posted                    

quote:

---

I'm convinced the general public just can't see the difference between good design and crappy design.

---

quote:

---

I believe the general public does see the difference between good design and bad.

---

These quotes, obviously without context, are from an earlier post where Dan S. and George P. seem to be saying the opposite things about the ability of the “general public” to see good design. Why the difference of opinion? I don't think either of them are blind or clueless. I think they are both knowledgeable and call it as they see it. They are both damn good at what they do and are successful.
But I think there are two “general publics.” They are a Dr. Jekyll public and a Mr. Hyde public.

Dan says, ”...the general public does see the difference between good design and bad.” How so? In his words most people notice signs that “stand out from the the rest.” They may not know why it's good, or as Dan says, “they may not be able to articulate their appreciation of good design or why they like it.” But most people can perceive an effective sign when they see it. They will look at IT before they look at a mediocre sign. They may give the good design a second look or a longer look. They may feel the mood intended by the designer. They may be actuated in some way, such as to make a purchase, or to remember the name of the advertiser for a later phone call. Or a good design may simply be easier to read quickly, allowing a driver to make a lane change in time to turn into a parking lot. In other words, a good design will affect people, whether they realize it or not: “it works harder,” as Dan says.
And I think that more often than not, when presented with a good design right next to a weak design, and asked to comment on which design is better, most people will see the good as better, but again, they may not be able to explain why. What Dan says rings true.

On the other hand, when the “general public” decides to become a sign purchaser, he or she often transforms into another person. When it comes to spending their money on signs people often lose the ability to appreciate the importance of strong design. In an effort to make their money count, they want to fill up a sign with copy and "make it all big." Oh, and “make it red, so it will stand out.” A single phone number may not be enough for them because, after all, they have three phone numbers plus a web address. Negative space is seen as wasted space (i.e. wasted money). They painfully agonize over color choices but need to have the basic concept of contrast explained to them. They insist on a certain letter height, but the idea of stroke weight goes over their heads. They pick letter styles based on...what? “That font looks cute ,” they'll say. Sometimes I think they just like the sound of the font name: “Can you do all the letters in Black Adder?”
Based on the clientele that our shop has here in Kansas City on a daily basis, I would have to say the “general public” that purchases sign work is just plain design-stupid. I am constantly amazed. By and large, the average person that walks into our shop “just can't see the difference between good design and crappy design,” to quote George P., and I think they frequently prefer crappy, at least at first.
In all fairness, I should mention that I work for a company that produces a high volume of low end work. Banners, Coroplast, and real estate signs are big sellers, though it's not all we do (we do a good amount of sandblasted Corian for ADA signs, which pays better, and we re-sell channel letters, which is mostly profit). We seem to attract more than a fair share of cheapskates who are clueless about design.
This gives the ring of truth to George's comments.

What can we do, if anything?

Try To Educate
I have tried to become good at whipping out quick layouts while a customer waits. I used to not do this much when I worked for myself. But now that it is required of me, I see it as an opportunity to teach someone, to make them a more savvy sign buyer. While it's challenging to come up with instant layout on demand, I am used to it now, and I have become very good at explaining what I'm doing, and why, as I compose a layout in front of a customer. I actually think customers enjoy it. And I speak loud enough that I think others benefit, too. Though I am the “dedicated design person” here, other fingers sometimes get into the design pie, fingers that sometimes I think should be slapped, but that's not my job. At any rate, when I explain the reason for something in the layout, the customer can often see what I'm talking about. At times, after making exactly the layout they request, I'll copy and paste a duplicate right next to it. Then I tweak (sometimes I tweak hard) to make it read or look better, and they frequently can see the difference. In this way I have many times been able to take some stinky nephew-art and make it work. In the process the customer learns a little and is still able to brag that "I designed my own sign." And might this not be a better alternative to simply refusing the job? After all, they may take their bit of nephew-ugliness to someone else who will reproduce it, warts and all, no questions asked, and then the cancer spreads a little more.

The quality of sign design has greatly deteriorated, particularly since the introduction of computer designing. In sheer numbers, the amount of bad sign work being produced today is overwhelming.

