The Internet Defeats GAP

[Square King]

Hey, doesn't American Apparel use Helvetica in their logo? I thought that seemed familiar!

Helvetica's definitely made the rounds. Some companies keep it stock -- Target, Crate & Barrel, Gap -- and others modify it slightly, like Microsoft and Staples.

[Icarus]

When it is used conservatively, Helvetica can be just as beautiful as it was when it first appeared on the scene. However, the problem is that Helvetica is ubiquitous due to over-usage within the field of design - it is used by many designers both veteran and new as a symbol of modernity and future thinking, rather than simply as a typeface that presents information and creates visual hierarchy. What that ends up creating is over-saturation - viewers will see a Helvetica-based design as "more of the same" (for good or bad, you decide), and designers who want to do something different will gravitate towards typefaces that aren't used as often.

I love Helvetica, it is eye-catching and instantly recognisable to anyone with a micron of design knowledge. But unlike designers such as Massimo Vignelli, Michael. C. Place, and The Designer's Republic, who are famed for using it as their primary typeface on major projects (see 1972 New York subway map, still beautiful despite Helvetica usage), I prefer it if it is used sparingly, in moderation. I don't feel that Helvetica is that readable when used to present large bodies of information anyway.

Good design should always be subtle.

[Square King]

It seems many budding designers found out that Helvetica bold and fields of color was an easy way to mean business with little actual design. You can throw out the grid and practically every basic tenet of design if you have the eye for it, really. Quite a few David Carson clones popped up once his stuff got popular and that look was done to death; I'm certain the currrent Helvetica renaissance is just a similar phase. Also, more aspiring designers/wannabes like myself have access to design software and the font itself -- something basically impossible up until the early 90s or so.

Vignelli's stuff (and Place's and countless others' stuff) will always look great because the font truly is timeless. I don't think it's fair to say that the '72 Beck map looks beautiful despite Helvetica. To the average New Yorker or tourist, the map does precisely what it should. It is subtle and it is easy to read. It only gets annoying once you start looking for it.

I still haven't seen entire spreads/pages using Helvetica for body text, so at least people are showing some degree of restraint. But I agree with you, Icarus. Design shouldn't feel like design until you have to dig for information about it.

[Icarus]

It seems many budding designers found out that Helvetica bold and fields of color was an easy way to mean business with little actual design. You can throw out the grid and practically every basic tenet of design if you have the eye for it, really. Quite a few David Carson clones popped up once his stuff got popular and that look was done to death; I'm certain the currrent Helvetica renaissance is just a similar phase. Also, more aspiring designers/wannabes like myself have access to design software and the font itself -- something basically impossible up until the early 90s or so.

I think the Helvetica renaissance has more to do with the recent Helvetica 50th Anniversary, which introduced many new designers to the typeface. It's quite funny, in my graphic design class nobody used Helvetica in their designs until the lecturers showed us the Helvetica documentary. After that, they all started using it. ^_-

Vignelli's stuff (and Place's and countless others' stuff) will always look great because the font truly is timeless. I don't think it's fair to say that the '72 Beck map looks beautiful despite Helvetica. To the average New Yorker or tourist, the map does precisely what it should. It is subtle and it is easy to read. It only gets annoying once you start looking for it.

That is true, but I also believe that you shouldn't use an element in a design just to make it look modern, or trendy, or whatever. All elements should have harmony, once you start overusing a particular element, everything loses balance and the element takes over the design.
The font is timeless, agreed, and it is probably the most perfect example of a well constructed typeface you can get. But like we've said, designers such as the Gap guys are just using it as an excuse to make things look trendy and modern, when in reality, there are a thousand other typefaces that could have done the same job, and a thousand different element layouts and styles. When a design like the new Gap logo is that out of balance, it makes all the corresponding elements look horrible. A typeface like Helvetica is somewhat unforgiving in that regard, in that it take a lot of experience to utilise it properly.

I do love that old map though, infographics at its best.

I still haven't seen entire spreads/pages using Helvetica for body text, so at least people are showing some degree of restraint. But I agree with you, Icarus. Design shouldn't feel like design until you have to dig for information about it.

I've seen Firefox and Safari styles that modify Google Mail and Reader to use a minimal design, and completely Helvetica typeset. There's a calendar for iPhone called Calvetica that, surprise surprise, uses Helvetica throughout. There's even an iPad notepad app that uses the minimal look, but typesets everything in Helvetica. When sparingly used, it looks great, but as body text it looks really weird (to my eyes at least), especially at really small sizes.

