Design a showcase, then defend it

Design a showcase, then defend it

Create an original, welcoming poster for a fictional community arts showcase. Choose a specific audience and a peaceful subject such as artwork, plants, nature photographs, a ceramic object or abstract pattern. You are the designer: define the event message and make the essential information readable. State a clear audience, message and viewing context.

Your minimum product is one original poster with purposeful image manipulation and editable text. Combine at least two permitted visual sources, or a photograph and your own constructed shapes. Keep a meaningful visibility mask and a purposeful adjustment layer. Complexity is optional; decisions and evidence matter.

Print study master: 2550 × 3300 pixels, equivalent to 8.5 × 11 inches at 300 ppi. Maintain the layered PSD. Export a flattened PNG for viewing. Keep RGB unless the teacher specifies a verified printer/profile workflow; ask for a school-printer proof before treating the export as press-ready.

Deliver: concise proposal; credited mood board; three different thumbnails; two colour/type treatments; layered PSD and PNG; two real viewer responses; one documented revision; source/AI log; three-decision defence and final reflection.

Deadline: the date agreed with your teacher and recorded in your proposal. Submit through the Design a Story Knowledge + Reflection Form; share production files privately with your teacher and include the folder link.

Your one-page proposal

Working title and one-sentence event message: ______________________________________________

Audience and viewing context: _____________________________________________________

The first message/emotion I want a viewer to understand: _______________________________

Product and required dimensions: __________________________________________________

My specific goal: By [teacher-agreed date], I will create [product] for [audience/context], using [taught controls], and demonstrate [observable communication result].

Three ideas I will compare; why they differ: __________________________________________

Two real references and what I can learn from each: ___________________________________

My success check: At the intended viewing size, I will ask two peers what they noticed first and what event message they inferred; I will compare their actual responses with my intent.

Permitted production sources, technical risk and fallback: ______________________________

Checkpoint dates: plan ______ / editable first version ______ / revised handoff ______

Two or three primary targets, with visible evidence: 1.1 manipulation; 1.2 image context; 1.3 procedures; 1.4 design principles; 1.5 communication. Select what your evidence actually demonstrates.

Teacher feasibility check / agreed deadline: __________________________________________

Lab 1 — Research and plan (25–35 minutes)

After the design teaching, choose a event message that can be represented safely and with sources you may use. In a few sentences describe the audience, message and viewing encounter. Do not start with an effect you want to copy.

Compare the genuine 1951 IKEA catalogue cover with the 2025 London Design Festival identity in Deck 1. Record organisation or maker, date, source, visible form, a sourced contextual fact and an interpretation. They are different media and communication problems; state that limitation. Sources are IKEA Museum and Pentagram.

Open https://excalidraw.com in a browser. Use its image tool to insert a small number of credited study references. Add text naming each reference and a reason. Add five labelled colour-role samples and title/detail type-role examples. Separate study references from production assets.

Draw three small composition thumbnails: change the principal arrangement or communication device, rather than moving one item. Compare image-led, symbol-led and type-led directions. Select one against the audience, communication and feasible production criteria; explain one rejected alternative.

Use the Excalidraw menu to save the editable scene as an .excalidraw file. Export a PNG for viewing. Reopen the scene and check that text and shapes remain editable. If the site is blocked, make the same annotated plan on paper or in an existing school-approved browser tool.

Success: a usable proposal, credited direction board, distinct alternatives and a reasoned selection. A collection of attractive pictures alone is incomplete.

Lab 2 — Colour and type decisions (15–20 minutes)

Predict the effect of two colour/type treatments for the same selected thumbnail. Keep the message and arrangement comparable; change a deliberate relationship. Name the wheel model when calling a relationship complementary or analogous.

Use Adobe Color or your own permitted sample image to propose five colours. Record HEX values and dominant/support/accent/background/text roles. Test actual text/background pairs; a harmonious palette does not guarantee legibility.

Photoshop documented manual route: choose the foreground colour, enter its HEX value, then open Window → Swatches and use New Swatch. Name the colour by role and repeat for the remaining colours. Adobe documents CSS/HTML/SVG import via the Swatches menu; the downloadable CSS is a sample, and native CSS import is not verified in this build. Use manual addition if that option is absent; do not replace existing collections.

