Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

justcreative.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#161

Post by carlosjobim »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #106
lotsofpulp wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their stated purpose was to make it more accessible. The reasoned that the neoclassical architecture and old-style font made the space intimidating to people who didn’t hold those things to be part of their culture and that it was out of tune with the increasing diversity of their collection and programs. Can put this under the dictionary definition of insanity. Or someone needed justification to get paid without d…

I want to say it makes complete sense to me. It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics and the image of association with elitism and colonialism plays a huge role in that. Changing the style choices of museum communications towards ones which are further dissociated from those issues seems like ab obvious first step towrads increasing the perception of inclusivity. I would ask anyone w…

> It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics...

So what? These people don't have to go there. There's a whole bunch of places and things I find unappealing, so I don't seek it out.

By destroying culture, you're also robbing people who would appreciate it from an experience. And people who appreciate something can come from all kinds of backgrounds.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#162

Post by crazygringo »

Unfrozen0688 wrote: post #160
crazygringo wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that any different than a new Rolex and a Brooks Brothers shirt? The more things change, the more they stay the same. (And at least an iPhone does a lot more than a Rolex, and is a heckuva lot cheaper too. So I see this as a major improvement, actually.)

>How is that any different than a new Rolex and a Brooks Brothers shirt? Also nevau rich shit

Nouveau riche?

OK, so we haven't fallen at all. That was my point.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#163

Post by comfysocks »

coldtea wrote: post #104
lotsofpulp wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their stated purpose was to make it more accessible. The reasoned that the neoclassical architecture and old-style font made the space intimidating to people who didn’t hold those things to be part of their culture and that it was out of tune with the increasing diversity of their collection and programs. Can put this under the dictionary definition of insanity. Or someone needed justification to get paid without d…

> The reasoned that the neoclassical architecture and old-style font made the space intimidating to people who didn’t hold those things to be part of their culture and that it was out of tune with the increasing diversity of their collection and programs. The whole purpose of an actually inclusive "Museum of Fine Arts" should have been the opposite: to make people appreciate, understand, and enjoy things that they do…

So, by making their collection more diverse, they are going to be challenging to a broader swath of visitors, no?

People steeped in Classicism need to have their horizons expanded too, right?

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#164

Post by AlecSchueler »

carlosjobim wrote: post #161
AlecSchueler wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to say it makes complete sense to me. It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics and the image of association with elitism and colonialism plays a huge role in that. Changing the style choices of museum communications towards ones which are further dissociated from those issues seems like ab obvious first step towrads increasing the perception of inclusivity. I would ask anyone w…

> It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics... So what? These people don't have to go there. There's a whole bunch of places and things I find unappealing, so I don't seek it out. By destroying culture, you're also robbing people who would appreciate it from an experience. And people who appreciate something can come from all kinds of backgrounds.

Museums can be very inspiring and educational places and can also increase the sense of wellbeing in visitors. Most have it as an aim to bring access to these benefits to a wide range of people. There's also many issues to including contemporary artists from non-traditional background which is a shame for both the creators and people who would potentially enjoy their work.

I'm not sure how an institution using a different typeface with the aim of being more inclusive is "destroying culture" to such a degree that it should be a serious consideration when weighed against the benefits. Could you explain further what you meant by that?

Of course the people who enjoy these things can come from any type of background but first they have to fell welcome to even experience them. Currently in my native country the research shows that white people are almost twice as likely to visit a museum in the first place compared to black people. I personally find that a real shame because I think everyone can benefit from visitng them.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#165

Post by carlosjobim »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #164
carlosjobim wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics... So what? These people don't have to go there. There's a whole bunch of places and things I find unappealing, so I don't seek it out. By destroying culture, you're also robbing people who would appreciate it from an experience. And people who appreciate something can come from all kinds of backgrounds.

