Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[StageFrenzy]

I wanted to add something else that is going to throw what we think of design, work and craftsmanship into another realm entirely....3D printing.

When soon everyone can print any shape imaginable, its going to be very interesting to see what, if any kind of style trends emerge from that and who, if anyone becomes famous 3D artists in that medium.

I was watching a feature on 3d printing, some of the mistakes are cooler than the generic statue they were trying to produce.

 

[Omnispace]

It's better. It does not require 5 clicks to find out how to navigate somewhere.
It's interesting to note that the EPCOT iOS7 "icons" are so vague that you need additional "flat buttons" below in text to explain what they are. Very 2013 Apple for sure.

You have to find the right control panel to make those extra buttons appear -- then you are one click away from where you want to go!!

Seriously, styles and tastes come and go. As much as I love the idea of the icons relating everything together, I'll admit that the original Epcot signage was a bit too simplified -- but things definitely moved too far in the other direction in the 1990's. In order to give the park a character they perceived it was lacking, Disney added "character", and tons of it to the point of being painful. My apologies to the environmental graphics folks but the signage of that time shows a lack of understanding that giving something character doesn't necessarily mean applying more and more details to it. Like the skeuomorphism, it becomes superfluous.

 

[Omnispace]

I was watching a feature on 3d printing, some of the mistakes are cooler than the generic statue they were trying to produce.

Wow! And I thought my printer was having a hard day when it runs out of yellow ink! Very cool though!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I do not use iWork so I cannot address that. In terms of performance I am quite pleased with Mavericks. It really is odd that when it comes to hardware Apple has understood that different devices have different uses and they've avoided trying to make a Surface that claims to be everything but ends up being a lot of nothing. Then they go and do the exact opposite with software. You also would have thought the whole Final Cut Pro X debacle would have taught them that people will leave the software ecosystem if push comes to shove.

Mavericks has been getting good reviews, so eventually I'll upgrade. FCP mess could have been easily avoided by doing "iMovie Pro" and leaving FCP alone, making it better,not stripping it.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I was watching a feature on 3d printing, some of the mistakes are cooler than the generic statue they were trying to produce.

3D printing is a trend direction for sure. We discussed it a while back and now I want one!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

You have to find the right control panel to make those extra buttons appear -- then you are one click away from where you want to go!!

Seriously, styles and tastes come and go. As much as I love the idea of the icons relating everything together, I'll admit that the original Epcot signage was a bit too simplified -- but things definitely moved too far in the other direction in the 1990's. In order to give the park a character they perceived it was lacking, Disney added "character", and tons of it to the point of being painful. My apologies to the environmental graphics folks but the signage of that time shows a lack of understanding that giving something character doesn't necessarily mean applying more and more details to it. Like the skeuomorphism, it becomes superfluous.

There is adding "character" or "warmth" then there is bad design. "Lattice work" is desperation. It's funny how the use of wood in signage in any form seems taboo. Today wood is the most modern upcycled material you can get.

 

[michmousefan]

I was lucky to visit the Court during a recent visit before it closed. Hope at least part of the area will return to its former state.

I think parts of World Showcase still accomplish similar objectives of placemaking, like the Fez House in the Morocco pavilion. Even though there are stores on either side and across the courtyard, it's still a beautiful place to just hang out and admire the tilework and woodwork. There are similar areas in the Japan and UK pavilions that just don't get as crowded as other pavilions -- at least not all day -- primarily because if there isn't an attraction like a ride or a film, many people tend to pass it over and move on.

Even last week during the busy Food & Wine festival, we practically had the Fez House to ourselves.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I was lucky to visit the Court during a recent visit before it closed. Hope at least part of the area will return to its former state.

I think parts of World Showcase still accomplish similar objectives of placemaking, like the Fez House in the Morocco pavilion. Even though there are stores on either side and across the courtyard, it's still a beautiful place to just hang out and admire the tilework and woodwork. There are similar areas in the Japan and UK pavilions that just don't get as crowded as other pavilions -- at least not all day -- primarily because if there isn't an attraction like a ride or a film, many people tend to pass it over and move on.

Even last week during the busy Food & Wine festival, we practically had the Fez House to ourselves.

View attachment 37155

Great..Good example. Like any good symphony, there have to be rests to make the crescendos seem high.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

You can live on property at Golden Oak Homes. Take a virtual tour..
http://www.disneygoldenoak.com
http://live.wsj.com/video/you-can-n...video_4#!7EDE4E5B-AE26-437B-9D37-F44A0BC674A7

 

[Figments Friend]

Eddie, are you heading over to Disneyland on the morning of November 1st for Tony's Main Street Window Ceremony?