Are We Sometimes Part of the Problem?
George said, “good design takes time to learn. If it takes those of us in the trade all this time to learn it, to be able to see it, are we asking too much out of the general public to choose between great and mediocre???” I don't think this is an unreasonable question to ask.
But is the customer always at fault?
George spoke of a “sea of mediocrity” in sign design today. And he's right.
My question is, where has this sea come from? Surely, we sign makers share part of the blame.
Do we take the time to learn design principles? Do we study good design and try to analyze why it's good? A consumer looks at a pickle jar label or a candy bar wrapper and only thinks about what is inside. They don't see the graphics. They don't appreciate the sometimes unbelievable talent behind the work. They are design-blind. We should not be. Forcing ourselves to see why packaging looks good or bad should be a daily ritual. These are, in effect, little signs, and many of them are awesome. It's true they are often complicated, but complicated design is often simple design in disguise. Seeing past the embellishments can allow us to see the strengths of the basic layouts.
We should look at signs while traveling and try to gauge how much we are actually able to read in the three seconds or so that we look at them. When we see truck lettering go by, are we really able to read anything, or was it just a blur of illegibleness? By forcing ourselves to look critically, we can learn to avoid the mistakes other sign people are continuing to make.
Further, we should not make the mistake of thinking that good design is always expensive or complicated. Fancy design is usually expensive. Good design can be fancy, but often it is simple. Good design is not for special occasions. It is the mark of a professional.
Also of benefit in trying to stem the tide of mediocrity is trying to learn from talented design people. Mike Stevens is no longer with us but other good designers are, many inhabiting Letterville (like George and Dan). And Stevens lives on in his book, which is in a class by itself. Re-reading it once a year is a good practice. In addition, the letterhead meets can inspire, even if they also intimidate some of us lesser talents.

Furthermore, we should strive to be more than mere order takers. “What size sign you want? What color? You wanna pick out a font? You want fries with that?” People are becoming more and more accustomed to ordering signs the way they order fast food—thankfully, no sign shops have drive-thru windows—and just as a steady diet of junk food is not good for you, neither is junk design good for the customer.
I think we should work to buck this trend among our clients to always have it their way. We don't have to be rude, just more persuasive, more salesmanlike.
Here are some beneficial things I've heard sign makers say to customers:
“What do you want to accomplish with your sign work?”
“Are you going for legibility, because Tiffany Bold is not an easy-to-read letter style on a sign?”
“Keep in mind that viewers have only a couple of seconds to read and digest your sign, so let's really emphasize something that they can read in one or two seconds.”
“What image are you going for? Cut-rate? High end? Something in between?”

And while I avoid insulting a customer, if they are wrong I try to tactfully tell them so.

Here is an actual exchange:
Customer: “Can you stretch those letters so they are 3 inches tall?”
Me: “Of course, but I'm curious. Why would you want to do that?”
Customer: “I was told that a three-inch letter was visible from 100 feet. They even showed me a chart.”
Me: “Was it this chart?”

I showed them a printout of the “Letter Visibility Chart” that's all over the internet. Depending on who's posting it, it's claimed that it has as a basis a research study done by the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, which is part of the College of Engineering at Penn State, or, an earlier study done by Cal Tech, which I have never been able to dig up. The PTI has done extensive research on signage legibility and they have published a good deal. Some of it is available from the U.S. Sign Council.

Customer: “That's it! That's the chart!”
Me: “This is a useful chart. The only problem with it is that it was based on a study that used only one letter style. And it is an extremely legible letter style. These figures don't apply to all letter styles. For example, Bodoni Bold is not really legible from 100 feet. Because it's got all these hairline strokes you have to be really close to read it.”

I pulled out another printout.



Me: “Helvetica Medium may be visible from 100 feet. But when you squish it like this, you lose visibility, even though the letters are taller. As you can see, the 2-inch letters are easier to read than the 3-inch.”

It's gratifying when a Mr. Hyde can grasp a design concept. It's probably the same feeling of gratification preachers feel when they make a believer.

..........

Those of you who post layouts here on this site for critique are to be especially commended. Stirring the design pot in this way is a good thing. We don't always agree on everything, and sometimes an ego gets bruised, but I'm sure that's true in any craft that people take seriously. But by discussing design, attention is focused on it. Ultimately, this has to be beneficial.
.........

I am posting a link to a video that some of you may enjoy. It's about wall dogs in New York City.

Et Cetera
..........

Brad in Kansas City

[ May 23, 2010, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Brad Ferguson ]

--------------------
Brad Ferguson
See More Signs
7931 Wornall Rd
Kansas City, MO 64111
signbrad@yahoo.com
816-739-7316

Posts: 1230 | From: Kansas City, MO, USA | Registered: Nov 1998  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                       

quote:

---

I am adamant that simply 'doing what the customer wants - even if it is terrible' is a slippery slope I will not go down. I believe going there is simply bad for the soul and will take all the joy out of doing what I love.

---

And Dan.... this 'joy' you speak of.... do you have its Nutritional Value handy? I'm curious if I can live on it....

--------------------
Jon Jantz
Snappysign.com
jjantz21@gmail.com
http://www.allcw.com

Posts: 3395 | From: Atmore, AL | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged |