The online outrage is hilarious:

• “Verdana! BARF!”
• “Like Rachel Ray popping open a case of Ramen”
• “What’s next, Ikea? Comic Sans?”
• “Horrific”
• “Verdana is a rounder, fatter font than Futura. I’d say Ikea is targeting Americans.”
• “Ikea is switching to the ubiquitous typeface Verdana: looks as cheap as its furniture?”
• “Words can’t describe my disgust”

IKEA’s response has been (1) Verdana is free so it makes economic sense (2) Verdana’s characters translate better into other languages, allowing IKEA to use one font for all markets.  “It’s more efficient and cost-effective,” says Ikea spokeswoman Monika Gocic, “I think it’s safe to say we were surprised by the response.”

Gocic continues, “Plus, it’s a simple, modern-looking typeface.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Good try!

Verdana was created with the Web in mind; Microsoft designer Matthew Carter constructed the type for Internet Explorer and it’s now one of the most often-used fonts in the world.  Verdana was intended to be used on a screen, not on paper, and was designed specifically for that application.  “It has open, wide letterforms with lots of space between characters to aid legibility at small sizes on screen,” explains Simon l’Anson, creative director at Made by Many, a London-based digital-consulting company.  “It doesn’t exhibit any elegance or visual rhythm when set at large sizes.” Carolyn Fraser, a letterpress printer in Melbourne, Australia, explains it this way: “Verdana was designed for the limitations of the Web — it’s dumbed down and overused. It’s a bit like using Lego to build a skyscraper, when steel is clearly a superior choice.”

Futura, on the other hand, is a print-centric font originally designed by Paul Renner. Ikea has been using the font for half a century, and has even commissioned the typeface to be drawn out in more weights and languages specifically for its brand. In fact, it’s called “Ikea Sans.”  “The former [Futura] typeface definitely better reflected Ikea’s design philosophy, giving it a very special, unique flavor that actually fit the company’s style,” says Vitaly Friedman, editor in chief of the online Smashing Magazine, which is dedicated to Web design. “With Verdana being used all across the Web, Ikea’s image not only loses originality, but also credibility and the reputation that the company has built since the 1940s.”

Many believe that the discussion is ridiculous and it’s yet another case of designers imposing their crazy belief system on others.  And yet, like it or not we all make purchasing decisions on a daily basis due in part to the font’s used to convey the message.

Allan Haley, director of Words & Letters at Monotype Imaging, the firm that refined Futura for Ikea said: “It’s a tremendous risk. They are pulling the typographic foundation of their branding out from underneath themselves… People do notice fonts and letters. The general public has become very tuned to it. When a company makes a drastic change to a very strong brand it can have a negative effect. People make buying choices based off brand identity. The brand becomes an old friend and they can feel betrayed; it can seem like it may not be the same company anymore.”

And frankly, Verdana is just plain ugly.  And really, isn’t that the point??

———————-

portions excerpted from Time Magazine and BusinessWeek.

By a nearly 2-to-1 ratio over any other option, unchurched Americans prefer churches that look more like a medieval cathedral than what most think of as a more contemporary church building.  The survey found that while billions are being spent on church buildings, overall church attendance is declining.

The article rightly implies that the unchurched prefer the more aesthetically pleasing look of gothic cathedrals because it speaks to a connectedness with the past.  The younger the person, the more they prefer the gothic to the contemporary.  “I don’t like modern churches, they seem cold,” said one survey respondent who chose the Gothic design. “I like the smell of candles burning, stained-glass windows, [and] an intimacy that’s transcendent.”

I’m finding that the ‘seeker’ of today is not the seeker of decades past.  For years we’ve built and programmed our churches on the philosophy that the ‘unchurched’ don’t really want a traditional church experience.  And in some respects, that is still true.  They don’t want the trappings of a church that is judgemental, lifeless, condescending, and more concerned with themselves and their tradition than those in need who need the love and life of Christ.  What they DO want is connectedness, unity, and a sense of something beyond themselves.  The ‘tradition’ of being involved in a church that has deep roots, a rich history, and is connected to the life of Christ through a vibrant community is very inviting.

As I am preaching, writing, teaching, design media, editing video, or programming services, these thoughts are always on my mind.  How can I help those around me connect with God on a level that is deeper, richer, and more connected with the world around them.

Stained glass, sculpture, art, hymn, call and response, and other traditional elements might just be what the churched AND unchurched are longing for.  I wonder where my clerical collar is…

How do you measure, measure a year?

In daylights, in sunsets, in midnights
In cups of coffee
In inches, in miles, in laughter, in strife.

In five hundred twenty-five thousand
Six hundred minutes
How do you measure
A year in the life?

A year ago we began planning and working towards a new online presence for Mountaintop Community Church, the progressive church where I serve as Minister of Creative Media.  We occasionally measured the year-long journey in miles and laughter.  But typically, it was inches and strife.