Here's hoping for a good turnout....hope lots of folks are there to help him celebrate the special occasion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You can live on property at Golden Oak Homes. Take a virtual tour..
http://www.disneygoldenoak.com
http://live.wsj.com/video/you-can-n...video_4#!7EDE4E5B-AE26-437B-9D37-F44A0BC674A7

Nothing quite like suburban sprawl named for a backlot facility built at a place that was intended to be a beacon of urbanism but right outside its enabling legislation. Celebration at least had the forward thinking infrastructure, pedestrian oriented design and the involvement of names other than Disney with the starchitects. A car oriented subdivision is exactly what EPCOT was responding against.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Nothing quite like suburban sprawl named for a backlot facility built at a place that was intended to be a beacon of urbanism but right outside its enabling legislation. Celebration at least had the forward thinking infrastructure, pedestrian oriented design and the involvement of names other than Disney with the starchitects. A car oriented subdivision is exactly what EPCOT was responding against.

The irony is bitter.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I was once told "If everything is special, nothing is special."

As in most musicals, there is quiet and a drop in the tempo of the action for emphasis. If nothing ever stopped or slowed down, or was loud all the time, then you would not notice anything.

Great..Good example. Like any good symphony, there have to be rests to make the crescendos seem high.

There it is again! The first design Motto of Sotto: If everything is special, nothing is.

It is a great design motto, perhaps the greatest thing I've learned in these threads. This leaves me with one question I've been meaning to ask for several years: who then was the Jedi master who once told his young padawan Eddie that golden phrase? Or did you largely work out the principle yourself, drawing from many wells, intuitively applying the motto until you suddenly could store it all under that most useful single phrase?

For those interested, here is what I think was your finest exploration of the subject, another variation of the same theme, this time with a food metaphor, the excellent use of darkness in Toad, and the working of the human eye.

This is about "details" being more than design or architecture, but sensory information that makes or breaks a show. How much "detail" is enough? How are details assimilated and perceived?

As humans, our senses are continually processing incoming information and making decisions about what we are experiencing. Is it real? is it a threat? Are we really underwater or flying? Those decisions as to what something is or is not comes from our personal archive of previous experiences, and we are constantly comparing what we think we know to be real to what is happening to us in real time. Our bodies want to adjust to perceived threats and react in some way (like screaming). Designers use certain crude sensory cues and optical illusions to fool us, but our beings actually require more in some cases to be convinced as some cues are subtle. The message here is that they are all being absorbed together and that's why experiences are systems. When we design a ride based on a film, sometimes those stored emotions come from viewing the film and if the cues are good enough we relive something from the movie.

We don't always know what the sensory cues are at times, but our overall fake "meter" goes off when enough of it does not pass muster. Lips on figures that are out of sync by a few frames, a perspective scene that is slightly off, all add up to a big "fail" for some. How many times have you been engrossed in a movie and then some out of place element distracts you and you begin looking for more? Or the music takes you out of the scene because it's discordant to the emotion? We are beings that make continual assumptions as we really don't see or process everything, so our minds are guessing and telling us what reality is or what we think it is based on past experience. (Past experience says granite boulders are not hollow sounding FAIL). Your peripheral vision is nothing more than blurry guesswork. We are only able to focus on a very small area at once but our eyes dart continuously so we think we see things in greater detail than we do. Can you design for that kind of "moving camera" experience? Sure, but you have to know what you're up against. How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

Here's more on that, but to a designer this is crucial to know (at least it is to me). This is just one sense mind you. Here's the full article http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.


,
The point is that our opinions on how well "the spell" is working are cumulative, are just a perception, and constantly updated. It's an experiential "tightrope". Magicians know exactly what details will work as they "misdirect" you to the hand they want you to see. They use darkness as a mask. As our eyes are more like video streams directed by an incredible image processor, you can "direct" the eye and senses to the detail to reinforce the show or main points just like David Copperfield. That's why dead areas in rides work well as they play against the areas we want you to look at. To me, the passion and sincerity of the director can overcome many flaws because "real" is a perception and if you know what to focus on and exploit that, more people will buy into the fantasy. Mr. Toad masterfully used darkness, sound of an oncoming train, the tactile feel of riding over railroad ties, and a giant realistic headlight in the dark to make you think a whole locomotive was right in front of you. Building the front of the train and more sets and details would have been less effective as your imagination makes it twice as fearsome. Sensory minimalism, but the right senses and the right visual cues in harmony. Shows that fail IMO, add detail for it's own sake, looking rich but not moving the emotional "needle" forward. Great sets, no "wow". They do not really know what they are trying to achieve, so the cues that will add up are just not there.

