and
Good
This week I looked around my house to find different examples of typography. I ended up choosing this box of photographic paper from Ilford as my example of good typography. Everything that is written is very clear and legible. The typeface of the Ilford logo is a very simple bold sans-serif font that really grabs the attention of whoever is viewing it. The tracking of the Ilford logo is also really consistent which makes it really appealing and nice to look at. The type is really close together, but not too close to where it seems cramped. It is just close enough to feel compact and organized without it being so close the letters begin to run together. The typeface also helps with that organized feel. Everything is very geometric, so each letter fits nicely next to one another. The letters below it are much thinner and much smaller than the Ilford logo above them, which really helps to separate them as a different block of text. The total space that the block of smaller text takes up is also roughly the same size as the Ilford logo. Since they are the same size it makes the area feel very well-balanced and sturdy. Despite the amount of text in that area, it does not feel overly cramped though. The tracking is tight and the leading is just enough to separate the text without going overboard while keeping everything condensed and clean. The only real issue that I could find with it is the visibility of the silver “MGRC” text in the purple area. Even then, the visibility is not awful, but not quite as clear as everything around it.
This text is from a bag that I got from the camera store Calagaz. Overall, I would not completely consider this an example of very bad typography, more so an example of very bland typography with some noticeable mistakes. Overall, the design is just very bland and boring. The contrast between the black text and the yellow background is perfectly fine, but the bright yellow color is the only thing that creates any real interest. I do not think that the font choice is bad, but I think that the sizing between the store name and the information below it could be changed. As it stands right now, there is some change in font size, but I do not feel that the change in size is quite enough to separate them; this makes it feel just like a big block of text that all runs together. Maybe changing the information to a slightly smaller size or giving it a thinner tvcould be enough to separate them. One other issue that I found with this text is the store name at the top. It is not a massive issue, but the kerning between some of the letters could be tweaked to really make the spacing more consistent. This issue is most noticeable in LA and AZ at the top. The bottom of the A in both of these instances begins to run into the next letter and it starts to mess with the spacing as a whole. While this did also happen with the RD in the Ilford logo, it did not really mess up the feel of the text. However, in the example with Calagaz, it makes the whole thing feel a tiny bit worse.
Bad
This is a wrapper from a small loaf of bread that was bought from the supermarket. I think that this is a fairly good example of good typography. There is a very solid contrast between the background and the text which really helps with how easy it is to read. The color of the text and the background are also quite nice. Instead of a harsh pure white and black, the background is a nice warm off-white and the text is a warm brown. The combination of these colors makes the design feel somewhat warm and welcoming which would make me, personally, more likely to buy this bread. The font choices are not bad either. The words “TAKE & BAKE” are in a very simple sans-serif font which I do not think really helps or hurts the design much. I think that if those words were in a slightly rounder and softer font, it may make the packaging feel a bit more welcoming, but what is there currently is not bad. I think the font on the circle below it works very well. The serifs in the font make it feel slightly rustic, which is very reminiscent of a loaf of bread like this. The tracking on the “TAKE & BAKE” text is fairly loose but not too loose. One thing that I do not really like about this typography is how every word on the packing is capitalized. Since capital letters tend to draw more attention than lowercase letters, it is possible it could be very slightly confusing. However, the different sizes of the type do a good job of breaking up the information, which makes up for the capital letters.
Good
Bad
This is a container used to store photographic chemicals which I found in the university’s darkroom. I think that this is an example of decently bad typography. I do not really think that good typography was a big necessity for this bottle considering it is just meant to store chemicals, but some things on it definitely could be better. The contrast between the text and the background is fine. There is more than enough contrast there to ensure everything is legible. My big problem comes in with the different typefaces all present on the bottle. It has three different typefaces all present at the top of the bottle. There is not much space separating them either, which makes the whole thing feel somewhat disjointed. I also really dislike the font choice of the word “DATATAINER.” The word has fairly normal tracking, but the height of the letters is where the big problem occurs. The letters are way too tall, which makes the letters feel extremely tight despite them not being very tight in reality. Other than the fonts not being very good in general, none of them really complement each other either. All of the fonts are sans-serif so there is no diversity in the design. Maybe if one of the fonts was a bit more decorative or had some serifs then the design might feel more cohesive, but these three different fonts all kind of compete with each other instead of complimenting each other. The overall design is also pretty bland, but that is not quite as important because this is just a storage container.
