,
15 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
A thread with analysis and apologies to those that obviously tried real hard: Logo design isn’t just about drawing shapes, it’s also about analysing problems in particular ways, and providing visual solutions that communicate specific things. 1/
This is the explanation and the thinking behind the solution, but... 2/ 
… what does that really mean? Let’s have a look at the words. This logo represents (a) that gaming is for everyone because it is a silhouette of a head that vaguely resembles that previous logo. It’s a design that attempts to represent everyone through an absence. 3/
The logo also represents (b) an opportunity to find your passion to play, which is represented in the abstracted orange flame thing, which is also representing all people 3/
Representing two or three things with a single visual solution is pretty hard. There are ways to do this, and great logo designers find ways to communicate a whole lot very minimally, often using negative space. 4/
I don’t think this is a great logo design. By trying to represent everyone, a ‘game flame’ and the logo of Christmas past, the design comes off as a jaggedy blob that represent all things and therefore represents nothing at all. 5/
I believe, given the confused solution, that the design process didn’t push hard enough against the brief. I don't know why 'finding your passion to play' was chosen to be represented, instead of BGG's role as a community and information hub. /6
I've said that logo design requires great visual communication skills, and also requires great analytical skills, to break apart the brief and provide an insightful response, but it also requires great people skills. /7
Every now and then somebody will be aghast on the internet about how much re-branding costs. There’s a lot of physical costs in replacing logos, but some of the cost is in the emotional labour of guiding people through a grieving process… /8
… because sometimes the outcome of the design process is hard for stakeholders to accept, and this is why inhouse designers often come up with weak responses to briefs. It’s hard for them to take the step back and identify the brand needs a massive change. /9
Ernie’s time was over, but it doesn’t look like the stakeholders and the designer weren’t ready to let go. So, now, users will be stuck with him for a few more years, as we are reminded of his absence through a funeral pyre. /10
Well, that's my flaming hot take. Please take it as a hot take, without malice. Design is hard, and it becomes harder when it involves a large organisation in the public /11 A couple of more takes:
boardgamegeek.com/thread/2251574… We learned nothing from the London Olympic logo. Put your design in front of a group of strangers and ask them what they see. /12
Understanding that re-designs are seldom well-received: boardgamegeek.com/thread/2251632… /13
And finally, this is one of the typical types of user responses that designers receive. I'm thinking of all the playtests where testers asked to add a thing that they thought would fix the problem, rather than identify that my entire game had a flawed premise.