Misdirected design can be like an "All you can Eat" Buffet, the visual impact of all that food is impressive, but in the end you either ate too much of the wrong things (world's tallest salad) or you made a plate of expensive food (load up on lobster, chocolate cake, and prime rib sliders) that really didn't go well together. If you are overwhelmed with mind numbing detail and it's pointless, it's like a visual feast of junk food. It is not directed to a result. If then, you ordered off the Menu and got the four course meal from the Chef, it's all matched, complimentary, and leads to a dessert crescendo.

Does any of this make sense? (Now I'm hungry). I don't know if anyone else sees it this way, just my process and I'm sticking to it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There it is again! I call it the Sotto Design Motto: If everything is special, nothing is.

It is a great design motto, perhaps the greatest thing I've learned in these threads. This leaves me with one question I've been meaning to ask for several years: who then was the Jedi master who once told his young padawan Eddie that golden phrase? Or did you largely work out the principle yourself, drawing from many wells, intuitively applying the motto until you suddenly could store it all under that most useful single phrase?

For those interested, here is what I think was your finest exploration of the subject, another variation of the same theme, this time with a food metaphor, the excellent use of darkness in Toad, and the working of the human eye.

He watched The Incredibles.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

He watched The Incredibles.

So a little Bird whispered it in his ear...

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So a little Bird whispered it in his ear...

It's something I've known that comes from graphic design in that you have to know the focus of the scene and on MSUSA in Paris we had many signs being over designed that begged for attention but did not deserve it. Minor signs give way to the grand marquees. We simplified them in a grander context. John Hench was always into limiting graphic confusion as it led to stress for the guest.

The phrase is great and was actually stated to me by a client in response to my wanting to use restraint in the overuse of lighting in a visually busy space. We agreed that if "everything is special, nothing is special" then focused the room and softened the lighting. I love being associated with it even if I didn't coin it, so keep it up EL, from now on it's a "Sottomotto".

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So a little Bird whispered it in his ear...

This design article says it better than I did and quotes a variation from the Incredibles.
http://www.kaplusa.com/blog/2009/12/brand-messaging-when-everything-is-special-nothing-is/

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Poster child of "everything is special". Note the "flotilla" of ornament surrounding the soft drink information on the sign. If you can find the type in there among the microscopic logos. Even if the paper card within was slid down, the problem still exists. I'm not gonna get into the generic base that is now made more obvious given the frame. The existence/price of drinks is important, perhaps the number one thing to the guest, but you can't find it as the type is buried and below eye level. As you can see, this is when the "details" existing for their own sake create a misguided sense of emphasis. Surely a simpler sign where the type is functionally larger and the detail simpler in support of the message would have been just fine.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Poster child of "everything is special". Note the "flotilla" of ornament surrounding the soft drink information on the sign. If you can find the type in there among the microscopic logos. Even if the paper card within was slid down, the problem still exists. I'm not gonna get into the generic base that is now made more obvious given the frame. The existence/price of drinks is important, perhaps the number one thing to the guest, but you can't find it as the type is buried and below eye level. As you can see, this is when the "details" existing for their own sake create a misguided sense of emphasis. Surely a simpler sign where the type is functionally larger and the detail simpler in support of the message would have been just fine.
View attachment 37246

This is why I think there is an important distinction between ornament and detail. Disney and many fans have become obsessed with ornamentation and equate it to detail. To me, a detail has to further the emotional and experiential narrative. Being there to be there or look expensive does not make something a detail, no matter how finely crafted or intricate.

 

[Omnispace]

This is why I think there is an important distinction between ornament and detail. Disney and many fans have become obsessed with ornamentation and equate it to detail. To me, a detail has to further the emotional and experiential narrative. Being there to be there or look expensive does not make something a detail, no matter how finely crafted or intricate.

I agree with your comment, I think it's more a matter of finding what is appropriate for the message you want to convey. To use Eddie's signs of Main Street example: part of telling the story of what's inside each shop can be conveyed by the type of sign outside. The Barber Shop won't necessarily have a special hand-carved relief sign with gold-leaf lettering but the Jewelers might since it's their business to have a bit of a flair. If every sign is exquisitely crafted then not only are you not portraying an accurate character for each store, you are also making the "special" signs less special -- and in some cases, like the example of the drink menu, actually defeating your intended purpose.