I totally & completely respect where you're coming from. Quality feedback.
My personal feeling on the matter (& something I tried to reiterate both in the article & multiple responses) is that I wanted to make clear that my concept was a staging point for exploration. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with showing a user's suggestion for how they'd interpret meaning into the logo, irregardless of the research stages.
You see, as a user, my perspective is valid in my own user case scenarios & my voice should be heard, if I so choose to share it. Just as all other user's voices should be heard & then weighed against the objective. I wasn't designing from the frame point of a hired professional, nor an integrated team member whom should follow the steps you describe & distance their personal preferences from their decision making process. Nor was I speaking solely to the design community. I was designing from the opinionated perspective of the user that I am & applying the feedback that would have been gained by interviewing me during that said research stage.
I view Medium as a platform for the individual to be heard & have a voice. That is why, when I thought over the meaning of the logo, to me as the user, I concluded that it should represent a symbiosis of the original "M" logo mark (which had contextual meaning in itself), with the word "I'm" for "I am Medium...You are Medium...We are Medium". It represents my voice in combination with the platform. It's imperfect, but, from my perspective it had deeper meaning & I wanted to share that opinion as a user. I believe I'm entitled to that, just as you are entitled to that. What I'm not entitled to is to expect to be right, expect anyone to agree/like it, or, to expect it to be changed.
While I'm all for process & design thinking & quality research (believe me, I am), just as many bold, iconic & meaningful designs & logos have come from less than perfect design thinking processes. I've also borne witness to very in-depth research & design thinking that gave birth to dull, lackluster, less than user friendly designs. Design thinking & process is not a magic bullet.
That said, I am a designer & I consider myself to be a decent one whom utilizes solid processes in work for clients. But, seriously, we as a community need to lighten up & stop being so fragile regarding criticism & even unsolicited (or for that matter) uninformed redesigns. It's a sign that we're more personally attached to our work & defensive than we need to be.
Personal attachment, excuses about outsiders not having the understanding of the inside designer & overall defensiveness within designers simply reinforces that invisible, subconscious wall that makes listening to fresh perspectives & truly being open to user feedback that much harder.
Thanks again for sharing your well thought out perspective!
I totally & completely respect where you're coming from. Quality feedback.
My personal feeling on the matter (& something I tried to reiterate both in the article & multiple responses) is that I wanted to make clear that my concept was a staging point for exploration. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with showing a user's suggestion for how they'd interpret meaning into the logo, irregardless of the research stages.
You see, as a user, my perspective is valid in my own user case scenarios & my voice should be heard, if I so choose to share it. Just as all other user's voices should be heard & then weighed against the objective. I wasn't designing from the frame point of a hired professional, nor an integrated team member whom should follow the steps you describe & distance their personal preferences from their decision making process. Nor was I speaking solely to the design community. I was designing from the opinionated perspective of the user that I am & applying the feedback that would have been gained by interviewing me during that said research stage.
I view Medium as a platform for the individual to be heard & have a voice. That is why, when I thought over the meaning of the logo, to me as the user, I concluded that it should represent a symbiosis of the original "M" logo mark (which had contextual meaning in itself), with the word "I'm" for "I am Medium...You are Medium...We are Medium". It represents my voice in combination with the platform. It's imperfect, but, from my perspective it had deeper meaning & I wanted to share that opinion as a user. I believe I'm entitled to that, just as you are entitled to that. What I'm not entitled to is to expect to be right, expect anyone to agree/like it, or, to expect it to be changed.
While I'm all for process & design thinking & quality research (believe me, I am), just as many bold, iconic & meaningful designs & logos have come from less than perfect design thinking processes. I've also borne witness to very in-depth research & design thinking that gave birth to dull, lackluster, less than user friendly designs. Design thinking & process is not a magic bullet.
That said, I am a designer & I consider myself to be a decent one whom utilizes solid processes in work for clients. But, seriously, we as a community need to lighten up & stop being so fragile regarding criticism & even unsolicited (or for that matter) uninformed redesigns. It's a sign that we're more personally attached to our work & defensive than we need to be.
Personal attachment, excuses about outsiders not having the understanding of the inside designer & overall defensiveness within designers simply reinforces that invisible, subconscious wall that makes listening to fresh perspectives & truly being open to user feedback that much harder.
Thanks again for sharing your well thought out perspective!