shields 徽標

重點 (Top highlight)

Currently, we are facing such a graphic design phase when a lot of brands use to have very similar logos. More exactly, a lot of brands switched from having proper logos to just having logotypes (logos without a symbol) and with no exception all use sans serif geometric fonts.

當前，當許多品牌使用具有非常相似的徽標時，我們正面臨這樣的圖形設計階段。 更準確地說，許多品牌從具有適當的徽標轉換為僅具有徽標(沒有符號的徽標)，并且無一例外都使用無襯線幾何字體。

I can understand the designers point of view on this matter. For them it is basically a win over that old marketing strategy where you should always design a very unique logo with a symbol in order to be recognizable. Sometimes this is just an impossible mission — all good basic shapes are already taken, even apples. That’s why logos such as Uber or the new rebranded Revolut one, are more than enough for a brand to be successful.

我可以理解設計師在此問題上的觀點。 對于他們而言，這基本上是對舊營銷策略的一次勝利，在該營銷策略中，您應始終設計一個帶有符號的非常獨特的徽標，以使其易于識別。 有時這只是一個不可能完成的任務-所有好的基本形狀都已經被采用，甚至是蘋果。 這就是為什么諸如Uber或新的Revolut品牌這樣的徽標足以使一個品牌成功。

Some famous brands which are easily recognizable juts by their symbols: Apple, Dropbox, Nike, Target, Twitter, Maersk, Amazon, Adidas一些知名品牌，其符號易于識別：Apple，Dropbox，Nike，Target，Twitter，馬士基，亞馬遜，阿迪達斯

在過去的廣告時代，徽標并不是要一起出現 (In the old era of advertising logos weren’t meant to be featured together)

They were designed in the full complexity and used as a central element in the communication.

它們是完全復雜的設計，并用作通信中的核心元素。

However, let’s consider some examples of logos usage today.

但是，讓我們考慮一些今天使用徽標的示例。

There are visuals which might contain more logos on them. These can be sponsors logos, event organizers, media partners and so on. It’s not about having a problem on how to place the main logo in the visual, its’ more likely about that situations when more that three logos should stay in a close proximity to each other and how they impact the overall look of this visual.

有些視覺效果上可能包含更多徽標。 這些可以是贊助商徽標，活動組織者，媒體合作伙伴等。 這與如何將主徽標放置在視覺對象中無關，而更多的情況是當三個以上的徽標應彼此靠近時，以及它們如何影響該視覺對象的整體外觀。

Once I was in a situation when I had to add more that 10 logos on a visual for an event. All those being sponsors who payed for this event in order to be promoted. Some places where this visual should appear were really small and with limited space, like some 400x400 px web banners. The problem was that some logos being too complex had a limited visibly if shrieked. And I was in the situation to decide shall I keep the visual at all or just to make a banner full of sponsors logos, of all possible shapes and colors which looked grotesque together despite of the effort to align them nicely.

有一次，當我不得不為某個事件的視覺效果添加超過10個徽標時。 所有為這次促銷活動付費的贊助商。 這些視覺效果應該出現的地方很小，而且空間有限，例如一些400x400 px的網絡橫幅。 問題在于，某些過于復雜的徽標在尖叫時明顯受到限制。 我當時的情況是要決定是否保留視覺效果，或者只是制作橫幅，上面貼滿贊助商徽標，所有可能的形狀和顏色看起來很怪異，盡管努力使它們對齊。

Another common practice for more logos being featured together is this section on each website which shows who is using their service, like in this example from Intercom:

每個網站上的此部分都顯示將徽標一起使用的另一種常見做法，該部分顯示誰在使用其服務，例如Intercom的示例：

Logos featured on Intercom website 對講機 網站 上的徽標

獨特也意味著成為局外人 (Being unique also means being an outsider)

So, what is the point I am trying to make with previously mentioned examples?

那么，我想用前面提到的例子來說明什么呢？

While arranging these logos string each designer is dreaming of an even pattern where the visual balance between all logos is easily achieved. The idea is that the more logos differ from each other, the more harder is to align them optically. There is no such an aligner tool to deal with that. The only good tool designers can count on is their eyes.

