-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Haberstich [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

Again, I say, people and organizations who don't have nifty logos with an
instant recognition quotient are at a disadvantage in the credit-panel
sweepstakes. <snip>

If the issue is readability on credit panels, however, I must say I find
plain text a heckuva lot easier to read than fancy logos which need to be
decoded.  I'm not interested in viewing credit panels that look like laundry
lists in hieroglyphics.  Don't get me wrong--I love hieroglyphics, but I
find
trying to memorize and read them slow going.  But that's just me.  Your
mileage may vary.

So I'm not convinced that logos are easier for everyone to read if they just
want information.
-----------------------------------------

I can see your point about well-known vs. not well-known logos, but I would
say that it is only the latter which are hard to read.  Games Magazine has
had several puzzles where they have shown only a portion of a corporate
logo, and you might be surprised at how many you can identify. They've also
run another puzzle where company names and typefaces were mixed-up (like
"FedEx" in red "Coca-Cola" script), and the challenge was to identify the
company that the typeface really belonged to.   Just to make the point
further, the Cooper-Hewitt had an exhibition a couple of years ago that
looked at corporate design, and one room had a series of typefaces (with
logos where appropriate), but rather than company names, it was the same
word (or two, and I don't remember what they used) in each typeface.  The
point was that the well-known designs retain recognisability even when
"meaningful" content is removed.

 It is not necessary to actually read "Coca-Cola" or "Pepsi-Cola" in the
logos -- most people will see the familiar red script, or the blue font with
the red and blue wavy dot, and automatically fill in the information.  In
fact, I'd be willing to bet that more than half the people would not
immediately notice if you put "Coca-Cola" in the blue Pepsi font with the
dot -- they'd probably still identify it as a (solely) Pepsi label,
especially given that both products end in "-Cola"

In other words, I think the logos (in most cases) are actually quicker and
easier for most people to decipher than the same information in a plain and
homogenous typeface.   Which is exactly what the logo designers are aiming
for, and is (at least in part) the reason the companies want their logos on
the credit panels.

The above is largely a statement on David's opinion of the non-readability
of logos, but it does play into my own loosely-defined beliefs on the topic
of logos in the museum:

I do believe that logos can be used on credit panels, but only on credit
panels (unless part of the actual exhibition), and the museum should have
restrictions on size, with all logos monotone (matching the rest of the
credit panel-- why should the museum have to pay for four-color printing,
and if the company pays for it, it does begin to edge towards advertising).
I thought the old sponsor rules on PBS were tasteful and unobtrusive -- the
newer rules allow things that seem awfully close to advertising, kind of
like the political "issue" ads that are supported by "soft" money.  I'd like
to see museums avoid the same slippery slope.

Larry Burke
Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).