If you really want to have fun, grab Stylish for Firefox and overwrite shmupsforum's default CSS file to use Helvetica throughout. Then try and read my Garegga and Batrider ST guides. Hilarity ensues. ^_-

For an example of a minimal look with a nice sans-serif typeface that is still readable, check out Writer for iPad. That is how sans-serif body typefaces should be created, in my opinion, using serif style font enhancements to improve legibility.

[Square King]

I think the Helvetica renaissance has more to do with the recent Helvetica 50th Anniversary, which introduced many new designers to the typeface. It's quite funny, in my graphic design class nobody used Helvetica in their designs until the lecturers showed us the Helvetica documentary. After that, they all started using it. ^_-

Ah yes, didn't think about the anniversary. But hey, everyone likes the sexy. I don't blame them at all.

That is true, but I also believe that you shouldn't use an element in a design just to make it look modern, or trendy, or whatever. All elements should have harmony, once you start overusing a particular element, everything loses balance and the element takes over the design.
...
A typeface like Helvetica is somewhat unforgiving in that regard, in that it take a lot of experience to utilise it properly.

I do love that old map though, infographics at its best.

Have to agree with everything you've said here. The concept of harmony within a design is easy to comprehend and incredibly difficult to execute. To me, the clean and colorful lines of that 70s-era Beck map complements Helvetica so well that it's a great example of harmony. But really, would anyone really notice or care if someone stuck Arial or even Myriad in there instead? Would it lose that sense of unity/harmony as a result?

I've seen Firefox and Safari styles that modify Google Mail and Reader to use a minimal design, and completely Helvetica typeset. There's a calendar for iPhone called Calvetica that, surprise surprise, uses Helvetica throughout. There's even an iPad app that uses the minimal look, but typesets everything in Helvetica. When sparingly used, it looks great, but as body text it looks really horrible.

That all just sounds gross. Although I will say I'm not crazy about Reader's frame-heavy layout. Gets cluttered pretty quickly.

For an example of a minimal look with a nice sans-serif typeface that is still readable, check out Writer for iPad. That is how sans-serif body typefaces should be created, in my opinion.

Isn't that technically a serif? In the 3rd image, compare the capital I in READING with the I on the iPad keyboard.

I really like monospaced fonts, certainly for body text, but since the majority of text out there isn't monospaced, it takes some acclimating. But that is a pretty sexy app if you do a lot of writing on the iPad. I like the mentality behind it, especially disabling the smart quotes thing (which should be an iDevice switchable option, btw). edit: Funny that the more advances we make in typing, the more we actually want a typewriter.

[Icarus]

Have to agree with everything you've said here. The concept of harmony within a design is easy to comprehend and incredibly difficult to execute. To me, the clean and colorful lines of that 70s-era Beck map complements Helvetica so well that it's a great example of harmony. But really, would anyone really notice or care if someone stuck Arial or even Myriad in there instead? Would it lose that sense of unity/harmony as a result?

It is a shame there's no digital editable version of the old map on the Internet, it would make for an interesting design experiment.

For an example of a minimal look with a nice sans-serif typeface that is still readable, check out Writer for iPad. That is how sans-serif body typefaces should be created, in my opinion.

Isn't that technically a serif? In the 3rd image, compare the capital I in READING with the I on the iPad keyboard.

I really like monospaced fonts, certainly for body text, but since the majority of text out there isn't monospaced, it takes some acclimating. But that is a pretty sexy app if you do a lot of writing on the iPad. I like the mentality behind it, especially disabling the smart quotes thing (which should be an iDevice switchable option, btw).

Depends on how you would define serif, personally. The classic definition of a serif, at least in terms of the letter I, includes the extra vertical "hooks" on the end of the horizontal bars, while the typical sans-serif letter I has the vertical stem and horizontal bars on some typefaces, and just the vertical stem on others. The monospaced typeface in Writer is fully sans-serif in my opinion, and has elements of old typewriter type design, but with little touches to improve legibility on the screen.
… my god, I am a gigantic typegeek. :p

Speaking of the Information Architects, they have a pretty good on-topic article here: http://www.informationarchitects.jp/en/ ... emolition/

[Square King]

Yeah, the I was probably not the best letter to define the character set. There aren't any telltale serif signs on the R, E, A, D, N or G (kinda) so I'm inclined to agree with you.

I am merely a typegeek-in-training.

[Icarus]

Yeah, the I was probably not the best letter to define the character set. There aren't any telltale serif signs on the R, E, A, D, N or G (kinda) so I'm inclined to agree with you.
I am merely a typegeek-in-training.