在排列這些徽標時，每個設計師都夢想著一種均勻的圖案，在該圖案中可以輕松實現所有徽標之間的視覺平衡。 想法是，徽標彼此之間的差異越多，則將它們光學對齊的難度就越大。 沒有這樣的對齊工具可以解決這個問題。 設計師唯一可以依靠的工具就是他們的眼睛。

Even harder — there were times when some logos did not support grayscale and should be used in full color — real nightmare for a designer who want to preserve a color palette of the visual.

更難的是-有時某些徽標不支持灰度并且應全彩色使用-對于想要保留視覺調色板的設計師來說，這真是一場噩夢。

Today being different for a logo is no more a strong point but rather a shame considering how often logos are paired together with other logos instead of having their own solo lives.

今天，徽標的區別不再是優點，而是考慮徽標與其他徽標配對的頻率而不是擁有自己的獨身生活是一種恥辱。

So, voila — problem solved: all logos nowadays are juts a word, in sans serif, probably made from a bold grotesque typeface. Easy to align, all black and white, looking great together, almost like a big family.

因此，瞧，問題解決了：如今，所有徽標都是用無襯線字體突出的一個單詞，無襯線字體，可能是由大膽的怪誕字體制成的。 容易對齊，全都是黑色和白色，看起來很棒，幾乎就像一個大家庭。

If I would go further, I would expect all brands to decide on capitalization or no of the first letter, because for now it is only thing they seems to not have an agreement about. Also those logotypes which have a dot at the end, what does this dot add to this characterless but well unified logos? The same thing with a small tweak in the main character like Casper or Fluidly have, is this really adding to uniqueness while maintaining similarity with other logos?

如果我走得更遠，我希望所有品牌都能決定大寫還是首字母大寫，因為目前看來，他們似乎尚無共識。 還有那些在結尾處帶有圓點的徽標，這個圓點會為無字符但統一的徽標增加什么？ 像卡斯珀(Casper)或Fluidly一樣，在主要角色上進行了一些細微調整，這是否真的增加了唯一性，同時又保持了與其他徽標的相似性？

徽標危機 (Logo crisis)

What are other reasons why all logos look similar today?

今天所有徽標看起來相似的其他原因是什么？

It is really hard to come up with a totally new visual element today. Like it was mentioned before all good, simple and recognizable shapes were taken. The apple is taken by Apple, the bird shape is taken by Twitter, a more specific bird bread shape such as dove is taken by..guess whom 😇 and so on.

今天很難提出一個全新的視覺元素。 就像在提到所有好的，簡單且可識別的形狀之前提到的那樣。 蘋果由Apple制成，鳥形由Twitter制成，更具體的鳥面包形如鴿子由..guess who taken制成，依此類推。

Logo symbols from left to right: Twitter, Dove, Turkish Airlines從左到右的徽標符號：Twitter，Dove，土耳其航空

To fight this crisis designers even invented dynamical identities, to change the focus from logo as a main brand element to logo as a part of a visual system. In this case the logotype together with other elements such as type, color palette, and a predefined graphical rule will generate some visuals in a unique and recognizable manner — and all these will help a brand to stand out even if there are nothing more to say by the logo itself.

為了應對這種危機，設計師甚至發明了動態身份，將焦點從徽標作為主要品牌元素更改為徽標作為視覺系統的一部分。 在這種情況下，徽標以及其他元素(例如類型，調色板和預定義的圖形規則)將以獨特且可識別的方式生成一些視覺效果-即使沒有其他要說的內容，所有這些都將幫助品牌脫穎而出徽標本身。

Whitney dynamic identity. Source: 惠特尼的動態身份。 來源： BrandNewBrandNew

I think that the problem here is, actually, how much time you as a designer have to come up with a logo idea. Because if you’ll take a look at all famous logos with symbols there is always an a-ha moment, a history, a heritage, a something which you as a designer, or almost as a detective should find and reveal. Sometime it can take a few seconds and in other cases it can take much longer.

