Designing for signs

[rossmosh]

A lot of talk about design but people seem to forget signs also have to be practical. They should cover at least three of the: Who, what, where, when, why, and how. If you give me something that is aesthetically pleasing but doesn't tell me the story, it's fairly worthless.

 

[signman315]

A lot of talk about design but people seem to forget signs also have to be practical. They should cover at least three of the: Who, what, where, when, why, and how. If you give me something that is aesthetically pleasing but doesn't tell me the story, it's fairly worthless.

The best signs have to have good form AND function...but never sacrifice function for form. Form takes a back seat to function in the world of signage. Designers tend to forget that signs serve functional purposes in our daily lives as opposed to fine art which serves a different need (entertainment/social statements/philosophy/etc). Signs are used, art is viewed (always with exceptions and grey areas of course). Some designers also tend to think that the quality of a signage design is directly related to how long they spent on it, not necessarily true depending on the purpose of the sign being designed.

 

[TimToad]

Totally agree with Rick "you can be taught the principles of design and drawing enough to service the needs of most of our clients... only a select few have been sprinkled with magic dust..."
I did go to sign school, not art school, where you were taught brush skill and sign design. But that was just the start. I have worked with some of those who have the magic and it's inspiring.

We took a similar path and in my case, I had the added benefit of working at the largest billboard company in the world for my first five years. Thankfully, they fully subscribed to, invested in and demanded its apprentices complete every minute of the apprenticeship program before being granted your journeyman's card. I had at least a dozen journeyman as mentors as well as a teacher at the tradeschool who had over 50 years of experience. I also went to commercial art school two nights a week during the first couple of years to learn more about composition, perspective, illustration, typography, etc.

I had no choice but to embrace whatever path into a creative arts field I could find. Due to a family health crisis that consumed we and our parents lives, finances, stability, etc. for seven years until my mom died from cancer, none of us five kids were going to college while there was helping keep everybody fed, clothed and minimally educated needed to be done in the midst of such grief.

Unfortunately, those days of intense, concentrated instruction combined with a full workday's on the job experience in the U.S. are long gone. Our colleagues in other countries still value vocational training, so folks seeking that deep of an introduction and training in our field will need to seek it out elsewhere.

Here at our shop, we've run the gamut trying to hire folks who were great designers, but had no production experience and folks with sign production experience who we thought could learn some basic layout and design skills. Self-motivation, some natural talent and the willingness to learn and apply oneself are the greatest character traits that make a difference. We've found that the same person who can't tell the difference between a bold, sans serif font and a roman italic is the same person who couldn't properly prep a file for print if their life depended on it.

To the OP. First and foremost, make sure the person can get up in the morning, show up sober, accept input and training and has some degree of attention to detail and retains things he or she learns. Resumes are like a magnifying glass into an applicant's habits and expected longevity. If they are in their late 20's-40's and still haven't yet worked a job for much longer than a year, your shop will not likely be the place where they suddenly plant roots and settle in.

 

[Rick]

After reading some of these responses I have come to a few conclusions...

-- The reason people go to college is there is no one else to teach them.

-- I think I would want someone who went to school for a few years and spend 100k+ over someone watching a few youtube videos and can make boxes and squares because the former shows some level of commitment, passion, the willingness to learn - the latter... sounds like they want a quick fix.

-- If I was going to hire a designer for the sign business, and they needed teaching, they would learn it from me, the boss.

-- People thumb through books, they don't read them.

-- You may not be as good as you think you are, how can you pass on knowledge when you don't have any yourself?

-- Since most here are obviously self-taught, quite a few can't see a bad design to save their life, how will they be able to hire a designer if they are clueless on how it's done?

Again, we all have the ability to print, laminate and slap something on a panel. our design skills/talent, is usually what sets most of us apart from one another. In my part of the sign business, my clients are a little more design savvy. I will always have the ability to design like cr@p if thats what the client wants... not everyone can layout/design good... thats the edge you can have over the competition...

 

[bob]

To say that signs are 'designed' is an accommodation of charity of language.

You have a defined space to be occupied by some copy or another. You lay out the copy. Back in the day when signs were make with a box of paint and a collection of brushes, the copy was roughly sketched with charcoal or a Stabillo merely to define position and character spacing. You grabbed a brush and lettered in the copy. The brush making the letters. No design involved, just an understanding of typography and a bit of skill with your tools.

