Book Cover Illustrations

I keep seeing this suggestion that with technology, all change is good, that new is always better.

Perhaps slow-to-adopt-new-technology folks simply have a sense of history. They’ve perhaps read about (or experienced) changes that were technological dead ends: Eight tracks, Betamax, the latest Hi-Def standards… These new technologies arrive with glowing promises that often fail to materialize.

So the question: Why waste time and money being an early adopter. Why gamble on something that will likely die of glitch fever and perhaps will even go out with the trash a month from now? Why play the part of beta tester without pay?

Could it be that perhaps those resistant to change have learned an important lesson.

Likewise, I would suggest that many of today’s designers are great at eye candy, but not so good at human engineering. When I compare the controls on much modern technology (my current TV DVD recorder is a prime example), I find the controls are poorly laid out with gray on gray text that defies reading in dim light. The remote is streamlined so it appears it might easily travel at 350 MPH, yet doesn’t fit my hand (at least until I grow another digit from my wrist — perhaps this is what is meant by the digital age?).

This has not always been the case. I used to easily set the clock and timer on my recorder. Now I have to dig into menus and double click this and be sure to give a second command or it will sit forever waiting to record the show. Is this change for the better?

Back in the 1960s, the US government as well as various large industries did a lot of research as to what makes design USABLE. (“Human engineering” — is it even mentioned in design schools, I wonder). The research dictated where the on switch should be for ease of use, what colors made letters easy to read on control panels…. that sort of stuff. Not always pretty, but very user friendly and easy to pick up and use without consulting an owner’s manual.

Today, it’s painfully obvious that that the notion of human engineering has been lost or is blatantly ignored. (I am reminded of the young junkie of “Breaking Bad” who called barns “cow houses”).

Do we have a generation of barbarians painfully ignorant of what constitutes good design, all the while scoffing at old timers who seem so quaint in their notions?

Does such technology really deserve our blind acceptance (whether we are young or old)?

Might it be that those who fail to embrace change do so because they know things should be easy to learn and intuitive instead of requiring the proper incantations before the “on” light appears?

And might designers be forced to make technology more usable if we didn’t rush out like lemmings to buy the newest and latest?

One of the art program I use for my illustration work is not mainstream, nor new. It’s version 8 of a program whose newest version is at X5 (with that anti-intellectual mixing of Roman and Arabic numerals to avoid the superstitious edition 13 — is fear of the number 13 a sign of progress or reversion toward cultural illiteracy?).

The old version of this program does everything I need to do to produce my artwork. Why should I buy new software that has some extra bells and whistles — and which wants me to empty my (virtual PayPal) pocketbook to help a company’s bottom line? Why learn new commands and layout to do what I now do without thinking? I resist this change not because I’m “anti-digital” but because change doesn’t pay any dividends.

Resistance to change is not necessarily a sign of lack of technology savvy or clinging to worthless ideas.

Some may resist because they have the good sense to save time and money by not investing in slick and shiny with no real dividend in capabilities. New is not always better.

=========================
Duncan Long is a freelance illustrator but not an early adopter of technology. He has created book cover artwork for HarperCollins, PS Publishing, Pocket Books, Solomon Press, Ballistic Publishing, and many other presses and self-publishing authors. See more of his work including book cover artwork at: DuncanLong.com
==========================