This deck is clear in its specific title- I know what the visual phenomena are, and the captions on the photos are very clear. Since the iconography associated with handicapped (such as the blue figure in a wheelchair) and the yellow lines to denote different parking spots are so universally well known, the visual phenomena through each photo is easy to spot and identify. The use of the grid to layout the deck was well employed, though not entirely consistent, and while I appreciate the creativity of using the asphalt pattern as a background to the photos, the lack of contrast in the color leads to an indistinct hierarchy. The photos blend with the background and the eye moves across them without any direction or focus. I am interested to see further work on this topic, since it raises the question for me- what is the importance of parking lots in the larger context of parking and accessibility in the Lower East Side?
Another great set of comments here, Rosa. All agreed.
The gravel background gives this deck style, but is not necessary to convey the narrative. The sign on the first deck indicating location, on the other hand, is an effective visual tool for providing context. The bright colors of the sign held against the gray and otherwise drab photographs creates emphasis and serves the hierarchy of this slide. As the eye moves from the title to the photographs, the sign acts as an informative and interesting segue. The slides are well-balanced, and the changes in layout avoids repetition and keeps the viewer curious.
Overall, I think Ben did a really great job of conveying the different types of Handicap Parking and Disability Access in Census tract 10.02. There are a few small adjustments here though, that would make it more successful in my opinion.
I agree with Rosa and Jordan that the gravel/paved-surface background is not necessary here, and distracting for the reasons that Rosa pointed out. I am guessing that Ben was trying to echo the colors/texture of handicap parking spaces, which I am inferring from the the light blue text of the title over the paved background. If this is the case, I have to say that I really like that idea but I think it could be executed better. Perhaps a similar background could be used as a box behind the title text (instead of behind the entire slide) to better establish this (the paved surface texture should be at the scale that is represented in the photos rather than zoomed-in as it is now). I actually think that this deck would benefit from some white space, since the photos have so much gray in them.
I like that the title slide has an example of the ramp, parking spaces, and the disabled people. I would take out the Baruch Houses image, because it leads me to believe that all of the examples are on that property. Whether this is the case or not, is not important to the narrative. Three images on the title page could help establish both the rule of three and a grid organization.
The captions threw me off a bit here; they are on some photos but not others, and they do not relate to each other. I thought that the caption “1 handicapped parking space out of 45 total spaces in lot” was great, and it made me wish that all of the captions were in this ratio, rather than on slide 1 when it says “2 handicapped parking spaces in 1 lot.”
On slide three, I wish that the ramp to get to East River Park was presented more clearly. It took me a minute to relate this photo to the narrative. I think this problem could be easily fixed with a little zoom-crop action. I am struggling to connect the photo in the bottom right corner of slide 2 to the narrative. I would suggest omitting this.
Also agreed with everything Chelsea says here. Take note, Ben!
The images for the his phenomenon not only provides clarity to the narrative, but it also gives context. The first slide has an image of the Baruch Houses, along with images of disadvantaged people with and handicapped parking. You can tell what phenomenon Ben wants to address without the title. Looking through his presentation, there weren’t many images for disability access. A question that raises is: Are there just not a lot of disability access in this census tract? Also do the different image sizes mean one image is more important than the other? Another compelling way this presentation could have been structured is maybe adding more organization. The first slide could have showed handicapped parking and the next slide could have been images of disability access.
Great observation about the lack of representation on disability access, Casey. Ben, I see a ramp in your second photo on Slide 1 (which also has a parking space in it), and your photo of entrance to the park suggests something vaguely to me about a lack of ramps, but either you need to provide me more explicit annotation here to help me understand your point, or you should change your title. If your point is that, aside from handicapped spaces, there is little disability access, you should make that point explicitly. Think about what the point is that is illustrated by each slide. How do your images work to communicate that point? Does the hierarchy of the slide’s composition support that point? How clear is it?
Good work here, Ben. Some more work is needed to make your points clearer, using both visual hierarchy and more explicit annotations/captions/headlines.
In addition to all the great feedback provided above by your classmates, I have some other, largely stylistic notes:
+ Make sure to keep your margins and gutters consistent. They stay consistent from Slide 1 to 2, but then they change on Slide 3.
+ Make sure to use the correct page dimensions, as we reviewed together.
+ Use a consistent grid. Your column breaks on Slides 1 and 2 are close enough to each other, for example, that there is no reason for them not to be exactly the same.
+ Your captions are legible to me at my computer, but they might be too small here for a projected image. Better to upsize them.
+ On Slide 2, I see that you were thoughtful about caption legibility and overlaid a caption over the yellow line in your photo. This is good sensitivity, but there might be a cleaner way to standardize this legibility (so that, for instance, the caption on Slide 1, which is borderline, could get an additional boost, too). Try laying a standard-width white box under each caption and changing its Transparency to somewhere between 10 and 50% Transparency is adjustable in InDesign on the Effects panel.
+ Your sketch indicates that you considered the value of a map here. Why not include it? When you’re talking about disabled access, routes and amenities seem all the more important to providing context.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.