Museums can be very inspiring and educational places and can also increase the sense of wellbeing in visitors. Most have it as an aim to bring access to these benefits to a wide range of people. There's also many issues to including contemporary artists from non-traditional background which is a shame for both the creators and people who would potentially enjoy their work. I'm not sure how an institution using a diff…

Nobody cares about a font, but if you read the thread you'll see that it's also the architecture that is "oppressive" in the eyes of the ideologues. When you're destroying architecture you're destroying culture. The same technocrats who has filled the world with the most depressing brutalist architecture are claiming that some mysterious "others" suffer greatly from the classical looks of museums.

> Of course the people who enjoy these things can come from any type of background but first they have to fell welcome to even experience them.

And in what way would somebody feel unwelcome by a font? Why is a serif font less welcoming than a sans serif font? When you do the thinking for other people and when you're feeling oppressed on their behalf, maybe you should instead re-evaluate what you're doing. Are you as an enlightened hacker able to appreciate different cultures, expressions, and even typefaces with a cool self-distance, while people who are lesser than you have to be baby-sat by other enlightened individuals that protect them from unfamiliar columns and serifs?

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#166

Post by AlecSchueler »

carlosjobim wrote: post #165
AlecSchueler wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Museums can be very inspiring and educational places and can also increase the sense of wellbeing in visitors. Most have it as an aim to bring access to these benefits to a wide range of people. There's also many issues to including contemporary artists from non-traditional background which is a shame for both the creators and people who would potentially enjoy their work. I'm not sure how an institution using a diff…

Nobody cares about a font, but if you read the thread you'll see that it's also the architecture that is "oppressive" in the eyes of the ideologues. When you're destroying architecture you're destroying culture. The same technocrats who has filled the world with the most depressing brutalist architecture are claiming that some mysterious "others" suffer greatly from the classical looks of museums. > Of course the peo…

> Are you as an enlightened hacker able to appreciate different cultures, expressions, and even typefaces with a cool self-distance, while people who are lesser than you have to be baby-sat by other enlightened individuals that protect them from unfamiliar columns and serifs?

That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that.

I'm not doing anyone's thinking. The position that typography carries associative and emotional weight is not novel here. I think you know very well that serif fonts carry a sense of formality and even authority that sans fonts don't.

I'm also not the one making these changes. I'm not sure why you think these decisions are being left up to me and people like me. The MFABoston has quite a robust inclusivity policy and they not only take on board research on these issues but they also facilitate direct contact where possible from people from various groups outside of their own sphere, including experts and service users/potential service users. Further to that they are also committed to a diversity and inclusivity policy with regards to their staffing, offering things like bias training to staff as well as offering staff "employee resource groups" that support staff who are members of societal groups that face systemic barriers to having their voices heard in order to help them overcome those barriers.

If you have any ideas on things they're missing you can contact them via their website.

> When you're destroying architecture you're destroying culture. The same technocrats who has filled the world with the most depressing brutalist architecture are claiming that some mysterious "others" suffer greatly from the classical looks of museums.

Which technocrats are these? The psychology of architecture is also not a novel idea, but it feels like you're speaking with incredulity here? Deyan Sudjic's The Edifice Complex is a fun book about this. There's a reason the White House looks how it does, it's communicating something and it's asking certain behavioural norms from the people who step inside.

I'm not sure what architecture is being destroyed. Here in Europe such buildings are generally protected from significant redevelopment becaues they're rightly recognised as cultural heritage in and of themselves. Is this a real issue?

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#167

Post by carlosjobim »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #166
carlosjobim wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody cares about a font, but if you read the thread you'll see that it's also the architecture that is "oppressive" in the eyes of the ideologues. When you're destroying architecture you're destroying culture. The same technocrats who has filled the world with the most depressing brutalist architecture are claiming that some mysterious "others" suffer greatly from the classical looks of museums. > Of course the peo…

> Are you as an enlightened hacker able to appreciate different cultures, expressions, and even typefaces with a cool self-distance, while people who are lesser than you have to be baby-sat by other enlightened individuals that protect them from unfamiliar columns and serifs? That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that. I'm not doing anyone's thinking. The position that typography ca…

> That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that.

