My good example of Type in the Wild for this week is the can of dry shampoo. It was one of the first things I saw at the beginning of this week and I figured it was a pretty good example of typography. The font of the brand at the top of the product is in a different font and uses all uppercase letters, which helps the reader separate the brand from the description of the product. It’s also not too big, so that the attention isn’t brought to the name brand first. Instead, the type on the words “Beach Babe” are the focal point of the product. The font is completely different and gives off more of a fun and beachy vibe. The use of color also sets it apart from the rest, as it uses a nice blue. These factors help the reader almost immediately identify the type of dry sham poo they are buying, since it is color coordinated and looks different from the rest. I also find that the use of blue adds to the beach theme. Directly underneath this is an in-depth example of the product. The size of the words “dry shampoo” are a little bit bigger and more bold, since that is a bit more important than the words “texturizing”. At the very bottom of the can, the scent of the product is placed in a smaller size, a different font, lowercase letters, and the same shade of blue. I think this works well because it’s probably the least important bit of information needed by the reader, but it’s still cohesive with the rest of the can. It subtly draws attention to the scent, without overshadowing the rest of the information on the can.
My bad example of Type in the Wild was much more difficult for me to find, as I didn’t leave campus this week. I had to look around things in my dorm, which was a lot more difficult than I thought it would be. I had a hard time finding issues in type with the name brand items that I have. However, I do think the type of this Arizona tea logo could be a little bit better. It’s quite busy, and just a little bit dif ficult to read. The tree branches that move in and out of the letters kind of blocks them and adds to the business. I know that the tree isn’t a part of the typography on the can, but if the name was separated from the tree more, it would be more eligible. I also think that the gold outlines around the letters could be moved in a little bit closer. This way they would be connected to the white of the letters more, and it would make the idea of a gold shadow more clean. Overall, I think the type is good. The flavor of tea is small, but not too small that it is hard to find on the can. If the gold of the letters shadowed the white so that you couldn’t see the background of the can, I think it would help the brand name stick out a lot more and be a bit easier to read.
My good example of typography this week is this brand of dish soap. The font differs a little bit throughout the logo, but overall, it looks very cohesive. The brand name is the largest and easiest to read. It also contains a white shadow behind the letters that help it stand out and become more bold. The word ‘Mrs.’ at the beginning of the brand is very small compared to the rest of it, however. I think this may be mostly because it’s not as important as the name, so there isn’t a need for the styles to match up. The typography of the logo is big enough to draw attention towards it, without being overwhelming. I feel like the rest of the type on the bottle does the same thing as well. The font stays consistent and simple throughout the rest of the logo, only gain ing text size by a few points as well as getting slightly more bold on certain words. The use of these techniques allows the words like ‘dish soap’ on the bottle to stand out, so the consumer knows what they are buying without having to look too hard to find out. The type even goes as far as making the word ‘dish’ larger to help with that. The scent is put in a highlighted circle to emphasize that as well. The type color stays purple throughout the entire bottle, except for the highlights on the brand name. Over all, the typography on this bottle is very clean, neat, and easy to read.
For my bad example of type in the wild this week, I chose this logo for a bag of grapes. At first glance, I was going to use this for my good example of typogra phy, but once I looked closer and read the entire logo, I thought it would work well as my bad example. The use of purple works well with the logo, because grapes are being advertised and they are usually associated with the color pur ple. It’s also a subtle and simple shade, which works well with the font while not being too vibrant. The font is nice and simple and it’s easy to read until the last two letters. For some reason, the letters ‘r’ and ‘y’ connect at the top. This kinda makes it look like a strange letter ‘n’ that’s connected to a ‘y’ instead. It’s espe cially weird because no other letters in the logo connect, so it’s kind of confusing when the ‘r’ and ‘y’ do it. The end of the logo ends up being just a little bit hard to read. Almost like the logo is supposed to say Grapeny. Instead, I would have used a font that didn’t have any letters that connect. I could have also adjusted the kerning between the last two letters, since the arms on both of the letters end up in the same space. This way, there would be just enough space between the letters so that the ‘r’ and the ‘y’ are separated and easy to read.
