I dont think author claims bright colors are infantile on themselves. She is claiming that bright colors are used to distract from complexity. That word is always used in conjunction with other words like "patronizing you while hiding it in bright, friendly colours and the technique of infantilization". The bad stuff there is "patronizing" and "infantilization" bright colors just help to hide that.
The bright colors and simple shapes in a subway map is not used to "distract from complexity". It is used to present complex information as clearly as usefully as possible. Would it be less patronizing to present subway users with a detailed topographic map?
In any case, using earth-tones or beige or whatever would not convey any more complexity. The author is just associating bright colors with childishness, but does not examine this deeper. Yeah kids like bright colors, so does people making air traffic control systems.
I think the idea that this comparison (to color for display of information) is valid in your mind already proves the author’s point.
Why should the communication of a corporate brand identity or the consumer interface to its products be using the same tactics as visual display of complex information?
The principles of visual display of complex information also derive from goals about clarity, preventing influence of outliers, neutral colors, etc.
What are those goals for a corporate communication strategy? If you think they are anything other than scary misinformation tactics to maximize profit and brand perception while minimizing the company’s bad externalities, you’re just fooling yourself.
When the principles of visual display of information are repurposed to optimize profit, minimize negative externalities and control a brand image, infantilization is one of the results.
Your question does not make sense. No one is going “from” principles of display of information “to” infantilization. That seems like a deliberate attempt to make it sound complicated by not engaging with what was said and oversimplifying it.
Your earlier comment states that the bright color usage is to present complex information clearly. Ok. So you have introduced the idea that in this situation people are using principles of visual display of information.
Now that we have said that, we must ask why would a company think its branding or consumer interfaces need to use principles that are intended for other goals like sharing scientific results or data.
We know company goals are about maximizing profits and hiding negative externalities, so it’s reasonable to believe a corporation would only adopt principles of quantitative display of information for branding and consumer awareness if it serves these purposes.
These purposes are served by oversimplifying the purpose or ethos of the company, so that the brand identity is not associated with negative externalities the company creates. This is textbook infantilization. Present childlike logos, whimsical interfaces with flat colorful designs, simple clean interfaces.
This hides complexity. In the visual display of quantitative information, that’s good. In the pushing of a brand identity that’s disingenuous and manipulative exactly in the way of inviting the audience to believe a childlike sense of wonder and trustworthiness should be applied.
I think it’s really disingenuous that you would require it to be spelled out like this.
Obviously brand identity is used to present a positive image of a company, regardless of the particular style. Are intricate "old fashioned" logos (like often seen on luxury brands or financial institutions) less manipulative? Of course not.
She did not wrote "every time bright color is used it is to distract" nor did she wrote anything that would imply that. No part of the article could possibly be interpreted as attack on bright colors.
The word "bright" appears exactly 4 times. In each case bright is property of something that has many different properties and in no mentioned case is bright used for visual differentiation in complex or smart interface.
This was in response to the parent comment that "bright colors are used to distract from complexity".
The article associates "flat design" with childlike, but does not provide any reasonable argument for this association. It is simply an emotional reaction to a new design trend.
There are some good points about gamification and cartoon mascots, but its hard to separate from these unbased ideas about style.
"Bright colors in these examples are used to distract from lack of complexity" is not nearly the same as "bright colors are always used to distract from complexity".
The subway map is completely off-topic when it comes to content of article. Literally none of it is about visualizing complex structures.
Frankly, one needs to willfully misrepresent the article if one things that subway map is contraexample to any statement in the article. It is not, it is just shifting the topic so that you can claim article is wrong while arguing about something else.
While digital technology led designers to prefer flat, modular and responsive elements, this does not explain why contemporary interfaces and brand designs have started to address adults as if they were kids: breaking down complexity, colourful design, big typography, and animated animals or things with friendly faces.
This just jumbles so many different things together. Animated animals might be associated with children, but colorful design or breaking down complexity has nothing to do with childishness. The subway map is an obvious counterexample.
