31–40 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ditto. I suspect they could have gotten better international recognition by just using the English words. It would have pissed off the French of course, but that goes in the win column. ;-)
The point was not to get optimal international recognition. Almost the opposite: every symbol should be inoffensive and connote no negative or inappropriate ideas in 108 countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ditto. I suspect they could have gotten better international recognition by just using the English words. It would have pissed off the French of course, but that goes in the win column. ;-)
The point was not to get optimal international recognition. Almost the opposite: every symbol should be inoffensive and connote no negative or inappropriate ideas in 108 countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if we do that then things could look more like the FDA label and just literally repeat the words "fat", "protein," etc but translated into the local language.
err, why would that be desirable? That seems like the worst case scenario, not the best.
Except for calories, I would not be able to understand what means the information on nutrient icons without having the corresponding word next to it.
And doesn't most of the world use kJ, not kCal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
err, why would that be desirable? That seems like the worst case scenario, not the best.
Because there's no ambiguity. I have no idea what those icons mean except 'cal' or 'kcal', so if I have to look up a legend then to decode it then I might as well have the word in place. A giant table of icons & numbers isn't necessary a better case than a giant table of words that I can read & numbers.
Consider that numbers take up relatively-constant amounts of space, but words for some nutritional concepts in some languages can be extremely long—and mostly you design for this by just requiring the design-element to have a box-size of the widest possible text in the widest language, and then padding the box with empty space almost all of the time.
Removing the words, and just having icons + numbers, allows for a design that can be very "narrow" in horizontal area, taking up a basically-constant amount of space with very little padding, allowing it to fit in many places it currently wouldn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point was not to get optimal international recognition. Almost the opposite: every symbol should be inoffensive and connote no negative or inappropriate ideas in 108 countries.
And they accomplished that, by designing symbols that convey no meaning whatsoever.
Of course McDonalds is in an excellent position to slowly give these symbols meaning through constant exposure, but inherently the way they're designed does not convey anything at all. They might as well have just used colours or shapes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point was not to get optimal international recognition. Almost the opposite: every symbol should be inoffensive and connote no negative or inappropriate ideas in 108 countries.
And they accomplished that, by designing symbols that convey no meaning whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there's no ambiguity. I have no idea what those icons mean except 'cal' or 'kcal', so if I have to look up a legend then to decode it then I might as well have the word in place. A giant table of icons & numbers isn't necessary a better case than a giant table of words that I can read & numbers.
I believe half the point was to design for the use-case where you can't fit a "giant table of words [you] can read & numbers." Where currently the nutritional information ends up in restaurants on e.g. a sheet on the wall instead of on your food, or in grocery stores on product bulk packaging (e.g. cardboard boxes that get thrown away, etc.) instead of on the individual product units. Consider that numbers take up re…
Icons that are impossible to decipher don't improve anything IMHO. Perhaps they should have gone culturally-specific, something with just the first letter, or anything else that people might locally understand if the word absolutely can't be used.
Don't get me wrong, but I just don't see the point in this. This looks like a pretty in-depth study, why couldn't we use these man hours to create something of actual value? Why does someone care that some people associated an icon with "scary alien"? Just put the icon descriptions somewhere on the page and use circles with a single letter inside for all I care.
> Don't get me wrong, but I just don't see the point in this. This is probably why you aren't running a massively successful multinational company.
They would've got very similar effect by using single letters in a circle - they're not offensive and would suggest as much to their actual meaning as a bunch of abstract icons.
Except for calories, I would not be able to understand what means the information on nutrient icons without having the corresponding word next to it.
From TFA: > “We realize that some of the visuals may not already be strongly linked in consumer minds to the nutrient they are meant to depict in all markets.” > “We intend to promote understanding of the images through supporting materials in Europe, from web sites to images explained on tray liners and via in-store displays,” ... > “After repeated exposure to these images, customers should eventually grasp their me…
- Ronald McDonald