Journal 9: Presentaion Reflections

Reflecting on the projects I and my classmates presented, I think I overall did a good job in explaining the history of the general prohibition symbol, exploring how and why it looks the way it does, and examining some possible design alternatives to what the symbol is today. I felt confident in how I traced its origins, discussing both the cultural and functional factors that influenced the symbol’s widespread adoption.

Purely based on the slides, I believe my images were mostly relevant to what was being discussed and added visual support to the concepts I explored. I did not have any supplementary text besides what was within the images chosen, for example: text within the parking signs or from some of the pamphlets I found while researching. In retrospect, I think I could have omitted the Ghostbusters slide because, upon reflection and viewing others' presentations, it was not extremely relevant to the project other than briefly showing some of the ways designers have changed the symbol in popular culture. I did touch on it later to illustrate how the core diagonal slash can be adapted, but that single slide did feel slightly disjointed. Trevor and Ashley did a good job staying focused on the most pertinent information, and by omitting that slide, I could have afforded more time to highlight more salient insights regarding the symbol’s history, such as the AIGA redesigns in 1971.

Additionally, based on Maurice’s comments, I could have dug deeper into the history of the diagonal as a symbol of transgression. While the paper I found does make some interesting connections: tying ideas from Pythagoras and Renaissance paintings to the diagonal, it’s not conclusive research or a concrete explanation as to why the diagonal works so effectively as a marker of prohibition. That may not matter a great deal, though, since the natural conclusion I arrived at is still that the diagonal is the most foundational element of this symbol. The redesigns I created build on that foundation, and in my view, they effectively explore how the diagonal might be adjusted or reimagined without losing its essential meaning.

Staying on the topic of my redesigns, I believe I was the only one who presented so far to outright conclude that the symbol may not need to be redesigned at all. While the project instructions do say we were merely doing exploratory sketches, the difficult process of reworking such a seemingly simple symbol (say that three times fast) and the research I conducted led me to believe the natural endpoint of the project was the conclusion that the original is already quite effective. I am glad I included that conclusion instead of ending on one of my experimental redesigns. Like Maurice said, sometimes not redesigning something is the best choice you can make, but this is not always what clients, or even designers themselves, want to hear. For example, we discussed the Pepsi logo as something that has been tweaked many times, arguably without enough clear benefit. In contrast, logos such as Coca-Cola’s or the American Pokémon logo have remained largely unchanged for decades, maintaining consistent brand recognition. I believe they are better for it, and the general prohibition symbol probably falls into a similar category, its enduring simplicity and clarity speak for themselves.