Making a sign is far more about arrangement of elements and good typography than any sort of 'design'. In looking at contemporary efforts if would seem that typography is a lost concept. Ghastly combinations of type styles combined with equally dreadful character spacing are everywhere.

No 'design', just layout and execution.

 

[signbrad]

I have found a lot of stuff online but if there is one place to go to get the best information on sign designing please let me know, I appreciate it.

Mastering Layout by Mike Stevens is the only book in print of its kind. It should be required reading for sign designers, a group that must understand the unique needs of sign-specific design. Sign salespeople need to read it as well, as It will allow them to speak intelligently with clients. Sign business owners will benefit from the book since it is often difficult for them to recognize good design from bad, and hence to recognize a good designer from one with marginal ability.

Design principles in Mastering Layout are clearly explained and illustrated with examples. Some have said his book is "too academic," but the reading level required is not high (high school at most). The problem with book-learning these days is not that too many books are written beyond the comprehension of readers, but that many people, raised on a steady diet of television and miniature articles online (almost blurbs, really, in many cases) may lack the necessary skill to focus and absorb the information. Sometimes an internet article is even prefaced with the subhead, "5 minute read," a kind of warning to indicate to the prospective reader how much of a time commitment is needed. Our ever-shortening attention span, coupled with the claim that many of us have not actually read a book since high school (33%) or college (45%), making us out of practice, makes the problem of learning good principles of design ever more difficult. And though I wonder about the research to back these book-reading claims, it is obvious from talking with a percentage of fellow sign makers that many of them would rather sit on the couch with their remote control than read anything much more taxing than the back of a Cheerios box, a 4-minute read.

In the Stevens book, design elements are named and defined, and this remains one of Stevens' important contributions. A working vocabulary is an essential first step toward developing design expertise.

It's true that Mastering Layout contains information on hand-lettering, an almost obsolete skill. Yet the book is primarily about sign layout and composition, and that's what makes it valuable. What other book attempts to explain design from a sign perspective? Only this one. And Mike Stevens was not an "over-educated" professor of graphic design theory. He was one of us. A sign goober. He not only made signs for a living, but he was also a good explainer, a good teacher.
Good principles of composition have not changed. And while they are not rules that can never be broken, they constitute best practices. They allow a designer to produce work that has eye appeal and is effective as a form of visual communication/advertising.

The Mike Stevens book should be the starting point for someone wanting proficiency in sign design, even for, or maybe especially for, artists with graphic arts degrees.
A good second book might be The Elements of Graphic Design by Alex White, either edition or both. It is incredibly informative. Each chapter can almost be read as a stand-alone, so it doesn't require a huge time commitment. His comments on negative space are especially valuable. Though written from a print/web perspective, I read and re-read parts of this book often.

Regarding online videos. I have found them marginally helpful. Many are not well done, even incoherent. Presenters are sometimes amateur and lack fluency as speakers. With one notable exception—The video presentations and other online content (and books) by John McWade are worth the time and money.

Brad in Kansas City

 

[TimToad]

To say that signs are 'designed' is an accommodation of charity of language.

You have a defined space to be occupied by some copy or another. You lay out the copy. Back in the day when signs were make with a box of paint and a collection of brushes, the copy was roughly sketched with charcoal or a Stabillo merely to define position and character spacing. You grabbed a brush and lettered in the copy. The brush making the letters. No design involved, just an understanding of typography and a bit of skill with your tools.

Making a sign is far more about arrangement of elements and good typography than any sort of 'design'. In looking at contemporary efforts if would seem that typography is a lost concept. Ghastly combinations of type styles combined with equally dreadful character spacing are everywhere.

No 'design', just layout and execution.

Isn't a magazine cover layout a defined space occupied with some copy and other graphical elements? How about a multi=page brochure? What about a series of webpages linked together to create a "website"?

All contain blocks of copy, possibly imagery, etc. and the process of assembling them together into an effective, cohesive advertising piece is overwhelmingly similar to how most of us "layout" a sign either in the good old days or in today's mostly digital world.

I have trouble both distinguishing between the semantics of calling something "layout" or "graphic design" when they literally are the same thing. Earlier in this thread and in other related threads, many of us try to distinguish between a one-off "layout" and a more involved graphic design project that may be used and reproduced in a variety of advertising formats. I think thats a very important distinction to bear in mind.