(￣▽￣)

Well, as web designers are currently debating, web design is 95% typography (and I'd wager, 95% of ALL design is typography, too), so it's a good idea for any aspiring designer to learn the fundamentals of good typography. The advantage you have now, over designers of yesteryear, is the wealth and availability of information regarding the topic. ^_-

[Square King]

I'd say typography is 95% of any design involving mass communication. I wouldn't be narrow-minded and say industrial designers don't care which font is used for their designs, but you don't have to rely heavily on type for a pair of scissors or a paperclip. Then again, if you've made a chair and need to promote it somehow, type's gonna play a part, right?

Thanks for sharing that blog. Very cool stuff. Another one I follow is Before & After, despite the rare update. The guy who brought up the Verizon logo was my graphic design professor, to whom I owe my infatuation with all things design. His site is quite awesome as well.

[Icarus]

I'd say typography is 95% of any design involving mass communication. I wouldn't be narrow-minded and say industrial designers don't care which font is used for their designs, but you don't have to rely heavily on type for a pair of scissors or a paperclip. Then again, if you've made a chair and need to promote it somehow, type's gonna play a part, right?

Thanks for sharing that blog. Very cool stuff. Another one I follow is Before & After, despite the rare update. The guy who brought up the Verizon logo was my graphic design professor, to whom I owe my infatuation with all things design. His site is quite awesome as well.

Good points. And you're welcome. As a web designer and developer by trade, I believe that the theory of information architecture and user experience is important to know and understand, because webdevs aren't just crafting sites, we're crafting the presentation of information, and user experiences. You'd be surprised at the amount of webdevs I meet who don't understand these basic tenets. Which is why I'm quite fussy about the use of good typography on any information-centric design. ^_-

If you want more, and are interested in webdev, check out 52 Weeks of UX, and A List Apart. Great articles. Typenuts should go to I Love Typography. There are loads of good graphic and illustration blogs around, too, as well as tutorial and article sites.

</offtopic>

[Ed Oscuro]

Helvetica's definitely made the rounds. Some companies keep it stock -- Target, Crate & Barrel, Gap -- and others modify it slightly, like Microsoft and Staples.

I find it interesting that they used to use - on product boxes before Windows 95, like Windows for Workgroups 3.11, the original MS Mouse, DOS, and so on used a serif font kind of like Times New Roman. They also used the same sort of blotchy cartoon graphics that were in vogue at the time - there was one guy in particular famous for them. Now it all seems pretty quaint, but for me a bit nostalgic perhaps.

Well, as web designers are currently debating, web design is 95% typography (and I'd wager, 95% of ALL design is typography, too)

I wouldn't wager so. You think the GAP logo is 95% the type? The color and the fact it's in a box are inseparable from the rest. Even leaving aside my quibble with the typical fanaticism of a "our job is 95% of all design" type preaching of true believers, I think that downgrades how central other things are to the design. Type has a central role in logos and the like, but the first thing you notice when you see a 1959 Oldsmobile stalled in the middle of the road is not the strong OLDSMOBILE in thick chrome on the front grille.

The Verizon logo is also a good example. The only part that uniquely brands it is the subtle red V shape, which in the word "Verizon" is transferred to the Z. There, the color (and if you take a moment to think about it, which consumers won't be doing, the impression of speed the sharp angle connotes) does all the work. The black type is there just because it has to be; it's designed not to detract from the angular velocity of that red element.

Anyway, I suppose this is getting into philosophical territory. One could claim that banners like these and the text here is a typographical exercise, but the orientation of elements was designed not for comprehension but to be striking - the fact that the visual design arguably enhances reading groups of letters (if you know how read words written with this given alphabet...) could just as easily be argued to be incidental as it could be argued the whole point of the exercise.

[Square King]

Well, as web designers are currently debating, web design is 95% typography (and I'd wager, 95% of ALL design is typography, too)

I wouldn't wager so. You think the GAP logo is 95% the type? The color and the fact it's in a box are inseparable from the rest. Even leaving aside my quibble with the typical fanaticism of a "our job is 95% of all design" type preaching of true believers, I think that downgrades how central other things are to the design. Type has a central role in logos and the like, but the first thing you notice when you see a 1959 Oldsmobile stalled in the middle of the road is not the strong OLDSMOBILE in thick chrome on the front grille.