This is just a package of soft tortilla shells that caught my eye while walking around my house looking for good typography. One of the biggest reasons that it caught my eye was largely because of the bright and warm colors that the packaging uses. The reds, oranges, and yellows are bright and grab attention well. While they may be bright, I do not think they are so bright to where it might hurt to look at them for too long. The white text over top of the colors also stands out fairly well. The text is large enough so that even on the yellow background where the contrast is minimal, the text is still legible. I also think that the contrast between the different colors helps to create a sense of hierarchy in the packaging. The white text against the red stands out the most so it helps to draw your eyes to that first. The text in the red area is also the largest and on the top, except for the “super soft” text. Then the orange has the second most contrast, is below the red, and has the second largest font. Yellow has the least contrast, is on the bottom, and has the smallest font. All of those factors work extremely well together to give the entire packaging a great sense of hierarchy and really show the viewer the important information in order. I also like how the “super soft” text in the bubble is very rounded and in lowercase. The more bubbly text helps to add the soft feeling that it is trying to communicate.
A couple of months ago I ordered a camera from eBay from a shop that happened to be in Japan. They had sent this little card along with the camera in the box to help promote their business. I can look past the mistakes in grammar and the overall awkward wording because the business is in Japan, so it is understandable that the English might be a little off. However, the overall design and typography on this card were just pretty bad. There is just so much going on in this design that it is hard to keep your eye on one place long enough to really absorb the information they are trying to communicate. The orange and blue gradients on the text and the white stroke around it also do not help with making a more cohesive and pleasing design. The orange text at the top, specifically where it says “ THANK YOU,” is pretty hard to read since its is orange text with a white stroke placed over an image of their sign which is red and white. It just blends in too much which makes it easy to lose in the design. The orange text with the yellow and orange background also feels like a bit too much. The good example had a lot of warm colors, but they were used tastefully, whereas this design feels like the colors were just thrown on there without much thought. The blue text looks fine and is easy to read, but it feels out of place. It is just random blue text put in the middle of a mostly orange background.
Good Bad
Good
For my example of good typography this week I am using one of my sketchbooks that I found in my room. Overall, I do not think that the design of this sketchbook is exceedingly good, but I think the typography on it works fairly well. As mentioned before this is a mixed-media sketchbook, and I think that the typeface that is used here works well to describe its purpose. The big “XL” type in the box in the middle of the cover has a very sketchy and grainy look to it, which emphasizes that this is a sketchbook and is made to be a little messy. The text “MIX MEDIA” near the bottom of the cover does not have the sketchy and grainy look that the text above it has but it still does the same thing because the font used looks more like natural handwriting instead of a perfect computer-generated font. Both the “XL” and the “MIX MEDIA” type do a really good job of making it feel like a sketchbook that is meant to get a bit messy. Other than that, the overall contrast between the background and the text is fine. Everything on this page is perfectly legible and the sizes of the text work well to create a visual hierarchy that your eye can follow. The “XL” in the middle is the largest and most interesting, so your eye goes there first. The CANSON logo the “MIX MEDIA” is the second largest so your eyes go there second. Then your eye goes to the bottom of the page where some of the finer details about the sketchbook are located.
