis, which is something that agencies have tried to do in the past.
But with the right IT people, I've had great success in building the best products.
my 2 cents.
Design thinking was the big one years ago in trying to get alternative, yet profitable viewpoints in the boardroom. UX has done much better with this as it's much closer tied to the business lingo with things like conversion rate, A/B, etc.
1) the nuances around how the various employees of the design firm benefit when it is bought/merged.
2) the nuances of the people at the bigco leading the buying activity. Who are they, what are their motives and rewards? Are they former designers who know the value of design and its processes? Are they executives who have reached a level where the next career development item is "buy another company"?
Just like other mergers : will be interesting to see if the pendulum swings back in a couple years to see if new design firms are created ...and the cycle starts anew