 

[TimToad]

Mastering Layout by Mike Stevens is the only book in print of its kind. It should be required reading for sign designers, a group that must understand the unique needs of sign-specific design. Sign salespeople need to read it as well, as It will allow them to speak intelligently with clients. Sign business owners will benefit from the book since it is often difficult for them to recognize good design from bad, and hence to recognize a good designer from one with marginal ability.

Design principles in Mastering Layout are clearly explained and illustrated with examples. Some have said his book is "too academic," but the reading level required is not high (high school at most). The problem with book-learning these days is not that too many books are written beyond the comprehension of readers, but that many people, raised on a steady diet of television and miniature articles online (almost blurbs, really, in many cases) may lack the necessary skill to focus and absorb the information. Sometimes an internet article is even prefaced with the subhead, "5 minute read," a kind of warning to indicate to the prospective reader how much of a time commitment is needed. Our ever-shortening attention span, coupled with the claim that many of us have not actually read a book since high school (33%) or college (45%), making us out of practice, makes the problem of learning good principles of design ever more difficult. And though I wonder about the research to back these book-reading claims, it is obvious from talking with a percentage of fellow sign makers that many of them would rather sit on the couch with their remote control than read anything much more taxing than the back of a Cheerios box, a 4-minute read.

In the Stevens book, design elements are named and defined, and this remains one of Stevens' important contributions. A working vocabulary is an essential first step toward developing design expertise.

It's true that Mastering Layout contains information on hand-lettering, an almost obsolete skill. Yet the book is primarily about sign layout and composition, and that's what makes it valuable. What other book attempts to explain design from a sign perspective? Only this one. And Mike Stevens was not an "over-educated" professor of graphic design theory. He was one of us. A sign goober. He not only made signs for a living, but he was also a good explainer, a good teacher.
Good principles of composition have not changed. And while they are not rules that can never be broken, they constitute best practices. They allow a designer to produce work that has eye appeal and is effective as a form of visual communication/advertising.

The Mike Stevens book should be the starting point for someone wanting proficiency in sign design, even for, or maybe especially for, artists with graphic arts degrees.
A good second book might be The Elements of Graphic Design by Alex White, either edition or both. It is incredibly informative. Each chapter can almost be read as a stand-alone, so it doesn't require a huge time commitment. His comments on negative space are especially valuable. Though written from a print/web perspective, I read and re-read parts of this book often.

Regarding online videos. I have found them marginally helpful. Many are not well done, even incoherent. Presenters are sometimes amateur and lack fluency as speakers. With one notable exception—The video presentations and other online content (and books) by John McWade are worth the time and money.

Brad in Kansas City

I simply can't agree more with the value and durability that Mike Steven's contributions have made to the betterment of our craft. I'd add the career long contributions that my long time friend and early mentor Bob Behounek has made as well. These are two giants of our craft who as actual practitioners, their advice and unquestionably altruistic unselfish natures carries a weight that is invaluable and should be acknowledged.

 

[Rick]

Mastering Layout by Mike Stevens is the only book in print of its kind. It should be required reading for sign designers, a group that must understand the unique needs of sign-specific design. Sign salespeople need to read it as well, as It will allow them to speak intelligently with clients. Sign business owners will benefit from the book since it is often difficult for them to recognize good design from bad, and hence to recognize a good designer from one with marginal ability.

Design principles in Mastering Layout are clearly explained and illustrated with examples. Some have said his book is "too academic," but the reading level required is not high (high school at most). The problem with book-learning these days is not that too many books are written beyond the comprehension of readers, but that many people, raised on a steady diet of television and miniature articles online (almost blurbs, really, in many cases) may lack the necessary skill to focus and absorb the information. Sometimes an internet article is even prefaced with the subhead, "5 minute read," a kind of warning to indicate to the prospective reader how much of a time commitment is needed. Our ever-shortening attention span, coupled with the claim that many of us have not actually read a book since high school (33%) or college (45%), making us out of practice, makes the problem of learning good principles of design ever more difficult. And though I wonder about the research to back these book-reading claims, it is obvious from talking with a percentage of fellow sign makers that many of them would rather sit on the couch with their remote control than read anything much more taxing than the back of a Cheerios box, a 4-minute read.

In the Stevens book, design elements are named and defined, and this remains one of Stevens' important contributions. A working vocabulary is an essential first step toward developing design expertise.

