Constructs intended for machine-processing should generally use ASCII characters when practical. If a name is rendered using non-ASCII characters, it may get transformed to something else when a file is moved between systems, foiling efforts to e.g. take a list of files and import it into a table. Using consistent ASCII characters avoids such issues.
Standard usage changes with technology. Since typesetters and editors are no longer the hate keepers of published text, I am sure the ‘proper’ use of en/em dashes will change. I mean, who really cares about correct hyphenation any more? Who really knows how to hyphenate manually? A very select few.
I grew up in the heyday of peer-to-peer file sharing, and I first heard a lot of the bands I love now through mp3s shared by friends, pen pals, and generous strangers. Wherever they came from, most of those mp3s were labeled in the “artist - song” format, and if they weren’t I changed them to match. I think a lot of people did the same.
I can think of a few ...
There's a lot of theory about soap as well, but most people find out about washing hands in case of a global medical emergency — most people have no idea what dashes are and Youtube does not employ designers/typographers to fix names and descriptions in whatever is being uploaded — it is mass content and it is, what it is.
The dash is not part of people's keyboard. But the weird hyphen/minus character is (I mean ideally we would use minus for minus and hyphen for hyphen but that is just how it is).
Most people do not know about typography.
It's not terribly wrong in the general audience's opinion either. So saying it is incorrect is slightly stretching things ...
The quality and sharpness of the artwork has nothing to do with you using basic shapes (circles, squares, etc) or not.
With vector software, EVERYTHING IS 100% SHARP and in the best possible quality. Even if you do something like the image below, which has nothing to do with geometric shapes.
Otherwise yes, constructing icons and shapes from symmetric and/...
Combining easy to draw basic shapes makes sense if the wanted form really can be created such way without too many shapes. In your linked example the shields had many circular curves, so circles were perfect sources to get them. Do not expect you'll get natural looking organic forms that way.
But the effect can still be a proper artistic style. If you ...
Constructions with rudimentary shapes often provides easier symmetry. Like in the question you linked to. However, there are methods to ensure symmetry without rudimentary shapes.
It really all depends on the end goal and what may or may not be achievable with rudimentary shapes. There is no "one method to rule them all".
This question is opinion based. But here is my logic.
As you are asking for "design principles" I should say:
1. The design should be intuitive
2. If the design is not intuitive enough you should provide the clues to decode it
I am not sure if evoking another-separated design logic (some clock hands) is the right approach unless your building has 12 ...
Draw the top floor at 12 o'clock and the bottom floor at 6 o'clock. Draw the rest near their relative elevations even numbers to the right and odd numbers to the left, have floor number identifiers and lines which point to right elevation in the tower shape. If the floors have some special names let them be well visible, too. More complex floors can have ...
No, there is no standard way — use your best judgement.
However, yes, it does make sense to have the GF at 6 o'clock.
I would also apply a numbered tag to each floor plan to make it easier to follow: GF, 1F, 2F, etc.
To design once for many different aspect ratios, scale up the smaller sizes to either the same width (#1), height (#2) or near-enough width and height (#3).
Which method you choose really depends on your design.
Each of these methods produce a range of similar sized rectangles, which you can spread out as canvases, over which you can lay out your design.
This will look more psychological analysis than a graphic design one.
I've designed all of them
You answered yourself. It is design, not photography.
I have a fear that I might stay behind other Graphic Designers.
Everyone on the planet will stay behind another colleague in some respect, so, no big deal here.
many times I assume that actual ...
I think this type of work generally falls under the broad field of 'graphic design', but I would also add it kind of touches on the lower end spectrum of the field.
I mean, you are clearly solving some problems there, creating compositions that communicate ideas, but this social media work has a very short life span and is generally paid in bulk by clients, ...
You have put together compositions which have photos, a little text and maybe some drawings, too. The results can be said to be graphic designs as soon as they are not random, but try to present something or lift something up - something that you want to tell or your customer wants to tell. They are not designs if there's no purpose. A purpose can be to show ...