Category: Leo (lea334)

Every time I plug my laptop into a socket in the UAE, I am pleasantly reminded that I do not need to use an adapter. That is because when I do, it is always annoying – not just the fact of using one, but how most of my plugs are too big to go into an extension cable next to each other and I always need to leave an empty socket between two that I am using because a part of the plug covers the neighbouring one. 

This was a random thought, but it made me think of examples of bad design in our daily lives that we don’t necessarily think about because we are so used to it. 

1. Toothpaste tubes

In terms of marketing, the tube gets more visually unappealing the more product is used. It is also harder to get to the remaining product. And yet, toothpaste has always come in tubes. It seems to be the case that this just works – manufacturers are aware that there will be product wastage no matter what packaging the toothpaste is in and that toothpaste is kind of a necessity so they don’t particularly care what the tube looks like in your bathroom after you have purchased it. However, an additional point here that never made sense to me is why does toothpaste come in a cardboard box if it is already held in a tube? This seems a little like if shampoo bottles come in cardboard boxes too and yet they do not, so why? It seems like the only answer I found is just that the aligned cardboard boxes are easier to put and make look good on a shelf and also easier to transport since they are the same size, but honestly, that just seems incredibly silly.

After thinking about this one, I started more consciously looking around for examples of bad design. I am aware of some very obvious ones that the Professor pointed out in this class and in the previous class that I took with him, but I wanted to see if I can encounter some without diverging from my normal routine. And that’s how I found 

2. This light switch at my friend’s apartment

It doesn’t look like too big of a deal, until you actually go into the bathroom and instead of hitting the lights on autopilot as you want in, you hit the mirror. I have done it every time I was over at her place and when I expressed my frustrations, she told me that she still does it after nearly 10 months of living there. It seems like a very small thing – the mirror is narrow and the switch is not too far away, but it makes a big difference in the user experience. If already made this close, why not make it just a little bit closer?

3. This giant empty space (with a window) at the end of the hallway in A1B. 

At first, I thought the hallway curved because there was a lounge or an emergency exit staircase down that way but there wasn’t. The hallway just opens up into a nice open space the size of a room that is completely useless. While I was standing there and thinking about it, a girl who lives right next to it started a conversation with me and because I brought up this empty space, she told me that her room is so tiny that she and her roommate have to share a closet normally meant for one person…. while all this empty space just exists on the other side of the wall and could have been built to be a part of their room. Make it make sense. 

Now, before anyone says that I am getting lost in wayfinding territory or that this has more to do with architecture, the ideas behind wayfinding, architecture and also logo design are very closely related – it could be said to be the ability to utilize space (physical space or space on a paper when talking about logo design) in the most efficient way possible. It is knowing how to make something both aesthetic and functional. The bad design could at best be funny or embarrassing, but at worst it could be dangerous like:

4) This pedestrian crossing.

Look, I am sure that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. I just don’t know what it is. 

Perhaps the consequences of bad logo design aren’t as bad as the consequences of bad wayfinding, spatial or user experience design (unless it is what makes your company go bankrupt, then it is also bad bad). A famous example of a “bad” logo is the 2012 London Summer Olympics logo:

 

While some people claimed that it looks too much like a distorted swastika and others said that it spells out “Zion”, others went as far as saying that it looks like the Simpsons performing lewd acts. I bring this up because one might not necessarily see something in an image and once you are told to look for something it is hard to unsee it however far off the comparison might be, and this means that when it comes to logos and branding “bad design” is somewhat subjected to taste unlike in some other forms of design where “bad design” is blatantly obvious (like say, conflicting signage). We get better at spotting bad design the more we know and look around at things, and the more we know the easier it becomes to spot bad design in our everyday lives. I think that spotting bad design is one of the best methods of improving our own designs – a very good way of improving is learning what not to do. 

EDIT: Fixed the typos that Megan pointed out!

I think it is very interesting how one word can be associated with two widely used distinct things, and yet they are not confused. 

The first visa is the brand “Visa” of which a short brand history is in order. It began when thousands of Americans received a yellow, white and blue card – the Bank Americard – to launch the all purpose credit card. The stripes were chosen to represent the hills of California where the Bank of America’s roots can be found – blue for the sky and yellow (gold) for the golden hills. 

