Personally, I wasn't fond of the article; although, I do respect Ms.Rawsthorn's opinion. First, I completely agree with the idea of a more simplistic design for a road sign. A sign should also have even sized lettering as to not have a driver's attention completely focused on one a single detail. In the case of traffic signs, design is everything, and it's one of those things that can be easily ruined. However, when I read on about the change in UPS's logo, I immediately felt disconnected with Ms.Rawsthorn. I searched an image of the old and current UPS logos so I can better understand her position. The current one, while I agree could've been better and less generic (this is the same response I have for Citroën's logo), seemed to fit with today's market. The article that was linked to the image I found lists the reasons for a company changing it's logo, which one reason was the old logo feels out of touch with the era. Another reason I wasn't fond of Ms.Rawsthron's article was the fact she didn't include an example of a good design change (aside from the road sign example). Had she included one and contrasted it to one of the bad design changes, I would've had a better grasp of the comparison she was making. Overall, while I do agree that a few of these examples, such as the "Diverted cyclists" road sign and the Citroën logo, are inadequate redesigns, I don't fully understand how a person can ruin a design. Perhaps with a little experience, I'll come to better understand Ms. Rawsthorn's warning.
Comments
Post a Comment