topic: graphic design

description; ?>

I was reformatting logos for a conference's sponsors web page, and a google search on how to standardize logos for visual consistency turned up nothing. So here's how to achieve a clear, consistent sponsors page with logos. (Basic rule: equalize and align logotypes).

  1. Set maximum vertical size: 100 pixels is a good default
  2. Resize logotype (the company name text) to be 1/5th of max vertical size: in this case 20px: adjust as appropriate to your logo set. Approximations work, and are not easily visible. This is the single most important step in providing consistency. In case of logos with sub-text or taglines, design for the company name.
  3. Align logotype to central 1/5th of logo area: or whatever fraction you used in step 2.
  4. Desaturate: do this and the next step if you're trying to standardize colors to fit into your website theme.
  5. Adjust brightness/contrast to an apropriate grey/black/white: never tint to anything other color. You may have variations if you have logos with multiple brightness components.

This approach works best when you have a lot of different logos that aren't combined into one image (for display).

In a café (Tully's). The thing you throw away most often (coffee cups) are no more distinguished than things you would probably never dispose off here (chinese takeout boxes). This design runs the danger of being designed for everywhere and being good nowhere. Unless, of course, the person trying to figure out whether the item they have in hand already knows what 'compostable' means - in which case the sign privileges cultural knowledge of a category ('compostable'). Or, as in my case, there is a helpful store employee who notices my confusion and helps identify the right bin.

Let's face it: javadoc output looks ugly. At least to me. The poor use of colour, inconsistent font styles, bad typographical hierarchy and too much visual clutter makes it quite illegible and unreadable. So I redesigned the Java API documentation stylesheet to clean it up and make it more readable and useful in its function as a reference.

I did it using the following principles:

MAKE CODE ELEMENTS VISIBLE WHEN PRESENT AMIDST NORMAL TEXT

javadoc-restyle-1



FOCUS ON THE TEXT, NOT THE TABLE TRAPPINGS



WHEN IN TEXT FOCUS ON TEXT. WHEN IN CODE, FOCUS ON CODE



CLEARLY DISTINGUISH INTERFACES FROM CLASSES

and

HIGHLIGHT HISTORY (FOCUS ON WHAT YOU REFER TO REPEATEDLY)

I figured other java coders maybe interested in giving their eyes a break, so here is the stylesheet, set free to the world. Simply download and replace the existing file in the doc/api folder of any javadoc API documentation.

NOTE: this may break over time. Since javadoc does not generate proper CSS, and uses "font" and "background" attributes for styling, the modified stylesheet contains quite a few poor styling rules. Should javadoc introduce semantically meaningful CSS, this will become much easier. As it stands, the styles used here are not sexy, but they do improve the appearance. (Try as I might, I could only find one other redesigned stylesheet for javadoc. Perhaps API reference legibility isn't as important as I think it is.)

I also sanitised the fonts used, reducing them to one for text and one for code. The default code font is Courier, which works really badly here when mixed with sans-serif text. This has been replaced by a cascade of font faces with Consolas as the preferred, going through some popular truetype monospaced fonts, and ending with an unhinted Linux font. Reorder as you prefer.

RTFM, reprise, originally uploaded by steelmonkey.

An on-flight entertainment system that includes instructions for it's own use. Interestingly, the menu button which brings up all the interesting things to do is the only one unmarked. Was this arrived at in trying to hide complexity by foregrounding the viewing controls in comparison with everything else? It only ends up making half the functionality invisible. Lesson: reduction of complexity is not the same as simple design

Every second, at least one human on this planet is standing before a sign on a door or a pair of doors, and thinking: "which is the men's (women's) room?"

Here are ways in which they are helped to decide...

COITAL METAPHORS rely on mapping imagery of the physical act of sex onto a pair of target shapes. can sometimes be unclear, as in the following instance (labels mine).

toilet_signs_59

[source]

This is the only instance of this type of designation I could find, so it's possible I'm over-generalising...

 

GENITAL SHAPES depict male & female genitalia, in varying degrees of exactness

bardejavu

[source]

barunknown (Custom)

[source]

 

BODY SHAPES foreground the shapes of body parts specific to gender

[source]

 

COMPARATIVE URINATION depict differences in how different genders urinate

[source]

[source]

variations also depict the experience of waiting, something that probably generates empathy universally...

The Lighthouse

[source]

 

GENDER TRANSFERENCE from animals to humans

toilet_signs_57

[source]

[source]

 

REFERENCE BY MATERIAL POSSESSION identifies gender by things typically owned

AdegaSantiagoM

[source]

MerceariaSPM

[source]

 

DIRECT PORTRAYAL depict a pair of clear, if unknown, instances of each sex

[source] Update: a reader informs me that these are "Basque icons of Amuma and Eichicha (gramma and grampa). Every Basque home has them."

SantoGraoM

[source]

 

CULTURALLY SPECIFIC REFERENCES images that are well-known within the host culture, and hence recognised easily

[source]

FujiTrainStationM

[source]

some of these clearly require emic knowledge... I had difficulty understanding this pair of signs:

toilet_signs_16

[source]

this category also covers these symbols (if only because they are predominantly western):

[source]

with modifications, although given that this next one is from colonial williamsburg, it's anybody's guess whether this is an emic depiction or one designed for visiting tourists:

WilliamsburgM

[source]

 

ARBITRARY/CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLISM pictorial signifiers of gender

[source]

these are culturally specific as well, of course.

Now, this is not a mutually exclusive or completely exhaustive set, but there's enough variation in here to be interesting. There are variations on these themes, such as hyper-gendering (also this), and satire, and even those that set up (and resolve) a conflict of meaning.

Usually, the act of urination in public is unremarkable, even though performing it incorrectly has social costs - embarrassment, one fails to make the correct identification and walks into the women's instead of the men's room, or stigma if one is not able to control one's bladder till the appropriate sanctum is reached. Nevertheless, or maybe precisely because of this, this act is rich with meaning, as the above examples show, and there's enough opportunity for adding delight to that moment of decision. Further, just as the viewer is delighted - and sometimes challenged with uncovering the meaning - another kind of meaning is being made: the viewer is being told something about the institution that houses the signage. Some impression is being given off, an identity is being performed: "this is how cool we are" says the sign. The viewer walks away with this unique memory of the institution (note that a lot of these signs are in bars or pubs), and their experience of it becomes just a little more textured. This is branding and marketing at its finest: so thoroughly integrated into the experience that it becomes invisible.

with thanks to mara codalli for her 'ladies & gentlemen' photoset on flickr, the toilet signs project, and "Coolest Toilet Signs Around The World" by damn cool pics.

Syndicate content