 

The company underwent many changes and restructuring, such as that in 1974, the International Bankcard Company (IBANCO), a multinational member corporation, was founded in order to manage the international BankAmericard program. BankAmericard became an international organization, but “there was no unifying brand name” as “each brand used its own name with some version of the blue, white and gold flag” (Ron van der Vlugt). The directors of IBANCO determined that bringing the various international networks together into a single network with a single name internationally would be in the best interests of the corporation; however, many countries were reluctant to issue a card associated with Bank of America, For this reason, in 1976 in 1976, BankAmericard and all its licensees united under the new name, “Visa”. The brand’s founder, Dee Hock, who “recognized the power of one unifying global brand” came up with with the name together with his employees. The brand retained the distinctive blue, white and gold flag for “reasons of continuity”. 

For the next thirty years the logo did not change much until in 2000 it was restyled slightly to and a corporate logo with a, surprise surprise, yellow swoosh was introduced. Later on, as the bank card business was growing into a plastic free industry, the literal picture of the card (which is what the flag with the name in the middle resembled) was too limited an a separate corporate logo proved confusing and somewhat against the point of uniting under a single brand to begin with. A need arose for a single brand framework that accommodated all payment types and services with one single logo for use in multiple environments. This resulted in a new logo in 2006 where the “V” was given  a distinctive accent by twisting a serif, and the space consuming borders were removed making the Visa name much more prominent (Ron van der Vlugt)  (and thankfully, the swoosh was removed).

Image credits to Visa’s inhouse design team.

Today, Visa is very highly known – its logo is seen on cards, but not only. It is one of the largest card payment companies and was reported to have processed 100 billion transactions during 2014 with a total volume of US$6.8 trillion. 

From a branding standpoint, it is interesting that (in the perhaps somewhat limited pool of people that I am acquainted with) most people know about Visa, but not what they actually do. The few individuals I asked about it for the purpose of this essay said that they think it has to do something with credit cards, but did not know exactly what. Visa actually facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly through Visa-branded cards (credit, debit cards, prepaid). Contrary to what is most easily assumed, Visa does not actually issue cards, they provides financial institutions with Visa-branded payment products that they then use to offer credit, debit, prepaid and cash access programs to their customers. But regardless, the main point is that the logo is known and recognizable. 

The other totally different visa is the one that you might need to travel to a country you are not a citizen of.  The word visa, coming from the Latin charta visa, meaning “paper that has to be seen”, is a conditional authorization granted by a polity to a foreigner that allows them to enter, remain within, or, more rarely, to leave its territory. Visas have come into major use after Word War I, clearly preceding the establishment of Visa Inc, so it is a little unclear why they decided to go with the name considering that it has already been associated with something quite widely used. It is also unclear how the brand became so widely recognized despite there already existing something with a similar name. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that Visa was a rebranding and merging of a preexisting international organization with millions of customers and not something new, or perhaps it was because it had its origins in the late 21st century and foreign travel (and by extension visas) were not on the minds of people as much as they are on our minds. 

One could argue that this is something like Apple, where now the word is associated more with the company rather than the fruit, but it might not necessarily be the case. There seems to be a distinction that we have between the two visas that we have in our heads depending on the context. I have never had anyone assume that I am applying for a bank card when I said that I am applying for a visa, and similarly, I have not ever had anyone assume that I am talking about a travel document when I tell them that my Visa card did not accept the transaction.  

Perhaps this works because visa (the travel document) is not a competing brand, but rather a word for something (perhaps it actually is similar to apple?) but I wonder if Visa (the brand) would have been more or less successful and recognized if it wasn’t named a word also associated with something else? Does this only work because when you talk about it the context is so clear. What if it wasn’t? 

It is also interesting that Apple’s logo is an apple, and Visa’s logo is the word spelled out. It is very readable, visible and straightforward. No metaphors or hidden meaning – just the word spelled out.  What if it was a picture mark? Would that still work if our brains had to train to associate “visa” with whatever that picture is? This also opens the question of “should brands be named with real words or things that already exist?” What affect does it have on brand recognition and marketing? From a design standpoint, it might not be so important if the logo is iconic, but regardless, how does the association we have with the word break the association we have with the logo? These are all questions that I wonder about, but do not necessarily feel qualified to answer. 