It's true that Mastering Layout contains information on hand-lettering, an almost obsolete skill. Yet the book is primarily about sign layout and composition, and that's what makes it valuable. What other book attempts to explain design from a sign perspective? Only this one. And Mike Stevens was not an "over-educated" professor of graphic design theory. He was one of us. A sign goober. He not only made signs for a living, but he was also a good explainer, a good teacher.
Good principles of composition have not changed. And while they are not rules that can never be broken, they constitute best practices. They allow a designer to produce work that has eye appeal and is effective as a form of visual communication/advertising.

The Mike Stevens book should be the starting point for someone wanting proficiency in sign design, even for, or maybe especially for, artists with graphic arts degrees.
A good second book might be The Elements of Graphic Design by Alex White, either edition or both. It is incredibly informative. Each chapter can almost be read as a stand-alone, so it doesn't require a huge time commitment. His comments on negative space are especially valuable. Though written from a print/web perspective, I read and re-read parts of this book often.

Regarding online videos. I have found them marginally helpful. Many are not well done, even incoherent. Presenters are sometimes amateur and lack fluency as speakers. With one notable exception—The video presentations and other online content (and books) by John McWade are worth the time and money.

Brad in Kansas City

In spirit, I'm going to agree with your comment...
I got the book when it came out... 1986 I believe? I read it, then, as suggested in the book, thoroughly went through the book a few more times. At the time I read the book, I had already learned to letter some 8 years earlier from a sign painter who worked at a theme park and an in-house sign painter and designer. I had access to a computer in 1986, which I hated, and thought it was nice to have a book that gave more definition to the elements that were taught to me. But a lot of this was already in magazine articles and his newsletter. I had already moved away from sign layout and design. The problems with the book have nothing to do with the language, definitions or the general content. The problems are in how we (and our customers) see things some 32 years later... I have read the book 6 times after the initial reading. I have one marked up as to how I would apply it to the computer in case I wanted to explain it to someone. But it's not just the computer...

Fact is, even though it's suggested a beginner read the book, this is no newbie book. At the time in 1986, if you have no experience, no mentor, and only a can of paint and a few brushes... you were looking at around 2 years before being able to apply what is in that book. You would have read and practiced from a Speedball book, or any number of lettering method books and put in the practice training your hand to follow your brain and eye, over and over again. Like Mike mentions an "Acquired Talent". Once you can make any letter with your hand, you have the ability to give it appropriate strokes, widths, and looks as needed... in reality, a computer can't do that... if you mess with type on a computer, it will almost always look distorted. You can but fonts to make up for that, but it cost a lot of money. There was at one time fonts called "Multiple Masters" that emulated hand manipulated strokes and widths, but was later dropped by Adobe. Too bad, because it allowed you to full up space with a typeface without distortion, kinda like how someone would get a thicker brush, or stroke the letter wider.

If you really pay attention to how the book applies today, one glaring issue we have now is the dirty words "BRANDING" and "LOGO"
"BRANDING" and "LOGO" only work if all forms of reproduction were considered during the design of it.
This is not a logo design book, yet some people seem to suggest this book, it is not...
Every example where there is a logo in that book, it is manipulated or completely eliminated to work with the methodology he is trying to teach, and why not, in 1986, most of us with that "acquired talent" had a bit more freedom to do that. Clients usually allowed it because we were not typing on a keyboard (a skill they have), we were doing something that took years to learn. They had not had BRANDING shoved down their throat, and graphic/marketing designers started using it when they could easily provide a computer file on a floppy (instead of camera ready artwork)

We no longer have that luxury.
-- If we are given a crap logo, your layout will automatically have flaws. Most here do not have the eye to manipulate artwork. I think it's worth the time to show a client an option or 2, but make sure it looks better... let it go if the client insists on crap - it's usually not them, it's the crap that's been shoved down their throats but sometimes, the client has no taste.
-- The computer has limitations if the user has no training or does not invest in quality type.
-- As "Mastering Layout" alludes to, some people who think they have skill, and it's painfully obvious they don't, will never look at a book or video to improve themselves... they do not have mentors and will usually never ask someone better than them to look at a layout... they believe that if they sell a sign, and the customer likes it, they are qualified, the keyboard and a disk full or fonts is all they need now... what they don't know is that they have clueless clients, try doing that to a client well versed in layout and design... I know, it's happened to me...

I suggest reading the book in the following order:
-- The glossary first
-- The troubleshooting checklist (because it breaks down the glossary into an exercise you can understand better)
-- Afterward: Always look back
-- Then start reading.