My good example of typography this week is this bottle of body wash. The font for the first two words is nice and simple, with serifs that make it a little bit more elegant and all letters are capitalized. The next word, “night”, is in a different font from the rest. It’s italicized, and only the first letter is capitalized. Making these words look slightly different from each other was an interesting choice, but I think it works well for the overall aesthetic of the product. I am usually one to keep things simple but it works well because it emphasizes the word “night”, which is the main word for the scent of the body wash. The rest of the product is also aesthetically pleasing and easy to read. The words “moisturizing body wash” are big and in all caps. The type style is sans serif because while the first three words were naming the scent of the product, this set of information is to simply tell what the product is. Under this, the font gets smaller and the characters become thinner, because this last bit of information is describing what the product contains, so this information is not what the reader needs first. I also think the use of color really works with the typography on the bottle. Since a nice rose gold color is used, the writing looks more elegant and pleasing to the eye. Overall, the typography on this item is easy to read while also being very pleasing to the eye.
For this week’s bad example of typography, I’m using the Method brand hand soap. This isn’t the worst example of typography, but it’s a little bit hard to read. I had to zoom in a lot on the picture, and it’s still hard to read in some places. The font isn’t bad, it’s actually very simple and in lowercase. The tracking is very small, so the letters are very close together, but you can still see a small bit of space. There is no variation in stress or strokes in the font, so it’s not hard to read in that aspect. The size, however, is very small. I think the brand is going for a simple look, but I think the brand name on the bottle should be a little bit bigger. Also, the color of the font is white. There are no shadows or highlights anywhere to make the letters stand out more either. This makes it a bit difficult to see on the bottle that I have because it is a lighter color, so the type, especially the smaller characters, blends in with the bottle. I’m sure the brand makes different colored bottles, so it’s probably easier to read on those, but this specific bottle is a little tricky. I already have slight problems with my eyesight, so I had to hold the bottle close to my face to read the full description of the product. I think a slight shadow to the characters or a change in type color would be an easy fix for this product.
For this week’s good example of typography in the wild, I thought this bottle of shampoo would be a good choice. It is a very simple logo with just the name brand at the top in larger bold letters, and the product description at the bottom. I like the typography on this bottle a lot because it is very neat and simple. The logo is a bit more bold, yet the font size still remains relatively small, so it’s not overwhelming. The characters are all in lowercase letters, which adds to the simplicity of the product. The x-height stays the same throughout all of the letters in the top logo, and there is no dot on the lowercase “i”. This was an interesting choice, but I think it makes the name brand look clean and symmetrical. At the bottom of the bottle, the product descrip tion is in the same font style, but it isn’t as bold. After the word “normcore”, there is a difference in x-height throughout the letters. This way, there is a slight separation between the brand’s logo and the product description that isn’t too noticeable, so the typography on the bottle still flows together nicely. Also, the only color used in the typography is black. Instead of having different colors for the different sections, the one color helps with the simplicity as well. It also helps it stand out against the busy background, so the words are very easy to read. Overall, the typography on this bottle is very clean and simple.
This week, I had a bit of trouble finding a bad example of typography around my dorm, until I noticed the logo on my keychain alarm. The logo is centered in the middle of the alarm, and it’s in a nice type size so it is easy to notice. The color of the entire logo is white, which stands out nicely from the blue background, but it’s not too bold. The font style is not bad, and the letters of the logo are in cur sive. The first letter is capitalized and the rest are in lowercase. The main thing that I noticed with the typography is the kerning. There is a very small amount of kerning in between the letters, so they are very close together. I understand that with a cursive font, the kerning of the letters will automatically be smaller, but in this case it looks a bit too cramped. Especially since there is enough space on either side of the brand name. The top of the letter “u” and the “r” touch, as well as the “o” and the “s”. Because of this, the cursive is just a little bit too tight. The exclamation point also slightly connects with the “s” and I think that would look nice if it were separate. It isn’t a bad logo, but I think that if the kerning were adjusted just enough for the letters to be spaced out a little bit more, then it would look a lot less cramped and small.