 

Sounces:

Logo Life

https://ideas.repec.org/p/hoo/wpaper/16107.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20150501055215/http://usa.visa.com/download/corporate/_media/visa-fact-sheet.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/05/06/visa-moves-at-the-speed-of-money/?sh=7a2d8b6057c3

https://www.finextra.com/pressarticle/65412/unionpay-takes-top-spot-from-visa-in-22-trillion-global-cards-market—rbr

https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/data-and-research/data/cards/card-spending

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/nov/17/travelnews

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.visa.co.uk%2Fdam%2FVCOM%2Fdownload%2Fcorporate%2Fmedia%2Fvisanet-technology%2Fvisa-net-booklet.pdf&clen=2314216&chunk=true

 

 

Art and design are often thought to be the same by people unfamiliar with the field. 

Despite their fundamental similarities in the principles – the knowledge of shape, colour, contrast, and such – art and design are not the same. While design can be classed as a subcategory of art, what I believe sets it apart is the importance of intent. Good art is often a result of the fundamental principles and technical skill in the art form in question. It may or may not serve a purpose in the sense that it could be a tool to give commentary on a social issue, express an emotion or simple be “art for art’s sake” where it serves no specific purpose other than a vague “making the artist happy” or “being beautiful to look at”. All of these categories are person dependent and as such “good” art is a subjective category. Art created by an artist to evoke a specific emotion in its viewer may not evoke this emotion in everyone or may not evoke this emotion in anyone at all. “Art, in its purest form, has no boundaries on intent. It can serve any purpose the artist chooses, no purpose at all, or an intentionally vague purpose aimed to generate different reactions based on the viewers perspective and intent” (1).

Design however, is significantly more objective. While there are no concrete laws and it still remains subjective to a degree, it often has a specific purpose to fulfill and if it does not, it will be usually labeled as bad design. For example, road signs designed to warn people of possible ice build up on the road are “bad design” if they are unreadable and as such do not fulfil their purpose of warning drivers. It is not enough for these signs to be “artistic” or “visually appealing” in the same way as it would be enough for an artwork to be “good art” – they should also be useful at fulfilling their purpose. There is no “design for design’s sake” and while aesthetics are important, “design isn’t successful simply because it looks great. It should look great, but that’s only part of the puzzle. It must look great AND perform its intended function. Only then is it successful design” (1). 

As an example, lets take the Starbucks logo. It might appear complicated, but it is not in terms of lines and shapes. It is complex and unusual symbolically – using an image of a twin tailed Siren and making a reference to the Siren myth, but that is what made it so recognizable and iconic.  

This image would generally be considered “good art” –  it is very skillfully drawn and the artist had displayed an excellent understanding of light and colour. But this picture would make a horrible logo. There are a lot of tiny details that are not very noticeable, it could be very easily mistaken for another vaguely similar looking piece of art because all the details make it less memorable by someone who just glances at it. Since a logo should be memorable, it is better when it is kept simple. An artist would not necessarily know that and would aim for creating the best looking rendering. 

The Starbucks logo on the other hand uses simple shapes with few details that allow it to stand out and be memorable. And even though the logo started out more detailed, its evolution and the brand’s current success are evidence that even with complex ideas, a simpler logo that is not necessarily “good art” is “good design”. 

I find it very interesting that in academia, art and design are often seen together. While going through my process of searching for graduate schools, I have come across multiple programs and even whole institutions named along the lines of “[blank] of Art and Design”. Perhaps this is the reason why the general public might be led to believe that these terms are interchangeable. While one might argue that design is a subcategory of art and could be studied simultaneously or present side by side, I would argue that they ae their own disciplines. And just as a good artist would not necessarily make a good designer, a good designer might not necessarily be a good artist or be an artist at all for that matter. Because while the fundamental principles such as colour theory overlap and their tools might be similar, designers have a very different purpose and do not necessarily require the skills of an artist (though it might be helpful) As such, being a good artist is not enough to be a good designer. Design is more of a science. Besides understanding the artistic tools they are working with, a good designer would have an understanding of people and psychology – how we perceive things, how we react to colours and  shapes and what is best suited for what purpose from a human psychology point of view. “Design has clients, constraints, business goals and user needs” and a good designer would be able to work within these constrains to make something both aesthetically pleasing and easy to use. While an artist might focus purely on creating something (perhaps only a select few) would consider pleasing to look at, a designer’s primary goal is to make something pleasing to use (for the majority). 

 

References:

(1) https://uxdesign.cc/the-truth-about-art-vs-design-c9a616de828

(2) https://uxdesign.cc/the-value-of-a-design-education-8372c0858c78

(3) https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/06/10-common-mistakes-in-logo-design/

(4) https://www.designhill.com/design-blog/starbucks-logo-overview-of-design-history-and-evolution/