Logo Design Techniques No One Talks About (Until Now)

Table of Links

1. Introduction

2. Related Work

   2.1 Semantic Typographic Logo Design

   2.2 Generative Model for Computational Design

   2.3 Graphic Design Authoring Tool

3. Formative Study

   3.1 General Workflow and Challenges

   3.2 Concerns in Generative Model Involvement

   3.3 Design Space of Semantic Typography Work

4. Design Consideration

5. Typedance and 5.1 Ideation

   5.2 Selection

   5.3 Generation

   5.4 Evaluation

   5.5 Iteration

6. Interface Walkthrough and 6.1 Pre-generation stage

   6.2 Generation stage

   6.3 Post-generation stage

7. Evaluation and 7.1 Baseline Comparison

   7.2 User Study

   7.3 Results Analysis

   7.4 Limitation

8. Discussion

   8.1 Personalized Design: Intent-aware Collaboration with AI

   8.2 Incorporating Design Knowledge into Creativity Support Tools

   8.3 Mix-User Oriented Design Workflow

9. Conclusion and References

3 FORMATIVE STUDY

To instantiate the real design principles in TypeDance, we extracted simulatable design workflow from semi-structured interviews and generalizable design patterns from a corpus analysis.

Participants. We conducted semi-structured interviews with three experts: a design professor leading logo design teams for international conferences and city identities (E1), a brand designer with over 11 years of corporate and startup logo design experience (E2), and a logo designer who has received several renowned design prizes (E3). All three experts have extensive experience in semantic typography design.

Procedure. Each individual interview, lasting one to one and a half hours, began with a presentation of the interviewee’s work from social media. We then delved into their interpretation and detailed explanation of the design process. Finally, we posed questions about key steps in creating a semantic typographic logo, the most challenging step, and expectations and concerns regarding generative models.

3.1 General Workflow and Challenges

3.1.1 General Design Workflow. Semantic typography design is a creative process that involves generating innovative ideas and implementing them. As Fig. 2 shows, The general workflow typically consists of five steps.

• Ideation. To begin with, designers are often given fixed text, such as a brand name. Based on the usage scenarios, they need to come up with innovative ideas regarding potential imagery.

• Selection. Once designers confirm a design idea, they prepare design materials with two crucial aspects: 1) the part of the typeface structure and 2) the specific visual representation of imagery. The choice of typeface evolves through multiple attempts with different granularities, such as a single stroke or the entire typeface. All experts mentioned that they obtained inspiration for visual representation from images, whether provided by customers, collected from design-sharing communities, or from their own life gallery. Images serve as a source of other inspiration as well. As E1 noted, “I usually discover new inspiration in pictures, such as color palette.”

• Generation. Designers start by simplifying the visual representation into a basic shape that corresponds to the typeface’s skeleton in the sketch. They then adjust the typeface outline using professional software like Adobe Illustrator, seamlessly integrating it with the chosen imagery.

• Evaluation. Upon completing a design, designers will assess the legibility of both the typeface and imagery incorporated in their work. It often hinges on external validation from individuals other than the designers themselves.

• Iteration. Iteration is conducted throughout the design process. Designers conduct multiple experiments and refinements at each step to reach potential outcomes. Refinement continues until a finalized design is achieved.

3.1.2 Challenges in Workflow.

1. Depletion of ideas during brainstorming. Experts widely regard the birth of good inspiration as a combination of imagination and serendipity. E2 emphasizes the importance of delving into the story behind a brand and then incorporating it into logo design. This involves gathering background knowledge and discovering imagery that resonates with human perception. Diverse plans for alternatives are essential for iteration.

2. Clarification of specific visual representation of imagery. Designers frequently explore diverse parts of the typeface while experimenting with various imagery options to attain the most optimal and visually appealing outcomes. However, a single image can be depicted in various visual presentations, as illustrated by the diverse robots in Fig. 2, posing a challenge in specifying a particular one. Additionally, the compatibility of the imagery with the typeface can complicate the selection process.

3. Tedious and laborious manipulation in blending typeface and imagery. Crafting a logo design from a draft involves conceptualizing and professionally implementing the blending of significantly different imagery and typeface. As mentioned by E3, “sometimes it is challenging when my client insists on having both the letter ‘M’ and a standing cat from the photo she gave me – finding similarities in their shapes is hard.” For the implementation, despite relying on professional software like CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator, the blending process remains manual, consuming a substantial amount of time and effort.

4. Challenges in evaluating legibility. A successful semantic typographic logo should not confuse the public about its typeface or meaning. However, evaluating the legibility often falls to designers’ subjective judgment rather than being based on the perception of the general public. This poses a challenge in achieving a fair evaluation.