But just because it isn't noticible right away doesn't mean it's not a major part of the brand. If you look at a pair of khakis, you only know whether they're Gap if you see the tag (unless you really know your clothes, I guess). A '59 Olds stalled in the road today is not the same as a stalled '59 Olds in '59; that style is widely known today, but it was more or less the standard profile (warning: assumption being made) for other cars in its class 60 years ago. The point I'm trying to arrive at is that type definitely helps to establish a brand and identity. Even logo-centric companies like Marc Ecko and BMW rely on particular fonts to keep their image. I'm not fully disagreeing with you nor with Icarus, but I like to think type plays a bigger role than 90% of consumers think.

The Verizon logo is also a good example. The only part that uniquely brands it is the subtle red V shape, which in the word "Verizon" is transferred to the Z. There, the color (and if you take a moment to think about it, which consumers won't be doing, the impression of speed the sharp angle connotes) does all the work. The black type is there just because it has to be; it's designed not to detract from the angular velocity of that red element.

That red V-shape/check is pretty unnecessary, imo. It's a little overbearing. What they're doing with the Z is unique enough. They could really push/highlight it and make that Z red, but the check would make the Z redundant. I think that's the gist of the article I linked, too.

Also worth noting that the Verizon logo is, indeed, 95% type. The modified Z still functions as a letter; it shouldn't be viewed as entirely separate from the rest of the text.

Anyway, I suppose this is getting into philosophical territory. One could claim that banners like these and the text here is a typographical exercise, but the orientation of elements was designed not for comprehension but to be striking - the fact that the visual design arguably enhances reading groups of letters (if you know how read words written with this given alphabet...) could just as easily be argued to be incidental as it could be argued the whole point of the exercise.

Well, look at Arabic or Hebrew. For those of us who can't comprehend those alphabets and constructions, it certainly looks striking. Was that intentional? The point of a written language is to extend comprehension, which has to be done through a very particular design. I don't believe the design of any alphabet is ever incidental if it's intended to be used by the average person.

[Ed Oscuro]

A '59 Olds stalled in the road today is not the same as a stalled '59 Olds in '59; that style is widely known today, but it was more or less the standard profile (warning: assumption being made) for other cars in its class 60 years ago. The point I'm trying to arrive at is that type definitely helps to establish a brand and identity. Even logo-centric companies like Marc Ecko and BMW rely on particular fonts to keep their image. I'm not fully disagreeing with you nor with Icarus, but I like to think type plays a bigger role than 90% of consumers think.

From the distance that you see that stalled Oldsmobile, the lettering on the front grille will not even be readable. (Be careful if thinking of criticizing the design as an objective branding failure; the grille design of the Oldsmobile logo is a classic element in a classic design.) There's a huge difference between the '59 Olds and, for example, the model from the year previous (with the telltale grooves along the back of the body, "supporting" the wings). There's also very obvious differences between those and the Chevy Bel Air from 1956 (which kinda looks like a '58 Olds), and from 1957, an Impala from '58, a 1959 Bel Air...the roads provide a common enough situation where branding has traditionally been through the use of the whole object as a canvas, rather than by only making a little mark to differentiate otherwise similar objects.

Go ask any police officer what their branding-related awareness is likely to be when tearing off the side of a road after a suspect vehicle, and they won't say something like "I spotted Dianate Z'Flubbio's divine logo branding on the back door." Even if it's a crate van. Driving is very much an everday activity where typography has only a niche in the overall branding game.

I've got no vendetta against type- or branding-oriented design, but in the grand scheme of things, type design is a particular element in a branding exercise that does not replace function. As an effective form of social control, it's admirably done, but still, the actual thing has to stand in for itself (taking a line from Ezra Pound). I know there's a long train of discussion to be made, with many people - not necessarily magicians and charlatans - claiming that a feeling can replace a thing, and that we can live in dreams and shadows. Fine - but I think that when Canon replaced the logo across the prism box of their cameras in the 1970s, that logo was waiting for Luigi Colani to design the T-90, applying his theory of "bio-forms" to bringing the practice of camera design into modernity. The rounded, comfortable-looking text does not replace the comfortable hand-fitting form which makes an object not just latch onto our imaginations as a thing which feels familiar and seems to have human sympathies, but a thing which actually operates in tandem with people beyond stirring up emotions. Demons! Thumb noses no longer at industrial designers.