We had thought the process would take a couple of months.  We were grossly naive.  Fall turned to Winter and we had rejected our first round of designs from the vendor.  Winter turned to Spring and we’d passed rounds two and three.  As Spring gave way to Summer we’d said no to a fourth round and all communication had broken down. 

Seeing no light at the end of the tunnel, we took the bull by the horns (as they say in Texas) and set out to design the site ourselves.  I became the design firm and my pastor became the client.  During a week of hashing out the design during a retreat to the mountains (about which I care not to speak), we finally came to the design you see today.  If we had tried to do the design ourselves a year ago, I don’t believe we would have ended up with as good a design as we did.

Now, as Summer turns again to Autumn, the site is live and we are moving on with finishing smaller elements of the site such as podcasting, video archives, live streaming, an online store, etc.

Some things I’ve learned:

1. Make sure you are comfortable with both the back-end updating software and the front-end design capabilities your vendor is offering.
2. Find great examples of great work from other great designers and churches.  It will help you communicate your ideas.
3. Form follows function.  While the design needs to be eye-catching and engaging, the ultimate test is functionality.  Is it usable and easily navigable?
4. Everyone that sees a ‘design comp’ will have an opinion, and every opinion will be markedly different.  While they are all important, the job of the designer or project manager is to communicate well using excellent design principles.
5. Opinions will change. As the project drew out, our goals and aesthetic preferences changed several times.  Keep good notes and document everything.
6. Bring your staff and congregation along throughout the process.  Keep them updated well and often.
7. No matter how much time you have, it’s never enough. 
8. A project is never finished, only abandoned.
9. There are worse projects to spend a year of your life doing.

But until today, I’d never seen anything quite like this.

A postcard advertising church signs of the highest quality came to my attention. On it, the sign company has included a picture of what we can only imagine is their current best install (or perhaps their most recent): New Covenant Church.

It must have been quite an upsale to get the church to purchase a digital LED board to go with their sign. I can hear the salesman now… “Sure, the sign can say anything you want it to say for free… that’s the beauty of using an LED message board as part of your sign solution.”

And what does the church choose to use their new LED add-on for?? THE NAME OF THE CHURCH, it would seem. To me it seems a bit redundant.

So whom is more at fault? The church, for putting the name on both the analog and digital portion of the sign? Or the sign company, for snapping a picture of the faux pas and using it in their advertising.

Or perhaps, it is both/and.

ps – Don’t forget that visitors are included with every sign! ;)

TYPOGRAPHY CAN subtly or boldly define a company, product, or person. Whether it is Best Buy’s big, bold, screaming signs or the sweet, elegant script on a wine label, the type talks to us, the reader. The logos of the presidential candidates are no exception.

Clinton

The Hillary type palette is far from fresh and colorful; it is begging for legitimacy instead of demanding respect. It projects recycled establishment. The type has a tired feeling, as if the ink has been soaking into the page too long. The Hillary logo has the look of an ’80s newspaper layout or an investment company. The tall lower-case reminds me of someone with their pants pulled up too high. I wonder about the significance of the three stars and three stripes. A third term?

Edwards

Edwards is the only candidate to use a sans serif typeface for his main typeface. Sans serif typefaces do not have the added elements at the ends of the vertical and horizontal strokes. Unlike many of the traditional sans serifs used in campaigns, Edwards’s typeface is open and friendly. It’s utilitarian. In past campaigns, Edwards used a serif typeface. Perhaps he is subtly distancing himself from his unsuccessful 2004 bid. The Edwards type is very Wal-Mart, tabloid, middle class. Not a whiff of high-powered lawyer.

Obama

Obama’s type is contemporary, fresh, very polished and professional. The serifs are sharp and pointed; clean pen strokes evoke a well-pressed Armani suit. The ever-present rising sun logo has the feeling of a hot new Internet company. His sans serifs conjure up the clean look of Nike or Sony. This typography is young and cool. Clearly not the old standards of years past.

Huckabee

Huckabee has the most inexplicable selection of typography and graphics, from the six floating stars to the white stripe seemingly stolen from the Coca-Cola logo. The overall effect is clutter. The main typeface, used to set the candidate’s name, is very tightly spaced, or tightly tracked, as typographers like to say. Some letters, like kab, are actually touching each other. Then “Mike” is tucked in between the H and k as if “we almost forgot to tell you his first name.” Setting FAITH. FAMILY. FREEDOM. in such a thin weak sans serif feels as if it was added as a committee compromise or an afterthought. The type is too light, too small, and does not have a real voice.

Romney

Uppercase can attract attention and project boldness, which is probably why the Romney campaign set his name in all caps. It works pretty well for ‘Romney’. The letters fit comfortably and form a pretty solid unit.

Unfortunately, MITT does not lend itself well to this treatment. The two T’s create a big space between them compared with the space between the MI or, to a lesser extent, the IT. The result is an irregular rhythm and feeling of inconsistency. The graphics are puzzling. The eagle logo has the head of the US Postal Service logo and body of the Norwegian flag flowing behind it. Not sure what that means.

