Bad Design Kills
My friend Dylan lives by these words. And since I first heard them, I've often considered their implications. Certainly the concept makes the most sense in terms of tactile design, like industrial, architectural, the making of toys or plastics, etc. But I hadn't thought much about how bad graphic design could have extremely detrimental effects. I was reading an article yesterday about how New York was able to pass gay marriage a few years after there was so much division there over the matter and little cooperation among supporters. While reading about how the supporters had banded together to get the law passed, I began thinking back to Prop 8 in California. I was a California resident when Prop 8 was passed and remember having trouble basking in the glow of Obama's election because I was extremely upset that Prop 8 had passed that same day. And yet, even when it passed, I was well aware of the havoc that advertising and design had had on public opinion. The money that fed into the Yes on Prop 8 campaign from conservatives and the Mormon church was considerable. Everywhere you looked (including on my boyfriend's father's minivan) were the happy bumper stickers that reeked of positivity and family. To many eyes, there is no exclusion apparent in this sticker:
And yet its seemingly benign message and design is what makes it so insidious. The man and the woman seem to have equal footing. They're the same size, although the man could arguably still be holding the position of power as the first one we see in a more central position. The words are all positive: "Restore," "Protect," "Yes." And in the family too, the parents are next to the kids, safely flanking them without needing to look down or shield them as they glow in a ray of sun.
Would a better design have been enough to make up for the difference in funding? If the more common design had been the one with the X instead of the check, would more people have thought it imperative to vote? How important is the packaging? The National Alliance used to have a page on their website that included pictures and bios of their members. Scrolling through the people, it was hard to believe that *these* were the neo-Nazis. Every school teacher and board member and teenager and civic leader looked like any other neighbor you might see in an American suburb (which of course was the point).
This time around, New Yorkers knew they had to play the game. They targeted Republicans, celebrities, anyone who could impact public opinion in a large way. And the design was better.
Whether it was HRC's simple equal sign, The Freedom to Marry's lovely house+heart+equal, or New Yorkers for Marriage Equality's NY graphic with the words "I DO" written again and again slantwise in the letters NY, the overwhelming message was positive, affirmative. And "yes" is most always easier to say than "no."
And yet its seemingly benign message and design is what makes it so insidious. The man and the woman seem to have equal footing. They're the same size, although the man could arguably still be holding the position of power as the first one we see in a more central position. The words are all positive: "Restore," "Protect," "Yes." And in the family too, the parents are next to the kids, safely flanking them without needing to look down or shield them as they glow in a ray of sun.
And while the No on Prop 8 sticker isn't inherently bad design graphically (though it's certainly dull), it could be considered bad in effect because it lacks the dynamism to inspire action. When I would see it on people's cars, I didn't think much. In fact, it was easily lost among other stickers. The pro-Prop 8 sticker on the other hand seemed to have more contrast, that bright (but not garish) yellow, and the happy family all reinforcing the Yes with their outstretched Y arms.
Would a better design have been enough to make up for the difference in funding? If the more common design had been the one with the X instead of the check, would more people have thought it imperative to vote? How important is the packaging? The National Alliance used to have a page on their website that included pictures and bios of their members. Scrolling through the people, it was hard to believe that *these* were the neo-Nazis. Every school teacher and board member and teenager and civic leader looked like any other neighbor you might see in an American suburb (which of course was the point).
This time around, New Yorkers knew they had to play the game. They targeted Republicans, celebrities, anyone who could impact public opinion in a large way. And the design was better.
Whether it was HRC's simple equal sign, The Freedom to Marry's lovely house+heart+equal, or New Yorkers for Marriage Equality's NY graphic with the words "I DO" written again and again slantwise in the letters NY, the overwhelming message was positive, affirmative. And "yes" is most always easier to say than "no."