After creating both the final rationale and specimen, a group crit took place to gain feedback from peers and to identify whether the connection to the rationale and meaning of design was successfully executed through the final typeface. There were a majority of positive feedback and great feedback of ways to push the design forward.
Here is feedback given:
Is this Design successful? How? if not, Why?
"I think the design is successful, it relays your message/research well and the chosen purpose you have eg politics etc would be perfect for the typeface. I particularly like the term stubborn as your typeface presents this well."
"Yes, despite the removal of Sections most letters are still legible."
" Could you have cut the letters so they were more angular"*
*This response to the structure of the typeface was expected, originally the typeface was going to attain the sharp angularity of Berthold, however through development, the design proved more intriguing and more rebellious by not conforming to the shape of Berthold; becoming its own unique typeface in the process.
Is the concept of the Reasoning/ Rationale confident/Clear? If not, why?
"Captured the 'static' personality so well"
"Confident and clear, the rationale clearly states the typeface concept and personality and function, with a well research background and a clear influence of this research."
" The rationale is interesting and effectively portrayed"
"Your type specimen is unique and well thought out"
"Type specimen is really cleverly designed.
Additional Feedback
"I think the design is successful because your typeface communicated the idea of stubbornness through it's slightly illegibility. It makes me, as the reader word hard to read it, which in turn slightly frustrates me, meaning you typeface creates an emotional response."
"Very successful as the removal of the letters makes it look inconsistent and edgy. Very confident and clear, captures the meaning of the word very well. Looks really cool on the print out"
"The illegibility creates a sense of rebelliousness very clearly, however I don't think the typeface is useful poster design/awareness campaigns, as they need to be legible/straight to the point." *
*This feedback is very true, however like Carson I wanted to break the rules of design, would making the poster different and intriguing add more interest to the design. Yes the design needs to be straight to the point, however personally simple designs like that are things that are easily forgotten and not thought about. The Static typeface could create more attention, the concentration used to work out what has been written will leave a longer impression on the reader, and if the poster were to be rhetoric to cause frustration (protest) for the reader, the irritated emotional response of having to read what's been written first will amplify that emotion the actual message says.
"I feel the design represents Static well, but I'm not understanding how angry is conveyed. I feel to convey the anger you need to consider sharper edges and possibly serifs. Also confused as to why the specimen is ripped" *
* Again another understable form of feedback given. When further developing the logotype and changing the structure of the typeface I decided that I didn't want the the typeface to encapsulate the form of anger, but create the emotional response of anger/irritation when reading the typeface. This has proved successful, as the first quote under Additional feedback relays how the peer felt when reading the typeface."
" The design is successful because there has been a lot of research into it, which is reflected in the final design and The 'Static' personality works well.
No comments:
Post a Comment