The other book: "Inside Sign design" provides information about the process... including surveys, codes, permitting, who will have to review it. Again, a very flawed/narrow view, but currently, the only book of it's kind.

Then find a mentor and/or sign designer way better than you to give you a no holds barred critique of your work... I happen to have 3, and we are all constantly trying to improve our work.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

-- If we are given a crap logo, your layout will automatically have flaws. Most here do not have the eye to manipulate artwork. I think it's worth the time to show a client an option or 2, but make sure it looks better... let it go if the client insists on crap - it's usually not them, it's the crap that's been shoved down their throats but sometimes, the client has no taste.

By the time that I get a lot of these though, that "designer" that gave them their logo has already told them that it should only be done as it is done in their original logo. Which would have been fine (I'm not going to quibble over crap, they like the logo, that's on them) if the designer knew production, but in most cases (when a designer is this insistent of exact translation to their customer (pretty damn near close to all)) they don't. And neither does the customer.

While some people may not have the eye to manipulate artwork to work for layout, don't discount that they may not have much of a choice in doing edits to the layout.

Now, I give suggestions over concerns and what may need to be changed and in what direction to change it, never show options unless they agree on the price, most people (doesn't matter how long it takes me to produce a production worthy file) think I should be doing this for free. Again, don't know what is involved.

 

[Rick]

While some people may not have the eye to manipulate artwork to work for layout, don't discount that they may not have much of a choice in doing edits to the layout.

The statement is interesting...
-- if you can't design, don't touch it... it's that simple...
-- If you can't make money on showing options - don't do it... but the fact is, most signshops do layout for free to sell a sign
https://www.signcraft.com/online-exclusives/2018/08/do-others-charge-for-sign-design/
-- It's really a low risk service... it's all about the up-charge, either then, or later when they need another sign... but since you are not really a sign designer, it may not apply to you. Your services are limited in comparison to a full service sign shop who can sell more services.

As a person who routinely sends files off to different vendors, including embroidery... I occasionally get "suggestions". Production based suggestions - like modifying artwork to be able to reproduce a graphic or some missed code related issue are always welcome, but a rare occurrence since I usually design something reproducible on most applications. That being said, I do not always design to the lowest common denominator - embroidery being one of them - but I will provide a modified design that can be embroidered.... Design suggestions? Well, I look at websites/portfolios of a lot of replicators here... I would most likely ignore most of it as most are not exceptional suggestions. If they showed my client before discussing it with me is akin to crapping in my yard... if I have to re-explain the design or explain to my client why some crap replicator decided to substitute something in a logo or layout, they will usually end up using a different replicator...

Each one of us should look at our portfolio and decide if we have the ability to suggest better design or ask a qualified person if you lack the ability...
If you can't take 10 minutes to add an option to better serve the client - one might become more proficient in their design skills or learn their software better or replicate crap.

Again, anyone can reproduce something... whether it's print, cut vinyl, even embroider once you get past the production process... the design skills we should have can differentiate ourselves from our competition.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The statement is interesting...
-- if you can't design, don't touch it... it's that simple...

I do design (and have done logo designs, I do design my own stock designs, have done layouts for signs (more the novelty signs, but signs nonetheless (even fully embroidered signs as well) etc), however, by comparison, most people come in for reproduction of existing designs.

I do take some pride in that fact that I can go from concept to finished product, that I'm not strictly reproduction only.

That being said, I do not always design to the lowest common denominator - embroidery being one of them - but I will provide a modified design that can be embroidered

This is actually a misnomer. One can get away with more then one would think.

Not in all instances, but in quite a few that people would find surprising.

Ironically, the opposite is also true, some people think that something is simple enough for embroidery, but it isn't going to work.

If you can't take 10 minutes to add an option to better serve the client - one might become more proficient in their design skills or learn their software better or replicate crap.

Oh, if they would only be satisfied with a graphic file version, but they want it all the way into an embroidery proof. To accurately do that, that's actually digitizing the file. Not so much 10 minutes (at least not to do a proper production worthy file). If it was just something that I could easily sketch up and they would be willing to go off the sketch, that's something else (or easily whipped up in a vector program, that's no biggie at all, that's not what I'm talking about).

 

[Rick]

I might as well share a tiny portion of what I send to my sign shop clients who are training a designer with no sign design experience. Pretty much a dumbed down version of one of the books I suggested.

