New Logo, New Identity

The Oakland Museum of California is creating a new identity for itself, starting with a change in their logo. Whereas the older logo seemed to give off a traditional and professional feel, the new logo is more young and modern – but not necessarily in a good way.

One thing that surprised me about the new logo is that it is completely different from the old one. The font is different; the spacing is different; the emphasis on hierarchy of words is different; the colors are different. In fact, it’s hard to imagine that the two logos are representing the same brand at all, as if the designer wanted the new logo to have absolutely no associate with the old one.

The old logo, with its blue and white colors, looked a lot more reputable. It gave people the idea that OMCA was a museum dedicated to enriching visitors about the history of California. However, when I look at the new logo, I get the sense that it is not a historical museum, but a museum for modern art. The emphasis the old logo placed on “CA” disappeared in the new logo because the letters “O” and “M” are given the same exact treatment. This makes it harder for people – especially visitors who do not live in California – to realize that the museum is about California. I would think this would be one of the more important details of the logo, but it seems as if the designer assumed that everyone already knew what OMCA was and did not take into account the people who may be unfamiliar with it.

Another disappointment with the new logo is that it is hard to read. In an attempt to emphasize OMCA, the designer made those letters bigger and bolder. However, in the process, he split up the word museum into two lines: “mu” and “seum.” Although this may not be the case for everyone, when I first looked at the new logo, I didn’t realize that the two lines were supposed to be combined to spell out “museum.” Instead, “mu” looked like it was supposed to be one separate word, “seu” another word, and the letter “M” looked like it had been placed there randomly. I am not very fond of the way the designer spaced out the name of the museum or emphasized the hierarchy of certain letters. Instead of giving it the modern look that the designer might have been going for, I feel that it makes the logo look like a jumble of random letters that don’t make sense.

Lupton III: Grid

An example of a grid system used on the web is CNN's new website. If you would like to get a better look at how they implement a grid system visit http://www.cnn.com

After reading Lupton's section on grids the system that CNN appears to be using is a multi-column grid. A multi-column grid has a complex hierarchy that integrates text and illustrations. CNN also creates zones for different kinds of content. A modular grid appears to be in place as well. There are consistent horizontal divisions from top to bottom and vertical divisions from left to right.

For the most part their website is effective as it is easy to navigate and engages the reader. I visit CNN's website every day and have to say that I like the new design better. The website prior had one large photo with the most important story to the left of the page. The rest of the information just seemed to fall to the wayside. Now CNN offers more stories at the top of the page by implementing three sections of breaking or important news. There is still a system of hierarchy as less pressing information is found the closer you get toward the bottom of the page.

A horizontal bar labeled "Editor's choice" engages the reader by encouraging you to read through the "top pics" or watch videos. Below the editor's choices are 12 boxes that use a modular grid system. Pretty basic without any pictures. Hierarchy is implemented by breaking up the information by topic and links are given for each story.

A website in which user interaction is critical is www.GarageBand.com For those of you who are not familiar with GarageBand, it is a site for independent musicians to share their music and music lovers in search of new artists. The user is expected to comment on the music provided in order to win contests, have their own music played, etc. I like their concept, but I think their design in some ways inhibits user-friendliness.

For instance, the page displayed up top is reached by clicking on the "musicians only" tab. I find this particular page to be off-putting to the user. The majority of the page is taken over by advertisements. In a small box to the left are all the places a musician will want to go in order to be successful on GarageBand. Located towards the bottom are a couple boxes listing the review of the day and advice from professionals. GarageBand relies mostly on user interaction therefore, they may want to consider hierarchy in their design.

In my opinion, GarageBand is minimal in its design. It has basic organization, a bit of color, easy to find tabs, and is quite easy to navigate. But it is boring. Sometimes the pages look too similar to the advertisements that overwhelm the page. However, their home page is useful. There is a clear sense of hierarchy, organization, and user-friendly interaction displayed. They just didn't convey that throughout the rest of the site.

What do you think? Anyone use GarageBand?