My good example of typography this week is this bottle of body wash. I know that I have used this brand’s hand soap as a bad example in the past, but I think they have redeemed themselves a little bit with this bottle. The simple lowercase font is used all throughout the bottle. The type style stays bold throughout most of the bottle, with only a few words that are different, including the word ‘body’ next to the brand name, because it’s a variation of the brand, and some information at the bottom of the bottle. This works great because you can tell what the brand believes to be more important. Under the brand name, the description is placed in a different color. The spacing works very well here too, with each ingredient being on a different line. The font is a nice size too, the same size as the brand’s logo, so it all flows together. Then, underneath that, it switches back to the first color for the words ‘simply nourish’. I think the alternating colors work well together. They are both shades of purple, one being lighter than the other, so they still follow the same theme. It adds just a little bit more to the bottle, while still maintaining simplicity, like this brand likes to do. I like how they use the same lowercase font throughout the entire bottle and the way that they emphasize the information is to put it in bold instead of making letters capital.
For this week’s bad example of typography, I chose this sign. I saw this sign for Eyeglass World this weekend and thought it looked a little funny. The font is very easy to read. The tracking and the kerning are at nice levels so the letters are nice ly spaced out. What caught my attention, though, was the red pair of glasses that connect the two words together. The glasses are supposed to be a lowercase ‘g’ on the top word, and an ‘o’ on the bottom. Since it is being used as an ‘o’ in the word ‘world’, I first read it as an ‘o’ in the top word too. The use of the glasses work great in the bottom word, since there is an ‘o’ in the word, but with the top, it’s a bit difficult to see a ‘g’. All of the type is in capital letters as well, and the pair of glasses are being read as a lowercase letter. I think it is much more difficult to read the sign because of this. The glasses disrupt the flow of the sign. The use of glasses is a great idea though! I think that making only the first letter of the words capital, and the rest lowercase could help with the legibility. They could also add a small little rectangle to the top of the glasses, so it looks a little bit more like a lowercase ‘g’, while still being subtle and keeping the look of glasses.
For this week’s good example, I chose this hand soap. The logo has a nice font and uses all lowercase letters. The rest of the type on the bottle uses a different font that is more simple and without serifs. It also uses caps and lowercase letters. I think the typography on this bottle looks nice because the font is easy to read and while the logo isn’t using a cursive font, it still gives off a more elegant vibe. The kerning is set pretty small, but none of the letters actually touch, so it is still easy to read. The use of lowercase letters gives off the feeling that the company likes to keep things simple. I also like the use of the leaf as the dot on the i. It’s a small way to make the logo just a little bit more unique without doing too much. The font that is used with the rest of the information on the bottle works well. It’s pretty small and simple, and it doesn’t take away from the name brand. The brand’s use of color is very nice here as well. The top half has a dark green background with white type, while the bottom half has a white background with green type. This looks really well with the typography, be cause the white logo really stands out on the green, and naturally, our eyes are drawn to the dark background first. Overall, the typography on this bottle looks very clean and simple, which makes it easy to read.
For this week’s bad example of typography, I chose this bottle of honey. As you can see, there is a lot going on with the typography on this bottle. There are six different fonts just on the front of the bottle. It doesn’t look too bad, you can still read everything clearly, but all of the different fonts make it look unorganized. The first font is nice, and it even uses a piece of honeycomb as the o. The next line down has a black border around the words, which are in white. To me, this bit of information stands out the most because of the black box, and I don’t think that bit of information should be the one that is highlighted. The next line uses another font that is more simple and plain, and then the line underneath uses a similar font that adds some shadow to the letters. While the last three lines all have different fonts, they are all using capital letters, so at least that part flows. The last two lines are pretty drastic in their different fonts, however. The word “Honey” is in a nice cursive font and is slightly bigger. To fix this bottle, I would pick maybe two fonts to stick with instead of six. The first font that was used on the words “Honey Feast” is nice and could have worked with the last two lines as well, since it looks a bit more fancy. The font used for the words “Holly Blend” is another one that I would keep. I would also change the order of the information, so that the actual product isn’t the last one being listed.