For my example of bad typography this week, I chose this can of compressed air for dusting electronics. Overall, I do not think that the design is very bad, and most of the type on this can I think is fine. However, there are a few spots on it that do not quite make sense to me. To start, I think that the text “for Electronics” should probably be changed. The contrast between the text and the background in that area is fine, but the typeface used does not really scream “for Electronics” despite it literally saying “for Electronics.” This typeface reminds me of someone writing on a blackboard in school. I think that if they really wanted to sell the fact that this air is primarily used to dust electronics, they should have a font and style that looks and feels more modern and technological instead of what they have already. Other than that, most of the can’s typography is fine. Everything is perfectly legible and the format is fine. However, I think that they maybe should put a bit more emphasis on the caution label at the bottom. Currently, it just kind of blends in with all the other text and does not feel like an important part of the can. Considering that this stuff can be fairly dangerous if used improperly, I think that they should add something to help that bit of text stand out a bit more than it does right now. I understand that emphasizing the caution label could mess up the overall design of the can, but I think it is one of those things that is important that
Bad
For my example of good typography this week, I went digging in one of my drawers and found a small thing of Whataburger’s fancy ketchup. Other than it being a pretty good ketchup, the typography on this little packet is also pretty nice. To start, the main color on this packet is red, which is primarily there to reflect the color of the sauce, but it also is a really strong color. It is a really bright red which helps to draw attention to the packet. On top of that red background is white lettering. This white type contrasts nicely against the red background which helps with legibility considering how small the packet is. Despite the design having about four different fonts, the “Whataburger” on top, “Fancy” in the middle, “Ketchup” below that, and then the ingredients list. Although each of those blocks of text have different fonts, they are all kept simple enough to not really distract from one another. In fact, the two fonts in main focus point “Fancy Ketchup” work really well together. The font for “Fancy” is printed in a more decorative “script-like” font but is still highly legible even on a small scale. The text “Ketchup” is printed in a large and bold sans-serif font. This text is made bold and easy to read so that when someone is just grabbing a sauce packet they would know exactly what they are grabbing at a quick glance, if the red color wasn’t enough. So the big text is not only visually appealing, but also is also very useful. My only real complaint would be the small text cut off on the top and bottom, but it really does not matter much considering this is a mass produced product made to be thrown away after use.
Good
Bad
This is a ball that my mom bought on amazon because she thought it might be fun. It is a ball that shocks you after a certain amount of time when your hand is on those little metal contact points and it is meant to be used to play hot potato. Not only is the packaging design absolutely awful, the little bit of typography on the box is just as bad. The text at the bottom left of the box is not necessarily too bad, but it is not really good either. The placement of it does not make much sense to me. Having it be at the bottom left of the packaging makes it seem like secondary information on a package despite it being the most important text on the box. Also the text “Ball” being larger than the text above it despite it being no more important does not make sense either. Thankfully, its placed in a way that does not interfere with the opening tab right next to it. The company logo at the top right is placed fine and it is legible, but its design does not make sense either. It looks like text that just had some random modifications that don’t reflect the name at all. The “h” being cut off by the “i” and then having the “i” be a different color than the rest of the text feels very random. The “T” in “Top” curving around the “o” and the random cut on the “p.” These design choices don’t feel intentional, but instead feel like random design choices to make a slightly more interesting logo despite it not affecting meaning at all.
For my example of good typography I found a really big roll of aluminum foil in the pantry of my house. Overall, the design is very simple but it works extremely well. All of the colors contrast really nicely with each other and because of that the text is very easy to see and read. The font is very nice choice for this product as well. Having a heavy and bold sans-serif font that feels very sturdy and strong helps to reinforce that idea that this foil is strong. One other thing that helps reinforce the idea of strength is that the words “HEAVY DUTY” are much larger than most of the other text on the design. Having those words larger than the rest draws more attention to them to ensure that one of the first things that people see when they look at this design is how strong this foil is. The only other text that draws more attention is the green “500ft.” I am not sure if it is good that the green text draws more attention than the “HEAVY DUTY,” but it still helps to develop the idea of big and strong because the text emphasizes the sheer quantity of foil in this pack. The white text on the green background is smaller and has lower contrast than the larger text below it which is good because it is less important information so it is good that it comes after the other text in the visual hierarchy. The only thing I do not really like about this design is the blue circle and text in the top right. Everything else is very clean with straight lines but this has slanted text and is in a circle which I do not think reinforces the overall package design.
This is some packaging from a spool of yarn I got from Walmart that I believe could use some work with the typography. Overall, I think that the design of this packaging is extremely nice and very appealing and most of the typography is done really well, but there are a few things that could be changed to help elevate it the next level. I think with how cluttered the background is, the some of the words and letters can get a bit lost. The font that the packaging uses works really well with the design and feel of the design. Parts of the word “HOMETOWN” can blend in with each other and the background when looking at it at a glance though. The W and the N at the end can start to blend together and can be hard to read at a glance. When you have time to really look at and study the design, these are not big issues. However, when someone is looking through an aisle at the store glancing at different packaging, it can be fairly hard to read. Some of the letter spacing is also inconsistent. Specifically the distance between the M and E is much larger than other letters like the space between the E and T, or the T and O. Other than that the only things I could find wrong with this packaging is the little icons at the bottom showing the number of rolls someone would need for different projects. The contrast between the background and that area in general is pretty minimal which can make it hard to see for some people. Other than that, I think that the packaging was really nice.
