Filed under: Logo Design | Tags: 2016, branding, chicago, concept, design, event branding, logo, Logo Design, madrid, olympics, summer
Today’s post on the Graphic Design Blog highlights the logos in contention for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. The article reflects on the four logo concepts that are in the running for the shortlisted cities as well as taking a look at some of the cities that have already been eliminated from the running.
Event branding is something I personally am really interested in, having written about it here and here. The unique opportunity to wholly brand an event, especially an event like the Olympics wherein so much collateral material will be derived from the main brand, represents a both challenging and ultimately really rewarding experience for designers.
My personal take on the above logos is that they all work on really great concepts and are very nicely executed. Visually, and this is ignoring my national prejudice, I think the Chicago logo is the most striking. Conceptually, I love the Madrid logo and the subtle “m” formed by the hand print. Read the whole article here and draw your own conclusions.
Filed under: Photography | Tags: Art, bathroom, black and white, collection, concept, digtial photography, photo manipulation, Photography
Digital Photography School posted a really nice collection of unique and really well-imagined bathroom photos. Check it out here.
Filed under: Design Theory | Tags: comments, concept, culture, design, experience, inforgraphic, interpretation, theory, users, viewers
The recent lack of posts has been due to some excellent vacationing but I’ve returned to the blogosphere and the above infographic (seen via Digg) caught my eye. As is the case with many of the popular infographics that grace the front page of digg, this is pretty well designed and touches on a topic with wide appeal. I have a problem with it however and I’m not quite sure whether it’s a legitimate design issue or a fault in my personal perception.
My problem is with the key which clarifies the underlying color coding of the infographic. The key reads from top to bottom, or rather from “undetermined” to “nailed it” in this case. This is all well and good in the stand alone sense. Logic dictates that a list going from essentially “least” to “most” makes perfect sense. However, the graphic itself does not read this way for me. Since the ones who “nailed it” are essentially in the top right, I read this graph from top right down. This means the graph reads in the exact opposite direction of the key. For me, this is a usability issue. It makes the graph harder to understand (which is wholly problematic since the nature of graphs is to make information easier to understand through a visual representation.)
Having stated my problem, I also mentioned above that I’m not sure if this is me nitpicking or this points to a larger issue in terms of interpretation of this piece. The operative word here is “interpretation.” So much of what we, as designers do is try to manipulate the perception of others through visual media. Our goal is to ultimately make the viewer interpret any given media in the manner that we (and more specifically our client) want.
In a similar, albeit infinitely more abstract manner, Ben Dunkle writes an interesting post on his blog about life. In his “Comment Icons” post he raises the issue of which direction to point the “pointy part” of a comment bubble. “Which one says ‘Comments’ more directly?” he asks.
Is this nitpicking? Is there a right? Is there a wrong? Is there an answer? I think think the answer is yes. I also suspect the answer might be no. That which we do everyday as designers is subject to the personal interpretation of each individual viewer/user; try as we might, there are some things that will never be viewed as intended because each unique interpretation is shaped by the experience, culture and conuntless other factors realted to each individual viewer. In conclusion, the pointy part should point left, or at least that’s how I interpret it.
Filed under: Logo Design | Tags: arrangement, basketball, concept, event branding, logo, march madness, ncaa, organization, style, tournament, women
After yesterday’s post on the Men’s side of the NCAA tournament logos I thought today I’d feature the womens’. All i can say is wow, the disparity between the two groups is ridiculous. I’m not entirely sure how the NCAA is structured, but the women’s side has significantly better logos across the board.
I’m especially fond of the Tampa Bay logo and the clever incorporation of the basketball – subtle, yet noticeable and very well executed. Additionally, the St. Louis logo really forces the perspective on the arch and acheives something new and dynamic with a recognizable and well-known icon of that city.
The best comparison groups highlighting the disparity between the men’s and women’s logos are the Indianapolis and New Orleans logos. The men’s Indy logo was trite and one might say shabby, but the women’s puts together a lovely package of venue and skyline and stylized basketball. The women’s New Orleans logo works on the same concepts as the men’s but it’s infinitely better organized and simply works much better.