Talk:Visual design

Graphic design is not exclusive to print media. A simple google search yields thousands of articles referring to graphic design in electronic media. . Oicumayberight (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

-- I believe we should feed the Wiki with bibligraphy and not with queries on google. The concept presented on graphic design (graphic = graphic industry, printing, graphic arts) is fact. The term "graphic" does not include for example the design in the production of videos, which does not use graphics. Is obvious that the "visual" term is more comprehensive than the "graphic" term. However, my friend, stay with the concept that you believe - or what the fashion calls. I prefer to follow renowned writers.

--

WAD (William Addison Dwiggins) is credited with coining the term graphic designer in 1922 [1][2] to describe his various activities in printed communications, like book design, illustration, typography, lettering and calligraphy (his first typeface designs were released much later).

[1] Livingston, Alan and Isabella., 'Dictionary of graphic design and designers'. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992 [2] MEGGS, Philip B. A history of graphic design. Michigan, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992 - Pg.xiii Preface

--

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.100.126 (talk • contribs)


 * This whole article is built on a statement of exclusivity as implied by the text. The statement "not limited to support a particular media involved, as do the terms graphic design (print media)" implies that graphic design is limited to print. This is the flawed assumption of exclusivity of one wikipedia editor based on that reference. Proving exclusivity is not a matter of finding one case where something (such as electronic media) is excluded from a definition. It's a matter of nobody ever finding a case where it's included in a definition. The google search proves that the term applies to more than print now and is much more recent then a reference written 87 years ago, long before electronic media was accessible to the average person. If google is not good enough for you, here's an overwhelming list of books in print that use the phrase "graphic design" in application of electronic media   . Even the title of books such as "The Digital Designer: 101 Graphic Design Projects for Print, the Web, Multimedia, and Motion Graphics" by Stephen Pite disprove the assumption that the term is used exclusively for print.


 * Facts: There's nothing in the reference that suggest that graphic design is limited to print. The text is describing a profession "graphic designer." The skill graphic design can be applied to any medium, including electronic media. The skill includes illustration and typography which can be applied to any medium. The reference does not say anything close to the statement that uses it as a reference. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

--

" "Graphic Design" versus "Visual Communication Design"

It is necessary to recognize that the term "graphic design" has contributed to the obscure profile of the profession. Although better than "graphic artist" and better than "artist", the term still places too much emphasis on the graphic, physical element and omits more essential aspects of the profession - the main aim of which is not the creation of graphic forms but the creation of effective communications. Although the most widely accepted term is indeed "graphic designer," it is more descriptive and appropriate to say say "visual communication designer," because this definition includes three essential elements of the profession: a method (design); an objective (communication); and a medium (vision). "

from the book > Communication design: principles, methods, and practice By Jorge Frascara

link: http://books.google.com/books?id=b40C60hN0KcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=graphic%20design&f=false

--

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.9.31 (talk • contribs)

Jorge Frascara may be of the opinion that "visual communication designer" is more appropriate to say, but Jorge Frascara does not say that graphic design is exclusive to print. That is what is being dubiously explained by this article. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this article is not titled "visual communication design", but instead visual design. There is already an article for communication design which is commonly understood to mean more than graphics. If you want to put emphasis on something broader than graphic design, then rename it to "visual communication design" or redirect it to the broader communication design article. Get rid of the "limited to support a particular media" phrase because that is absolutely false and not supported by any of the references. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)