Good Bad
Good
For my example of good typography this week, I chose this box of fig bars. Overall, I think that this is a visually interesting design as well as it being aesthetically pleasing and cohesive. The colors chosen for the packaging are very nice, easy to look at, and reflect the product accordingly. Since the flavor of this fig bar is blueberry, the background color and text color are blue to match. Despite both the background and text being blue, there is more than enough contrast for everything to be easily readable. Since the text is also blue on a blue background it does not stand out more than the image. I think this is good design choice because it allows people to immediately notice the appealing fig bar first and the text second. The font choice for this design is also very nice. The large type at the top of the box has a really nice soft and natural style. The soft and natural look of the text helps to reinforce the idea that these fig bars are soft and have natural ingredients. The text below the image is visually appealing and none of the typefaces chosen fight with each other over visual dominance. Despite none of the bottom text having strong typographic voice, they all work well together to create a cohesive and appealing design. All the text on this design is spaced nicely with no text too tight or loose, which helps overall readability. Overall, the typography in this design really helps to enhance the message in a really nice and easy to process style.
For my example of bad typography this week, I found this truck advertising their electrical company. Overall, the contrast and readability is there. Contrast is fine because it is literally just black text on a white background which makes it fairly easy to read when driving by. Except for the phone number. The font of the phone number is really thin and does not stand out much at all. When someone is driving by this truck or this truck is driving by them, it can be very difficult to read that number because of how thin the type is. Despite most of the text on the truck being fairly readable, it has no voice or character at all. When I look at this design all I see is just some words on a truck. Almost nothing in this design is eye catching or appealing because it is just black text on white and nothing more. When someone is driving by they might be able to see some of the information, but they will not want to look closer. Giving the text more of a voice and have it communicate more of what the company is about would be a great way to make the design more dynamic and appealing. I looked up the company online, and their logo is exactly what is on the truck, so I think that the company as a whole probably needs a bit of a face lift when it comes to the typography and design. Other than that, the E at the beginning of “Electrical” is larger that the other letters despite them all being capital letters makes absolutely no sense and does nothing for the design.
Bad
For my example of good typography I chose this bottle of CeraVe lotion. Although I think that the overall design of the bottle is fairly plain, it conveys the information nicely and in a well organized layout. Overall, the contrast for the whole design is nice. The dark blue against the white contrasts really well and the white “Ve” against the light blue background ads some nice visual contrast and is still easily readable. I also think that the design has a nice and simple visual hierarchy. The viewers eye simply goes from top to bottom following the changing size of the text. The brand name is at the top of the visual hierarchy and the bottle because it has the largest font size as well as the most visual interest. “SA Lotion for Rough and Bumpy Skin” is right below the brand name and has the second largest text so the viewer’s eyes will go there next. This visual hierarchy continues down the bottle with the smaller and not bold text. Although it is simple, the way the viewer’s eyes follow the design works really well in describing the information presented. I also like the small line around the word “for.” It adds some nice visual interest to the design without being distracting. One thing that I do not like about the design is that some of the really small and thin text at the bottom of the bottle can be hard to read. However, it is not that big a deal because that information is not quite as important or notable as the text above it.
Good
Bad
This was a design on a vehicle for The Ultimate Handyman. If they truly were the ultimate handyman then they should probably focus a bit more on the design of their vehicle. I know that the picture is blurry, but it is the only one I was able to get because the light turned green and I had to start driving. The text that says “The Ultimate Handyman” is ok. The contrast is fine and it is fairly easy to read from a slight distance. However, I am a little confused as to why the “The” is slanted though. I suppose it does add a bit of interest to the design but it also does not really add anything else. Although you can not really read it through the picture, the thin text on the right door says “like us on Facebook” and it was written with a more decorative and very thin font. The choice of font there was awful because you could barely read it when it was close to you and stopped. Good luck to anyone trying to read it when it is moving though. Aside from those issues, the design had absolutely no voice. Just like my last example of bad typography with the truck. Maybe if they added some more typeface variety that actually works for the design or added some color or a more interesting design then it could have more of a voice. However, since the overall design is very simple, it does not really have much of a voice.
