The first principle
that I’m going to look at is Legibility. In this context this does not simply
mean how easy something is to read; this principle delves deeper, into how easy
it is to identify and understand the intended message behind the piece of work,
and how efficient the communication is. Good legibility is essential for the
practice of visual communication. Without it, work will look unprofessional,
and you will fail to communicate effectively. An example of bad legibility is
having text over an image with little contrast between the two, as the image below shows:
The bottom section
where the pictures are looks like it has been slapped together by a child, and
if it had one it would confuse the message. It makes it look as if the image is
not important, but you cannot easily read the text either.
It raises an
interesting issue however, as work being difficult to read is not necessarily a
sign of bad legibility. For example, on the sign below, the fact that it is hard to read is
the intended message, so in this case the difficulty in reading the text is
actually good legibility. Similar examples can be found in advertising, where a
good technique is to make the message not immediately obvious, as the act of
working out the intended message creates immediate gratification in the mind of
the viewer that they then associate with that product or service.
The next principle I
am going to look at is Tone of Voice. This is the idea that text and image have
an equivalent to a tone of voice, so their message can be communicated by their
style in addition to the meaning of the word or what the picture actually is.
Like with legibility, there are specific instances where applications of the
tone of voice can confuse the image where in another situation it might work
much better. An easy example of where the tone of voice can confuse the image
is with single word images.
 |
|
If the typeface is not
representative of the meaning of the word, as above, then it looks odd. Compare
below:
|
This typeface makes much more sense in the context of the image, and makes it clear
that the intended message is a loud shout. There are undoubtedly instances
where you could use a conflicting typeface to the meaning of the word, and be
communicating effectively, but this would be much more specific and
situational. The only example I can think of would be in a graphic novel having
characters ‘whisper’ in a huge typeface, and be called out for being unable to
whisper quietly.
No comments:
Post a Comment