Select the Type layer and the relevant text. In Character controls, test size, leading and tracking. Kerning affects a pair; tracking affects a range; leading is baseline-to-baseline distance. Inspect at the intended viewing size, then retain editable Type layers.

Use two short written observations to choose one treatment. Explain a readable hierarchy and one trade-off. Submit the two views and your decision; the worked sample palette is not a required answer.

Lab 3 — A recoverable composite (25–40 minutes)

Work in a practice copy using your own permitted sources. Place and name the sources; compare scale, perspective and plausible light before adding effects. Save a layered PSD.

Documented masking route: select the image layer → Select → Subject → inspect the selection → add a layer mask. Inspect at a close view and at the intended viewing size. Select the mask thumbnail before using a soft brush: black hides, white reveals, grey partially reveals.

Documented tonal route: Layer → New Adjustment Layer → Curves. Change a relevant tonal relationship and toggle the adjustment for comparison. For a subject-only change, use Layer → Create Clipping Mask on the adjustment above the intended base layer; refine with its own mask where appropriate.

Name one visible inconsistency. Identify its likely control, change that control recoverably and compare before/after at the same view. Inspect mask edges, neutral areas, highlights and whether the background changed unexpectedly.

Deck 2 contains conceptual diagrams and constructed result states, plus genuine controls in Deck 1. These are not a verified screenshot for every software action. Teacher demonstration or the documented Adobe reference is needed when a route is unfamiliar; school-version cold-run remains pending.

Success: show the relevant mask and adjustment, demonstrate one visible repair and explain why it works. Extra particles, rays and glow are optional.

Produce, test, revise and hand off

Build the selected direction in your own PSD. Artboards are useful when comparing layouts, but one defined canvas is sufficient for the required poster. A mood board sets direction; a thumbnail explores composition; an artboard develops a layout.

For artboards, Adobe documents the Artboard tool grouped with Move, and creating/naming artboards in an existing document. Check the selected board’s actual width/height in Properties. The captured older practice setting is not this project’s final dimension. Use 2550 × 3300 for this print study. An optional 1080 × 1350 screen version requires reflow rather than stretching.

Show the first version to two peers at its intended size. Without explaining the event message first, ask: What did you notice first? What story/message did you infer? Which essential detail was difficult to read? Record their actual responses without names. Two peers provide limited formative evidence, not a representative audience study.

Choose one mismatch with your intent. State your prediction, revise a relevant relationship, show before/after and say whether the result improved. Keep a remaining limitation visible.

Independent checkpoint: the teacher supplies one change using taught design or technical concepts. Predict the consequence, make your own revision, then defend it with the relevant source controls. A new tutorial recipe is not supplied for this checkpoint.

File check: reopen the PSD and viewing PNG; verify dimensions, visible result, editable text, named layers/masks and credit log. Package them with proposal, alternatives, viewer test, revision and defence. File naming: MM12_S04_[working-title]_[source/view/plan/defence]_v01; replace bracketed labels with your own words.

Final reflection (three short responses): What did testing change? Which control/decision can you now explain independently? What would you investigate next? Supports used are recorded separately from achievement.

Individual knowledge check and retrieval

Complete after teaching, without copying a model response. Sketches and a brief oral explanation are acceptable evidence with teacher agreement.

1. Select a fresh teacher-provided advertisement or poster. Identify first and second reading priorities and explain two visible features that establish them.

2. Sketch a named colour-wheel relationship. Distinguish hue from value, and explain why a palette relationship does not guarantee text readability.

3. Explain the difference between kerning, tracking and leading. Name which one you would inspect for a pair, a word and two lines.

4. Explain selection versus mask, and clipping versus an adjustment mask. Show a relevant control in your practice file and its visible consequence.

5. Compare a historical and a current reference: one visible observation, one sourced contextual fact and one possible emotional interpretation. Distinguish fact from inference.

6. Explain how your mood board, thumbnails and production layout answer different planning questions.

After feedback, correct an uncertain concept and apply it to a different image. Next class retrieve three concepts without notes; after a longer delay critique an unfamiliar layout. A confidence rating or completed tutorial is not an achievement grade.

Project rubric

Six criteria describe the evidence the teacher reviews. This is an unweighted project descriptor guide; it does not change the existing course grading policy or assessment IDs. Missing evidence is recorded as insufficient evidence, not automatically as Beginning.