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.
Comments
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.