week 5


While the constraints in this assignment were absolutely maddening, I did appreciate the challenge of conveying hierarchy with the bare minimum — using each tool individually before moving onto their combinations. 

Task 1: Leading felt to me like the most useful tool in individual terms — being able to chunk the information together really helps clarify the logic for me. I tried to spread out the information as much as possible vertically to add more whitespace and give the eye a breather. 

Task 2: With indentation, my instinct would be to mix alignments (having some information be right-aligned, for example). But since we had to keep a left alignment, I tried to limit the levels of indentations as much as possible. To me, having too many indents causes the eye to dart back and forth too much, confusing and straining the reader. So I kept one level for the program, and another (with double the spacing, to give some more breathing room) for the details.

Task 3: Without any ability to distance information (vertically or horizontally), I felt I needed to use bolding not just to highlight the most important information (titles), but also to help create boundaries. So I bolded the times to help differentiate between presentations — for example, seeing “Tristan Schultz” in one line and “02:00pm” right under it with the same style, my instinct was to group them together. I bolded the first sentence in the footer (“Registration is free”) for the same reason: to denote that the schedule section was over. 

Task 4: This seemed like the hardest challenge to me. Using color sparingly to denote importance while also trying to differentiate information by its category — without any help from other variables — was really tough. I tried a lot of different variations, but wasn’t really happy with any of them. I think this highlights how we shouldn’t use color alone to denote meaning. 

Task 5: Such a relief to both be able to use size and to combine it with something else. Out of the two-variable combos, I think this is the most useful one — size is the easiest way to quickly denote importance (to guide users’ attention), while space (through leading) is the easiest way to group elements together (to clarify details). 

Task 6: Similar to the first indentation task, I kept this at two levels — but now, being able to use leading, I could distance the schedule from the title and footer while keeping the original left alignment as intact as possible. 

Task 7: Being able to space things out fully solved the challenges I had with the first bolding task. I could now keep the times and footer unbolded, since there wouldn’t be as much confusion about where each group begins and ends.

Task 8: This one highlights the importance of spacing to me. With three variables but no way to distance them, it seems too busy even though I was very deliberate with what I did. I bolded the headers and titles first, then colored the titles only; then I felt like the details for each presentation/panel should connect to its title, so I bolded the times and colored the participants. I think the logic of it is sound enough, but the end result is a little disappointing given the amount of variables.

Tasks 9 & 10: Now we’re talking! With both of these, I tried to create contrast in size as much as possible to make a more visually captivating flyer. I didn’t really miss the indenting in Task 9 — I feel like I was able to do everything I really needed. But, given the opportunity to indent the subheading, I tucked it under the title and saved up some vertical space, which allowed me to make the title a lot bigger — I think it made this version more dynamic.