And, just as strikingly, the Verizon logo we've been talking about is a good example of typography being able to take front stage, or recede into the woodwork as needed. Take the Verizon logo on the cargo vans in the linked article: The logo is the first thing we notice because the cargo van is a familiar object. Yet the Verizon logo is pushing other type off the stage (like company designs from the van manufacturer, a dealer's insignia, etc.) but change the design of the van enough and it may fall back to secondary status. Of course, that's part of the obvious reason why they use nondescript cargo vans for company vehicles - the brand stands out first.

To be sure, type designs stand out much more quickly than arbitrary design elements (like the design of a vehicle) because they inherently contain meaning, which activates the verbal portions of our brains.

The Verizon logo is also a good example. The only part that uniquely brands it is the subtle red V shape, which in the word "Verizon" is transferred to the Z. There, the color (and if you take a moment to think about it, which consumers won't be doing, the impression of speed the sharp angle connotes) does all the work. The black type is there just because it has to be; it's designed not to detract from the angular velocity of that red element.

That red V-shape/check is pretty unnecessary, imo. It's a little overbearing. [...]

I would say the reverse, actually; it's flighty and blows the canvas wide open for no good reason. Which, as the article mentions, makes it harder to cram the logo into a limited area - such as in a row next to other logos. The NBC logo, the Dutch Royal Shell logo, are happy enough in a square. Even the dimensions the Verizon logo uses are nonstandard.

Also worth noting that the Verizon logo is, indeed, 95% type.

Which does nothing for the claim that "95% of ALL design is typography," of course.

Anyway, I suppose this is getting into philosophical territory. One could claim that banners like these and the text here is a typographical exercise, but the orientation of elements was designed not for comprehension but to be striking - the fact that the visual design arguably enhances reading groups of letters (if you know how read words written with this given alphabet...) could just as easily be argued to be incidental as it could be argued the whole point of the exercise.

Well, look at Arabic or Hebrew.

But we're not; we're looking at an arbitrary design exercise. And that's interesting because of how closely it can be said to match the use of real languages. Arabic and Hebrew, in "normal" use, are used and organized in functional ways - when used in the ordinary utilitarian manner.

Arabic of course has been used in architecture and other art in a very arbitrary way, similar to the imaginary language examples I linked above. But there, as you say, it looks "quite striking" and in fact that is the primary purpose, even when a real language like Arabic is used. You can read the Arabic calligraphy on Arabic architecture, but it does raise some interesting questions from your statement here:

The point of a written language is to extend comprehension, which has to be done through a very particular design. I don't believe the design of any alphabet is ever incidental if it's intended to be used by the average person.

If I had to argue, I would say that alphabets are the ultimate designs by committee, like languages in general. From the objective perspective of utility - speed to scribe or recognize, for example - there are plenty of horrible "design choices" in most any language, especially when you look at any given use. If anything, using alphabets in a completely arbitrary fashion helps break free of some of these limits, because what doesn't suit the designer can be fudged or even tossed. In "real" use of language, for example kanji, there are tradeoffs: Kanji are fast and simple to recognize but difficult and time-consuming to learn and write. Of course, "word shapes" play into English as well, and what English achieves in terms of alphabet simplicity, density, and perhaps even word recognition, it has some other costs perhaps not immediately seen. Could a better system of writing be made than any given one? Perhaps, and perhaps not.

I think that some decades ago the common theory would have been something like alphabets being themselves "designed" at one time or another, as the result of a wholly arbitrary design exercise to represent some other thing - just as we use these convoluted logos today to represent complicated concepts. I suspect that the idea that graphemes may have originated in the dim age of myth in this fashion may have survived, but I don't think that constant revision and mutation by the whims of popular usage (the process Samuel Johnson described for words in 1755 for his famous Dictionary) represent some kind of thinking "design" process, unless something like Darwinism = design can be decreed true (which I find unlikely). One person may have "tree" in mind when drawing a "Y" while another person may have "traitor being strung up on the rack" in mind, and experience shows that even when you strip a particular symbol of particular meanings, it still can be treated politically. Even if you can think of a "Y" as not representing anything in particular, it's quite possible to think of ways to design a "fascist Y," an "energetic Y," or a "sad Y." Collections of letters often obfuscate meaning, or layered meanings, instead of "extending" them: "Coca-Cola" in the famous script carries meanings for various individuals, including: Nostalgia, enamel decay, patriotism, a pleasant syrupy and fizzy drink, not-Cocaine, economic imperialism, diabeetus and obesity...meanings to be ranked by viewer preference.

I think the fact that any alphabet, or even anything represented to be an alphabet fit to serve as such, can be used in an arbitrary design manner simply illustrates that people are inventive and shape materials as befits the situation.