Giuliani

Like Clinton, Giuliani has abandoned his last name nearly completely. Rudy is four easy-on-the-eyes letters set in a strong serif with an eye-catching red border. It is set in a strong, bold serif typeface; the serifs themselves are clear and decisive. Using his short four-letter name allows him to set it particularly large. His message is all about Rudy, name recognition. The enlarged R introduces the other letters like a big, protective parent.

McCain

McCain uses type that is a perfect compromise between a sans and a serif, what type geeks call a “flared sans.” Not quite sans and not quite serif, sort of in between, moderate, not too far in either direction. The strokes have contrast between the thick and thin, creating the feeling that the ends are going to have cute little serifs, but they just flare out a little, not forming actual serifs but wanting to. The military star centered and shadowed is a not-so-subtle touch. And McCain just says “President,” as if to say he’s already been elected. Everything about this logo says you can buy a car from this man. From the perfectly centered star to the perfectly spaced type, the entire design looks like a high-end real estate company. McCain has done something no other candidate has done, he uses all blue, no red – not even a dash. If we were to predict the results based on typography and design, we would pick McCain and Obama.

BOSTON GLOBE | January 27, 2008

Sam Berlow and Cyrus Highsmith work at The Font Bureau Inc. of Boston. Berlow is general manager; Highsmith is a senior designer.

While we are very excited about the end result of the process, a sweet website with tons of uber-cool features, the design process has been a bit rocky.

So in the interest of full disclosure I’d like to outline the road we’ve taken so far and the bumps and bruises along the way.

I knew it was going to be tough… redesigning something as important as a website always is… but I never expected the challenges and summits along the way. But it’s been a really opening process and one that I think everyone will enjoy reading about. So Enjoy…

First, our design company gathered lots of input from our staff and details about our church. They then went to work for 5 weeks and came up with this design. From our statements, they gathered (correctly) that our church’s mission was sports related (Turning fans into players on Jesus’ team). They heard us say that we wanted our website to capitalize on the sports theme if possible. But what they returned was not exactly what we had in mind. My fears were confirmed and I knew we were going to be in for along road during the design phase. So we sent the comps back for a rethinking on several key areas of design and execution. We asked that they rethink the announcement section, use our exact logo rather than a variation, move away from dark browns and reds, add area for more photos, and make the site feel more like a lodge/resort/mountain theme.

The second round blew me away. In my opinion we moved further away from the target I had in mind. To our liaison I translated it this way: When doing design work for a client, and they ask for revisions, I have a choice. I can either make their exact changes and be done with the process (no matter how bad it looks) or I can take what they said and rethink my entire design in light of their comments. Our design firm did the former, they just made the changes… it was the simpler route, but not the best one at this juncture. So we had a choice to make, do we simply submit and let the issues go or do we actually press for the changes we wanted. Tough call. In this design, they tried to remove the sports theme and make it more mountain lodge/resort in feel, but we felt they had not fulfilled any of our other requests. So we sent it back with their word we’d have a full redesign from the ground up, leaving this particular one in the dust behind us.

Round three really floored me. I thought I was communicating well but it seems I was not. The design firm had made our requested changes to the photo and announcements area but I felt we were continuing to move further away from a unified design that we could all be happy with. What was I to do? Our contract only called for two revisions and we had met that limit. If I gave it back to them again I wasn’t sure I could count on the design getting to a workable status. In such instances, I typically take the project in my own hands and do it myself. For better or worse, this is my instinct… and it turned out for the worst this time.

We took the project into our own hands, discussed the situation in-depth with our internal management and came up with a site from the ground up that melded what management liked and what I thought looked great. We spent over a week creating our version. We used several designers and got input from a number of people along the way. We used the best layout, the best colors, and the best pieces we could think of. We’d include blogs, frontpage video, rotating worship photos, flash content, and lots of other fun and useful stuff. And below you can see our progress from start to finish….

So I presented it to our peeps here at church as well as the design firm, and neither one really loved it. Uh Oh! :) At that point, what do we do? Neither I nor the firm can get a workable design done. Does this happen to all clients in web design? I bet it churches it happens more than we care to admit!

But the light was finally ‘on’ at the end of the tunnel. This opened up a discussion that has finally put us on track to getting a design approved and a direction that all of us agree is pretty cool. I really love our design form for helping us work through the bugs and kinks. They have a great product, but I am personally looking forward to the end of the design phase. So what took so long? I’m not sure exactly, but I think the most obvious problem to me is this: I wasn’t thinking outside of the box enough.

Stay tuned!

I won’t reveal the actual design and the sweet, sweet setup the Pastor chose until it is live on www.mountaintopchurch.com … sometime in late June or early July. :)

Which would you choose??

Men’s Retreat Logo Comps