If they went to a good college and were diligent in their studies, I would expect them to understand the principles and process of layout and design. They should have a working knowledge of a vector program. Design in engineer and architectural scale would be nice. What they don't know is how the design process is incorporated into the sign design process. I'm only going to show the promotional design process because thats the majority of work most sign shops do

But there is also a process for exterior signs and a different one for code related signs.

Who might be required to see the design:
• Business Owner (Client)
• Property/Building Owner
• Property Management
• City Building and Planning
• City Inspector
• Collaborators (Architect, Interior Designer, Design Firm, Ad Agency, General Contractor)
• Salesperson
• Project Manager
• Internally (for bidding and production details, install team)
• Sub-Contractors

Process for layout and design of promotional signs: (What most shops on this site do)
— Banners
— Panels
— Billboard
— Vehicle Wraps
— Window Graphics

• Information/Consultation

This is information provided to us by the client, this can include…
• Logo, preferably in digital format.
• What the sign is supposed to promote
• Images that may be own the layout
• What is the sign going to be placed on (material, size, vehicle type)
• Any collateral material that would need to be incorporate into the sign - business cards, brochures, website where you can use type, color and visuals to integrate the sign into their current marketing efforts
• Identify who will be approving layout/design

• Code

Verifying any code restrictions, usually found in County, and City Sign Code, possibly a Comprehensive Sign Program.

• Survey

Photo and field measurements of sign locations and surrounding project signs (where applicable)

• Research

• Do a quick image search on signs and layout that will help in designing the sign, Optional: collect images that will justify the design - especially if the layout is different than the client expects.

• Layout/Design

• Layout sign as discussed - meet the clients expectations.
• If time allows, design 1-2 optional layouts that are greatly improved from what the client expects.

• Present Layout

• In person if possible, but have the opportunity to easily explain why the sign layout was executed the way it was.

• Revise

• Taking feedback from the client, revise and present.
• Complete layout, Shop Drawings and Specifications
• Finish any layouts required (IE: Vehicle wrap front, back, top)
• Detailed instructions on fabrication and installation, finalize materials, colors and specifications.
• Have client sign off. If required, get other required approvals before proceeding.

• Permitting

• Pull any required permit.

• Manufacture/Print/Fabricate

• Sending files to the proper department or vendor in correct scale and file type
• Follow the process making sure drawings and specs are adhered to

• Install

• Adjust layout if vehicle provided is not what was initially discussed

• Evaluate

• Photo for portfolio
• Evaluation of goals, were goals met beyond client satisfaction (IE: Portfolio worthiness, profitable, one beyond required goals)

Obviously some items are not required, in practice, some items are only a few minutes of consideration. In time, the process because second nature and less complicated.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

As a person who routinely sends files off to different vendors, including embroidery... I occasionally get "suggestions". Production based suggestions - like modifying artwork to be able to reproduce a graphic or some missed code related issue are always welcome, but a rare occurrence since I usually design something reproducible on most applications. That being said, I do not always design to the lowest common denominator - embroidery being one of them - but I will provide a modified design that can be embroidered.... Design suggestions? Well, I look at websites/portfolios of a lot of replicators here... I would most likely ignore most of it as most are not exceptional suggestions. If they showed my client before discussing it with me is akin to crapping in my yard...

I missed this part earlier.

Sometimes these suggestions are actually one and the same.

Sometimes in order to get something to work in production, it changes the design/layout dynamic, so design suggestions should be made as well.

if I have to re-explain the design or explain to my client why some crap replicator decided to substitute something in a logo or layout, they will usually end up using a different replicator...

This, I would actually consider crapping in my yard.

I will normally try to replicate as is, regardless if the logo is crap or not, but if I suggest something, especially in regard to a production/design concern as it related to the output on my end there is a damn good reason why I would suggest something. My main concern is the quality of the output.

Now, if they still want it done "as is", I'll do it, but how it comes out is how it comes out.

This industry doesn't take kindly to those that suck, so being here for 24 yrs (more experience then that, just not in a professional setting, including having learned how to do this the old fashioned way, by hand), featured in articles, both giving advice and showcasing work, I would like to think that my suggestions would carry more weight then someone just thinking I'm a crap replicator (or just a replicator only, let alone crap).