There is a fully saturated air of superiority in the arguments that you are making and defending. How can you and others take it for granted that people referred to as "many demographics" would at all feel at unease with serif fonts? That sounds 100% made up, because it is. It might be easier to just make up how other people are supposed to feel, instead of getting to know these strange "others", that are just like you.

Why not put yourself in the situation? Let's say you went to a foreign place from yours to visit an important public building. This can be a temple, palace, church, mosque, or even a serif-using museum. Would you find it reasonable to demand they change their architecture and their fonts for you to feel welcome? Would you agree with local custodians, if they argued that you don't have the capacity to appreciate the original style, or would you find it demeaning? Classical Roman style architecture is foreign to my culture, and I greatly appreciate when I can visit such a place, why in the world would I feel unwelcome? That would be like getting mad at the light fixtures.

> I think you know very well that serif fonts carry a sense of formality and even authority that sans fonts don't.

Not at all. Serif fonts are printed in novels, while sans serif fonts are used in forms from the tax office. But even if we entertain that idea, so what? Some places are formal, and every human has the capacity to behave formally and be in formal places – if they chose to.

> Which technocrats are these? > I'm not sure what architecture is being destroyed.

People who are professionals in city planning. I guess it's ordered differently everywhere under different names. They are technicians and they are making the decisions - hence technocrats. A ton of buildings were torn down during the 1900s to make room for brutalist shoeboxes. What's left is usually protected, as you mention.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#168

Post by AlecSchueler »

carlosjobim wrote: post #167
AlecSchueler wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you as an enlightened hacker able to appreciate different cultures, expressions, and even typefaces with a cool self-distance, while people who are lesser than you have to be baby-sat by other enlightened individuals that protect them from unfamiliar columns and serifs? That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that. I'm not doing anyone's thinking. The position that typography ca…

> That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that. There is a fully saturated air of superiority in the arguments that you are making and defending. How can you and others take it for granted that people referred to as "many demographics" would at all feel at unease with serif fonts? That sounds 100% made up, because it is. It might be easier to just make up how other people are supposed…

> There is a fully saturated air of superiority in the arguments that you are making and defending.

I asked you not to do this, but you're continuing to do so and trying to justify it. I won't engage in this way. Any sense of superiority/inferiority or thought prescriptivism that you're sensing in what I'm saying is something you've projected onto me. I'm talking only about accessibility. This exchange has been bizarre.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#169

Post by AlecSchueler »

loughnane wrote: post #156
AlecSchueler wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beauty and soulfulness are very subjective, but I think the way to judge this design is by how successful it was at helping perceptions of inclusivity. I'm not sure if this particular institution publishes data about visitor demographics but I'm sure they have an internal understanding of the value of this change.

Yeah, if they were very well-managed that have metrics not only for success but also for potential loss. And then an honest qualitative evaluation to see changes—good and bad—in the things that are hard to measure but nonetheless important. I’ve seen very few firms of any sort do that well.

I'm reading this as they should do nothing because they're incapable of meaningfully assessing the impact?

Then I'm sure we're both unqualified to give our views on it too.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#170

Post by carlosjobim »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #168
carlosjobim wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that. There is a fully saturated air of superiority in the arguments that you are making and defending. How can you and others take it for granted that people referred to as "many demographics" would at all feel at unease with serif fonts? That sounds 100% made up, because it is. It might be easier to just make up how other people are supposed…

> There is a fully saturated air of superiority in the arguments that you are making and defending. I asked you not to do this, but you're continuing to do so and trying to justify it. I won't engage in this way. Any sense of superiority/inferiority or thought prescriptivism that you're sensing in what I'm saying is something you've projected onto me. I'm talking only about accessibility. This exchange has been bizar…

I apologize if I interpreted wrongfully your reasoning. I did ask how a serif font is supposed to have the properties described, or why anybody should feel unwelcome by classical architecture, but without much answer IMO.
Post reply on HN