Surprisingly, one of the pieces of the project that would present itself as something relatively easy to decide on quite humorously became one of the most widely discussed parts of the project. That topic of discussion being the font and styling of our title project. The initial prototype designs were developed by one of our group members, Hannah. Their logo and texts seemed quite clean and simplistic with an emphasis being placed on connectivity in the logo itself. The developed image was that of several hands all connected together, creating a circle to symbolise that unity and coming of togetherness. But when Hannah was moved to another group, there then came the discussion of whether we should use the work that was already developed for us, or to develop new work, as I don't think everyone was entirely sure of whether we were allowed to use imagery from a project member that was no longer in the group.
Mehroosa developed new fonts and branding for the project after Hannah's departure. Her choice of font usage and the actual styling of the branding and logo was significantly different from the former lead. Whereas Hannah's work struck to me more as branding that would be used in a community project. The text was clean and simple and the branding felt clear enough in symbolising that idea of community. Even though I think that the branding was quite effective, (I might be alone on this belief) I think that group had developed the group idea since Hannah's departure and wanted to create something that just felt a bit more in tune with the currents ideas that the group was developing for the GROWTH project. This led to Mehroosa developing her own work for it, which I think the group as a whole was not entirely sure about. The text was more floral and flamboyant. I am not sure of the actual font name but the best way to describe it was that of lettering from an academic text. By immediately creating that connotation with it, it felt like it was already too far detached from the social environment it would be occupying. I don't know, I think when people see certain styling and lettering that feels like it speaks to a more academic crowd, rather than the general public, it can almost create some form of disparity amongst social groups. The idea of fancy letterings paints an image that this project is only for a select group, or a range of people above a certain bracket, and whilst the project obviously does not aim to do that in any way, I think from a first glance, there can be that misconception surrounding it.
Even though large chunks of these assets did not end up getting used down the line, the implementation of floral imagery and graphics, stemming from that word of growth, became something that the group felt very passionate about. I think that by taking that word and taking it very literally in its depiction, it helped to generate a more positive outlook on it from a public perspective. Flowers had been embedded into the lettering from the previous form, but in a much more stylised way that worked with its lettering. When Gabriela took over from the branding to create the next iteration of the logo, she looked at deconstructing this previously developed form and breaking it down into something much more modernised for the current market. I think that making sure the logo and general branding of the project fit into current graphical climate was very important, as by aligning ourselves with modern ideas, it paints the group beliefs out as that of being one that is culturally up to date, which is why I think the previous font and branding failed in creating that resonation with audiences. Gabriela also looked at making sure that the colours utilised in the work were appropriate for people with a wide range of abilities. This mainly included people who were colour blind, so to make sure that they were also viewing this branding, which is very colour heavy, she made sure that the chosen colours were viewable by their naked eye, as well as the sight of people with untampered vision. Overall, I think this new logo that was developed worked more for the project overall, it allowed for wider versatility in its implementation by generating an aesthetic that could be applied to a wide array of products and environments.