Comments
I dont think author claims bright colors are infantile on themselves. She is claiming that bright colors are used to distract from complexity. That word is always used in conjunction with other words like "patronizing you while hiding it in bright, friendly colours and the technique of infantilization". The bad stuff there is "patronizing" and "infantilization" bright colors just help to hide that.
The bright colors and simple shapes in a subway map is not used to "distract from complexity". It is used to present complex information as clearly as usefully as possible. Would it be less patronizing to present subway users with a detailed topographic map?
In any case, using earth-tones or beige or whatever would not convey any more complexity. The author is just associating bright colors with childishness, but does not examine this deeper. Yeah kids like bright colors, so does people making air traffic control systems.
I think the idea that this comparison (to color for display of information) is valid in your mind already proves the author’s point.
Why should the communication of a corporate brand identity or the consumer interface to its products be using the same tactics as visual display of complex information?
The principles of visual display of complex information also derive from goals about clarity, preventing influence of outliers, neutral colors, etc.
What are those goals for a corporate communication strategy? If you think they are anything other than scary misinformation tactics to maximize profit and brand perception while minimizing the company’s bad externalities, you’re just fooling yourself.
When the principles of visual display of information are repurposed to optimize profit, minimize negative externalities and control a brand image, infantilization is one of the results.
How did you get from "the principles of visual display of information" to "infantilization"? Seriously I don't follow this connection at all.
Your question does not make sense. No one is going “from” principles of display of information “to” infantilization. That seems like a deliberate attempt to make it sound complicated by not engaging with what was said and oversimplifying it.
Your earlier comment states that the bright color usage is to present complex information clearly. Ok. So you have introduced the idea that in this situation people are using principles of visual display of information.
Now that we have said that, we must ask why would a company think its branding or consumer interfaces need to use principles that are intended for other goals like sharing scientific results or data.
We know company goals are about maximizing profits and hiding negative externalities, so it’s reasonable to believe a corporation would only adopt principles of quantitative display of information for branding and consumer awareness if it serves these purposes.
These purposes are served by oversimplifying the purpose or ethos of the company, so that the brand identity is not associated with negative externalities the company creates. This is textbook infantilization. Present childlike logos, whimsical interfaces with flat colorful designs, simple clean interfaces.
This hides complexity. In the visual display of quantitative information, that’s good. In the pushing of a brand identity that’s disingenuous and manipulative exactly in the way of inviting the audience to believe a childlike sense of wonder and trustworthiness should be applied.
I think it’s really disingenuous that you would require it to be spelled out like this.
Obviously brand identity is used to present a positive image of a company, regardless of the particular style. Are intricate "old fashioned" logos (like often seen on luxury brands or financial institutions) less manipulative? Of course not.
She did not wrote "every time bright color is used it is to distract" nor did she wrote anything that would imply that. No part of the article could possibly be interpreted as attack on bright colors.
The word "bright" appears exactly 4 times. In each case bright is property of something that has many different properties and in no mentioned case is bright used for visual differentiation in complex or smart interface.
This was in response to the parent comment that "bright colors are used to distract from complexity".
The article associates "flat design" with childlike, but does not provide any reasonable argument for this association. It is simply an emotional reaction to a new design trend.
There are some good points about gamification and cartoon mascots, but its hard to separate from these unbased ideas about style.
"Bright colors in these examples are used to distract from lack of complexity" is not nearly the same as "bright colors are always used to distract from complexity".
The subway map is completely off-topic when it comes to content of article. Literally none of it is about visualizing complex structures.
Frankly, one needs to willfully misrepresent the article if one things that subway map is contraexample to any statement in the article. It is not, it is just shifting the topic so that you can claim article is wrong while arguing about something else.
While digital technology led designers to prefer flat, modular and responsive elements, this does not explain why contemporary interfaces and brand designs have started to address adults as if they were kids: breaking down complexity, colourful design, big typography, and animated animals or things with friendly faces.
This just jumbles so many different things together. Animated animals might be associated with children, but colorful design or breaking down complexity has nothing to do with childishness. The subway map is an obvious counterexample.