My good example of type in the wild this week is this brand of room spray. It has a pretty simple logo, with only the information that is needed on the front. There are only two colors used, and the few fonts all blend together really well. The brand name is in a nice font with serifs. All of the information on the can actually uses a font with serifs except for the words “woody musk” to describe the scent of the spray. I think this was a good choice, because the actual name of the scent is “Indigo Suede”, which is included in the top portion of the logo. The scent needed to be explained a little bit more, because indigo suede doesn’t really give the reader an idea of what it actually smells like, so putting the explanation in a smaller font, sans serif, adds that information in a nice and subtle way. It’s also nice how those two pieces of information, while they are on different sections and have different fonts, use the same font color, which I believe is a deep shade of indigo. That is a good way to show how they still go together, even though they are separate. Another thing I really like about this example is how subtle the color of the first font is. It isn’t too overpowering. This font color also holds the information that isn’t as important to the viewer. The brand is in a large font, so it is visible, but the information like the ounces is small. This addition, plus the lighter font color looks nice and prioritizes the most important information, without overbearing the reader.
This week, I decided to look in my town’s newspaper to see if there were any good or bad examples of typography in the ads. There were a few good examples of type, but this ad specifically really stood out to me. It is a very cute ad for a fundraiser going on throughout this month. At first, this ad looked great and it re ally had my attention. I think the top half of the ad looks fun and the colors really stand out. I do wish that the font color of “-tober” was in black, since there are colors in the word “sock”, and the word under that is also in black. As I kept reading, I noticed that the bottom half had a slight issue. It was tricky trying to decide if I should use this as my bad example for this week, because the ad doesn’t look that bad. However, the font that is used for the paragraphs, where the information is, is small and the kerning is very close together. It was kind of difficult for me to read, and I had to get really close to the page because the letters are so close together. I also think that since it’s such a bold font, that doesn’t help with the narrow kerning either. A good way to fix this slight problem would be to make the pumpkins smaller and maybe take out the leaves on the bottom half, just enough to make the font size a little bigger and increase the kerning.
This week, I have chosen this bag of chips as my good example of typography in the wild. I thought that this logo was especially interesting, and I think it works well for the brand. What stood out the most was the flavor of the chips. The words “sea salt” are in all caps, and in a bold font. The words are also given a blue shadow to make them stand out even more. This set of words is pretty big on the bag. Not so much that it is overbearing compared to the brand name, but enough so that this set of information really stands out. I do think this works for the product though. Since they are called “pop chips” I can understand why the brand would want certain aspects of the design to pop! The words “pop chips” are in a different font, with all lowercase let ters. The word “pop” is slightly bigger than “chips”. What I like most about this logo is the way that they used the negative space to make some of the letters. Instead of the bowl of the O being in white, instead the counter is white and the bowl is black, giv ing the opposite effect as the rest of the word. The same technique is used for the i in “chips”. I think this was a nice touch to the logo. It makes it unique without the words becoming illegible, as you can still clearly see the letters that are being made. The rest of the information on the package is in a simple font, with a smaller text size. Overall, this example is very unique in its design, and I think it works well with what they are trying to sell.
For this week’s bad example of type in the wild, I found this sign for a pool busi ness. Overall, I think this sign is not that bad. The blue font color looks nice, and it goes with what the company is advertising. The font itself is also pretty simple and in all caps. However, when I was riding by this place, I noticed that it was a little bit difficult for me to read. The kerning on the letters is tight, so from a dis tance, the letters blended together. The A and the V in the word “Haven” are also tilted together. I’m not quite sure why, because these are the only letters that do this on the sign, so it looks a little funny. The portion of the sign that is the most difficult to read are the words, “& Spas” that are inside of the first O. This was a good idea, and I think since the O is filled in with blue, maybe they were trying to make it seem like a pool. Because of this though, the information they put in the O is small and kind of compressed. It makes it a little hard to read, especially if you are just driving by. The only thing I would do to change this sign is to in crease the kerning between the letters, and straighten up the A and the V so they do not blend together.