My sister got me this book about baking for my last birthday because she knows that I like to bake occasionally. Overall, I think that the cover of this book has very nice typography that really compliment the theme of the book. Overall, the contrast of all of the text on the cover is great. Each word has enough contrast against the background so that everything is easily legible. I really like that part about the typography because I believe that it is a really nice example of text still being legible over a busy background. I see too often text be completely unreadable when it is over busy backgrounds or images, so it is nice that this example was done well. I also really like the main font that the designer chose. The sans serif font of the text “Bread Baking” is very simple and it also has nice soft edges that help reflect the soft nature of bread. The text below it that says “for Beginners” is also in a fairly nice font. It is easily readable and compliments the font above it fairly well. The decorative nature of it also has a nice rustic and homely feel which matches the rustic theme of the book’s design. The colors chosen for the text also match with the content in the book. The text is cream and a soft yellow, which are not only nice to look at, but are also the primary colors of bread. Overall, the design aspects of the book and the typographic choices match really well to create a visually appealing and coherent design.
Over spring break I stayed at a beach house with some of my friends and while I was there I saw this can koozie and noticed the awful typography on it. I mean congrats to Marguerite and Brad, but man is this typography bad. Overall, the layout of it is not the worst. It is extremely bland with no voice whatsoever, but it definitely could be worse. One of the worst things about this is the readability. I mean whoever thought that pink text over a camo background was a good idea should probably not be designing much else. It might have had better readability when it was originally printed, but currently, the text is so faded it makes it extremely hard to read and the camo only makes the situation worse. This is most noticeable with the date at the bottom where it says “5, 2006.” The first time I looked at it took me a few seconds to read the date even though I was holding it inches away from my face. The colors chosen for the design are also really bad. The hot pink text does not compliment the green and brown at all. The choice of font is also a questionable choice. I do like how most of it is fairly bold which should help with readability in theory, but not much can really be done to salvage this design. This font also lends itself to having really thin bowls in most of the letter, like the B or d, which is a detriment to the readability of the design.
Good Bad
Good
This bottle of hair product, on the other hand, has very nice and clean typography in my opinion. One thing that this bottle does much better than the other bottle is that there is no overly large type present on the bottle. It is also nice that all of the type has a matte finish. This matte finish helps tremendously with readability all across the bottle especially on the back where there is a lot of text that any glare would probably make it unreadable. Since it’s matte, there is no glare on any part of the bottle so you can easily read all parts of the bottle. Other than that, the overall design is very clean and nice. Contrast is great and the chosen fonts work well with the design and are all easily readable. I like how the chosen fonts are sans serif as well because the simple and clean style of sans serif complement the simple and minimalistic design. Despite the lack of large type on the front, there is still a clear hierarchy present. On the front of the bottle, your eye starts at the largest font, “ALURAM” then simply goes down from there. The way the brand name is presented is also complimentary of the overall design. Unlike the previous example where the modified type only hindered the design, this modified type helps to enforce the simple and minimalistic style that is present everywhere else. I also think that this modification of the type is done well because even though the text has been simplified, it is still easily readable.
While digging through some bottles in my house I came across this bottle of hair product. Overall contrast is very nice and helps with readability nicely. One thing that is a detriment to the design is using a glossy print on the bottle. It is a fairly small bottle and it does not have much surface area for type so when large type is used it does not read too well because the curve of the bottle makes the type read at bad angles and the glossy font only makes the type harder to read. Other than the glossy font, there are some questionable typography choices on this bottle. One such choice that really confuses me is the random extensions of the legs and stems of some of the letters. To me, this choice does not really make any sense from any design standpoint that I can see. The only thing that the extended parts of the letters seem to do is just add an extra visual element to increase interest, but even though it does kind of increase visual interest it does not add anything substantial or meaningful to the design. It also makes the design feel a bit awkward to read because your eye follows these extensions away from the design without anything to pull your eye back into it. Also, the type above it does not have good readability in my opinion. Other than that type, the rest of it is alright. The text at the bottom is easily readable and does not suffer the same way as the large text above it.
Bad