LOVE
This election sign is the perfect example of the Ockham’s razor design principle. It is simple, to the point, and includes basic details that are highlighted. Notice the “for” is just hiding on the “D” in “LUMBARD”. It is very clean and minimalistic. The consistency in font makes it super clear to read. The border frames the whole sign and the line around his name ads a nice touch to tie it all together. There’s great choice of colors with the white text and border, dark navy background, and orange for his last name. The contrast allows his name to stand out. Although this is the sign I chose to love, the one I hate is more effective in sending emotions than this one. This sign only gives the viewer his name and what he’s running for. There’s nothing that speaks to you in this sign in terms of emotions.
HATE
This sign is very bland. It’s black and white. There are no colors to make it more appealing. The text is inconsistent when it comes to font (WAGNER’s font is different than the rest) and the exclamation mark is much smaller than the text before it (NOT US). However, it is consistent in capitalizing every letter on the sign. One thing it managed to do is get emotion out with the dislike icon and the size of the words “NOT US”. It’s clearly anti-Wagner. This is why I think this sign is more effective in getting an emotion or “stance” out than the sign I chose in the “love” category.
BONUS (I thought this was fun)
Why do these two look exactly the same, but are actually for two different people? How does that even happen? Is that even possible (I’m actually asking)? The colors chosen, the checkboxes, the font… every. single. thing.
Note: The signs do not reflect my political stance, but are chosen simply by their design.
I see another variation on that Wagner sign that I think has more variation on fonts and even more text on the sign, so the text is smaller and closer together. I’ve never been able to take a picture of one, thanks, this would be in my same category.