 

[Marlene]

Some of the worst signs out there came from designers not in our industry. Print designers come up with the worst ideas for signs when it comes to colors, fonts and general layout. One of the worst that I've seen was for a hospital. The important lettering was .5" high spaced out at 300% in a thin stroke font. They could care less about the end user. A sign has to do its job. A sign designer needs to know how to convey a message, not just make something pretty. The books mentioned are a great place to start as well as trade mags.

 

[TimToad]

Some of the worst signs out there came from designers not in our industry. Print designers come up with the worst ideas for signs when it comes to colors, fonts and general layout. One of the worst that I've seen was for a hospital. The important lettering was .5" high spaced out at 300% in a thin stroke font. They could care less about the end user. A sign has to do its job. A sign designer needs to know how to convey a message, not just make something pretty. The books mentioned are a great place to start as well as trade mags.

I would qualify your statement with making sure that people are aware that there are environmental graphic designers whose entire discipline is based on signage and wayfinding design. Having worked in that discipline for many years, I can attest to the level of attention to detail and commitment to legibility, composition, typographical fidelity and durability most engaged in that segment of the graphic design world adhere to. Many of the projects I've worked on included months of research, conceptualization and implementation.

 

[doublesigndude]

I've been designing for 20+ years. Took zero art classes, no formal design training whatsoever. I know what looks good & what jumps out & what is important or what should be emphasized in a layout. I get told all the time, "you're artistic." No, I'm a great commercial artist and had a lot of great trial & error life experiences along the way. Have tried to hire out of school "designers" that would spend 7 hours on a 10 minute design. I know in the past you were looking for an "A" on your school project, but I need to make money. Hard to find that production minded employee to begin with, let alone the mentality of great design work on top of it.

After selling my business I've transitioned to a printing business that is trying to be more involved with the large format & sign industry. They have designers that have been designing print designs for years, business cards & brochures and such, but don't have the 1st clue about laying out a sign. Biggest thing, you're viewing time on a sign opposed to a print piece. Usually you're driving when viewing sign, needs to be simple and to the point. Idk, I hold myself to a higher standard & wonder why others in this business are willing to do the same. You're only as good as your last project, granted they're not all show pieces, hard to church up a parking lot sign too much. Just my 15 1/2 cents...

 

[showie]

I've been in the sign industry for about five years - my first career after a number of years in sales/customer service at a retail level. I had a background in design that I had taught myself (how to use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, and some basic gen ed courses taken during a career as a History Major in uni). It didn't help much for signage.

"Designing" Signage for production is different than print, and requires far more practical and production knowledge. Many posters have noted that talented designers have created proofs that are, for all intents and purposes, impossible to produce. In my time working at various sign shops I've seen designers promise clients we can make 1/2" wide channel letters (no), roof signs (without checking bylaws, which distinctly said No, you cannot), and that "Variances are sure things" (which they are not).

Sign designers also require a knowledge of math, some background (or willingness to learn) in structure, production, wiring, and permits. It's a lot more than "designing."

 

[shoresigns]

To say that signs are 'designed' is an accommodation of charity of language.

You have a defined space to be occupied by some copy or another. You lay out the copy. Back in the day when signs were make with a box of paint and a collection of brushes, the copy was roughly sketched with charcoal or a Stabillo merely to define position and character spacing. You grabbed a brush and lettered in the copy. The brush making the letters. No design involved, just an understanding of typography and a bit of skill with your tools.

Making a sign is far more about arrangement of elements and good typography than any sort of 'design'. In looking at contemporary efforts if would seem that typography is a lost concept. Ghastly combinations of type styles combined with equally dreadful character spacing are everywhere.

No 'design', just layout and execution.

I couldn't disagree more. Design is when careful thought and planning is put into the construction of an object so that it can serve its purpose effectively. If signs weren't designed, we wouldn't have STOP signs that are consistently red and octagonal. There's a reason they're red, a reason they're octagonal, a reason they're larger than other signs – when those decisions were made, that is the process we call design.

Even a sign that has the client logo centered in it – nothing else – can be "designed". The design process for such a sign is absurdly obvious, like deciding the right size, position and negative space around the logo, but that's still design. It can be done well and it can be done poorly.

And to your example about brush lettering, when you roughly sketched the copy with a Stabillo, taking your understanding of typography into account, the sum of that process is DESIGN. When you repeat a similar design process for so long that it becomes second nature, I don't think that makes it any less design – it only means you're an experienced designer.

 

[Rick]

You're only as good as your last project

I would like to have that embroidered on a pillow... very true...