我認為實際上，這里的問題是，作為設計師，您需要花多少時間提出徽標創意。 因為如果您要查看所有帶有符號的著名徽標，那么總會有一個ha-ha的時刻，歷史，遺產，您作為設計師或幾乎作為偵探應該發現并揭示的東西。 有時可能需要幾秒鐘，而在其他情況下則可能需要更長的時間。

今天，我們對數據比對想法更有信心 (Today we have confidence in data more than in ideas)

It’s almost a cliche but I have to say that we live in a fast developing society and each decision is money and data driven now. There is no company willing to wait for a perfectly unique logo and overpay for it. Because at the end of the day, even if it’s unique, it still might seem not good enough just because it can not be aligned well with other logos in a logo string and it might end up looking odd. The shift is toward collaborations of all kinds and logos aren’t an exception to this rule.

這幾乎是陳詞濫調，但我不得不說，我們生活在一個快速發展的社會中，每個決定現在都是金錢和數據驅動的。 沒有公司愿意等待一個完美的獨特徽標并為此多付錢。 因為在一天結束時，即使它是唯一的，它也可能看起來不夠好，僅僅是因為它無法與徽標字符串中的其他徽標很好地對齊，并且最終看起來可能很奇怪。 轉向各種協作，徽標也不是該規則的例外。

And there is definitely something interesting happening within marketing strategies now which allows brands to compete even without having a visual uniqueness. We leave in the era where we are not buying goods for their functions anyone. We are buying goods for their emotional and signed value more that ever. We are buying design more that ever. And even so, all designs, all brands, all logos look the same. Everything is pale pink, with palm leaves and sans serif.

現在，營銷策略中肯定發生了一些有趣的事情，即使沒有視覺獨特性，品牌也可以競爭。 我們離開了一個時代，我們不為任何人購買具有其功能的商品。 我們購買商品的目的是為了獲得他們的情感和簽名價值。 我們正在購買更多的設計。 即便如此，所有設計，所有品牌，所有徽標看起來都相同。 一切都是 淺粉紅色，有棕櫚葉和無襯線。

Those paradoxical marketing strategies on how to make people to buy are linked to totally different approaches that's’ why in some way design doesn’t matter anymore even if its on the top of the funnel and we are delusively buying it more and more.

這些關于如何使人們購買的悖論性的營銷策略與完全不同的方法相關聯，這就是為什么在某種程度上設計不再重要，即使設計位于渠道的頂部也是如此，而我們也在不斷地購買它。

The clear thing is that while designers were fighting for simplifying logos by creating these unified trends (in order to simplify their lives of course) they and especially brand studios shifted the focus from themselves. Now, design main value is to be able to adapt easily to the fast-changing environments. Unfortunate the solutions which are the most adaptive to the changes and easy to scale are those which tend to unify everything and to diminish design ideas which are harder to produce or to multiply.

顯而易見的是，當設計師們通過創造這些統一的趨勢(當然是為了簡化他們的生活)而為簡化徽標而奮斗時，他們，尤其是品牌工作室已經將重點從自己身上轉移了出去。 現在，設計的主要價值是能夠輕松適應快速變化的環境。 不幸的是，那些最能適應變化并且易于擴展的解決方案是那些趨于統一一切并減少難以產生或增加的設計思想的解決方案。

There is no more such a thing as a long-lasting purpose for advertising. Everything is reactive to something. Responses should come immediately. And that one thing which precisely added to this drama is all those logotypes in sans serif.

不再有持久的廣告目的。 一切都對某事起React。 應立即做出回應。 恰好在這部戲中添加的一件事是無襯線字體中的所有那些標識。

Bay Area Black Designers: a professional development community for Black people who are digital designers and researchers in the San Francisco Bay Area. By joining together in community, members share inspiration, connection, peer mentorship, professional development, resources, feedback, support, and resilience. Silence against systemic racism is not an option. Build the design community you believe in.海灣地區黑人設計師 ：一個專業的黑人開發社區，他們是舊金山灣區的數字設計師和研究人員。 通過在社區中團結起來，成員可以共享靈感，聯系，同伴指導，專業發展，資源，反饋，支持和韌性。 對系統性種族主義保持沉默是不可行的。 建立您相信的設計社區。

翻譯自: https://uxdesign.cc/all-logos-look-the-same-b776e5c77b6f

shields 徽標

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的shields 徽标_所有徽标看起来都一样的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網站內容還不錯，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。