This week, my good example of type in the wild is this bag of milk chocolate pea nuts. The type on this bag is pretty simple and easy to read. There is only one font throughout the whole bag, and there are only slight variations within each set of text. The name of the product is in the largest text size, and it is more bold. An in-depth description of the product is right under that. This bit of information uses the same font, but it is smaller, since it’s not as important. The brand name of this snack is actually inside the white banners that curve around the product description. This bit of information uses the same font, pulling all of this information together. The way that the viewer separates the brand name is by noticing that it is on a different background than the rest of the information and that it is in all caps, which represents the importance. The last bit of text towards the bottom of the bag that says “Crunchy & Deli cious!” utilized the same font as the rest of the bag. However, it is not capitalized like the brand name, and it is not bolded like the product description. This almost makes it look like a different font. Because of this, the viewer will separate this text from the rest, because it is not as important. Overall, I like this example of typography because of the consistency throughout the font. I like the slight changes in the type to repre sent the different information as well.
My bad example of typography is this bag of kettle popcorn I found in the store this weekend. From a distance, the logo looks intricate, with lots of information for the viewer to take in. I like how the words “Kettle Popcorn” are large and are put on a different background, so that you immediately know what this snack is. However, I am not sure about the rest of the logo. There are several fonts being used throughout the front of the bag. At the top, the words “made with big heart” can be seen. The “with” in this set of text is in a completely different font that utilizes cursive and lowercase letters. This is a big contrast to the other font that is being used, which is capitalized and bold. Because they chose to add in another font in the middle of the sentence, it makes the word “with” stand out more than the rest. The same technique was applied further down with the words “made with golden kernels”. Underneath that, the words “& pure olive oil” seem to be slightly larger and more bold than the rest of the information in this paragraph. Now, all of this information seems to be broken into sections because of all of the different sizes and fonts. To fix this logo, I would just keep the font the same throughout the whole bag, with a slight emphasis on certain words that are more important.
For this week’s good example of typography, I’m using the logo on the back of this van that I saw on the interstate. I immediately thought that this was a great example of the Principle of Continuity, from Gestalt’s principles. The name of the company is Arc, and they specialize in chimney sweeps. Even though this picture is kind of blurry, the message on the van is very clear and easy to read. Their website is placed at the top of the van. The words “ARCchimney.com” are in a simple sans serif font, and are in bold and all caps to make them more readable. Since this is a pretty important piece of information, and a way for potential customers to learn more about the company, the type for the website name is great. Under that, the main logo can be seen. This is the first thing I noticed when I saw the van. Using the Principle of Continuity for the arc throughout the A and the R is very pleasing to the eye and a clever idea. It also does not make the readability any worse either. Under the main logo is the description of the company. It’s kind of hard to see in the photo, but the words “Chim ney Sweeps” are in a sans serif font and use all caps. The difference between this set of information and the website name is that the company description is not in bold. This was a good choice as well, because it’s still very readable, but it would be seen as a part of the logo if it were bold. Overall, I really like this logo and I think it reads very well for viewers that are driving on the road.
For my bad example, I decided to use this logo from a bottle of hand wash I found in my bathroom drawer. I have no idea where this bottle came from, but it was made by a small business, which usually means that those businesses simply do not have access to a graphic designer. The first thing I noticed about this bottle was the font that was used for the product description. The words “Travel Foam ing Hand Wash” are in an interesting serif font. It is still legible, and the readabil ity is fine, but it’s just not the font that I would’ve chosen for this product. I think it looks a little bit playful and unprofessional-which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But since this product is just travel sized soap, I don’t think the font fits with the product. There is a different font that was used for the brand name in the top left corner, which I think fits a little bit better with the actual brand name, which I believe is “Traveling Hippie”, but I am not quite sure. Overall, this bottle is quite simple, with just the brand name, the product name, and a picture. My only prob lem with this is the font chosen for the product name, and to fix it I think that a font that was a bit more simple, and preferably without serifs, would look much better.
