Proper Names - Definition

Heather, #11, quote:-

"However, if you're aiming at 10-18 year olds today, (the generation that spends more time "texting" than writing clinically), the London logo may draw the response "omg 2 kewl" or "OMG 2 kewl" if they wanted to emphasize their emotional excitement for the piece. :) "

Cripes, that text jargon has got me stumped Heather. But if you are implying that it's alright to ignore grammar for 10-18 year olds I disagree. They are the last ones for whom we should be promoting bad practice. You get such badly typed messages on the Internet message boards. There are some people that don't use any capitals at all, not even in titles. It looks appalling.

Niel, #12, I take your point about bad spelling and I will use the spell checker in future (actually, I hadn't noticed it), but I still don't think accidental miss spelling in informal discussion is as serious as deliberate bad grammar in finished art work.

Domenic, #14, quote:-

"There are ways to do all lowercase without compromising legibility."

Well, fair enough, it's just that I don't see the point in making the problem in the first place. Hit that shift key and stamp out a capital.

As to the 'InDesign' and 'london' debate you state that they "both ignore the conventions of standard capitalization". Yes, but to differing degrees and I think we are both agreed that you can bend the rules to a certain extent for art. At least 'InDesign' looks like a proper name, 'london' does not.

"But you yourself have said that you have seen lowercase logos that "look good", so you have undercut your whole argument right there."

Blimey! How have I done that then? I don't see that such an admission undercuts my argument at all. Art is not black & white, and I did qualify that by stating they were rare cases and they would most probably have still looked better with capitals.

"I have to say, I'm staggered that you call yourself a designer but you haven't heard of Jan Tschichold."

Oh yes, I admit I am most probably not as qualified as you guys, but then with certain aspects of art I don't think you need to be. It's like with music, you can get some professors of music that get so bogged down in theory that they forget the main thing that matters is "Does it sound good?", and you don't need a degree to decide that (but it helps in actually making it sound good). The same with visual art. I did a bit of reading about Mr. Tschichold last week. I learnt that he used no substitute for the loss of capitals in his work, and his reasoning for dropping capitals was this:-

"we write everything in lower case to save time. and besides, why two alphabets, where one will do? why use capital letters if we don't use them when we speak?"

"The lowercase alphabet, it was argued, was easier to learn and to read. it took less space, and was more economical - typesetting was easier and composing machinery (and typewriters) could be simplified."

Now there's a perfect example of what I mean; getting too bogged down in theory. Crumbs, easier to read? How the heck can making text uniform make it easier to read? And what's that about not using capital letters if we don't use them when we speak? They are not there to define how the words should be spoken (as italics or bold can be), they are there purely for visual clarity. Of course it is going to be easier to typeset, saves time in printing, and is cheaper. As for saving space .... well ... gee whiz .... talk about grasping at straws!

Hey, it's good fun this ain't it? Now, let's make sure I click on that old spell checker button :)

Dominic,<br /><br />One would think! <LOL><br /><br />Neil

I really think you're not giving them enough credit if you're saying that they can't distinguish between a mistake and a deliberately unconventional usage. Most people I know who work with words and languages have a great appreciation of wordplay, (visual) puns, and the like.

Dominic,

I understand and accept your point, but I've also known writing and editing professionals who are sticklers for "proper" usage.

Neil

Richard,

>It isn't really a good precedent if it is reliant on the public having a certain amount of existing knowledge. What if it was a logo for a new company called, say, Locon? And they displayed their name as locon?

It seems to me that you're using a bad piece of design to make a somewhat different point. The font used should always be chosen with care. For example, when I was choosing a font that would be used in reports with lots of alphanumeric references (with the letters in small caps and the numerals in OSFs), I looked for fonts with OSFs 1s that didn't look like small cap Is. If I were designing something using "london" in lowercase, I would choose a font that clearly distinguished between the l and the I. There are ways to do all lowercase without compromising legibility.

>I see no similarity between the extra capitalisation in 'InDesign' and the decapitalisation in 'london'.

I don't follow your argument at all. They both ignore the conventions of standard capitalisation. To decry one and not the other is simply illogical, to me. Your rationalisations don't change my view on that.

>My point is you can bend the rules to a certain extent for art's sake, but I think there are boundaries ...

But you yourself have said that you have seen lowercase logos that "look good", so you have undercut your whole argument right there.

>This Tschichold fella.

I have to say, I'm staggered that you call yourself a designer but you haven't heard of Jan Tschichold.

Heather,

>if designing a logo that needed to appeal to English or Writing field professionals one would have to accept the fact that no matter how "nice" a lower case letter on a proper name may look, your audience is going to automatically read it as a mistake.

I disagree totally. I know plenty of professionals in the fields of writing, editing, and language who are perfectly able to distinguish between a lowercase letter done for effect (whether provocative or aesthetic) and a mistake.

LOL!!! Edited to hide stupidity :)

I was asking about spell check. My guess is it's the BIG RED BUTTON at the bottom marked CHECK SPELLING.

It's been a long week with too little sleep.

Sigh.

>But it seems to me that capitals for proper names (whether in a piece of text or on its own in a logo) is as fundamental as full stops at the end of a sentence and capitals at the beginning.

I think that Heather has a good handle on the capitalization issue. I'm no youngster, being a graphic designer for some four decades. But if the product/service/company/audience is right, I have absolutely no problem with the appropriateness of an all lowercase logotype. Or an all caps one, for that matter.

I think the London Olympics logo sucks, but it's for aesthetic reasons other than its lack of capitalization.

As long as the subject has been brought up, one thing that does bother me, even in informal writing, is bad spelling. And considering that there is a spellchecker including a red warning underscore built into these Forums' message boxes, it seriously reduces the acceptability of misspelling by those for whom English is the first language. And poor spelling diminishes the credibility of the poster in the mind of the reader.

Neil

>But it seems to me that capitals for proper names (whether in a piece of text or on its own in a logo) is as fundamental as full stops at the end of a sentence and capitals at the beginning.

I think that Heather has a good handle on the capitalization issue. I'm no youngster, being a graphic designer for some four decades. But if the product/service/company/audience is right, I have absolutely no problem with the appropriateness of an all lowercase logotype. Or an all caps one, for that matter.

I think the London Olympics logo sucks, but it's for aesthetic reasons other than it's lack of capitalization.

As long as the subject has been brought up, one thing that does bother me, even in informal writing, is bad spelling. And considering that there is a spellchecker including a red warning underscore built into these Forums' message boxes, it seriously reduces the acceptability of misspelling by those for whom English is the first language. And spelling diminishes the credibility of the poster in the mind of the reader.

Neil

I think a common ground for either side of this debate would be the basic design rule that you need to design for your market.
For example, if designing a logo that needed to appeal to English or Writing field professionals one would have to accept the fact that no matter how "nice" a lower case letter on a proper name may look, your audience is going to automatically read it as a mistake. This is bad marketing.
However, if you're aiming at 10-18 year olds today, (the generation that spends more time "texting" than writing clinically), the London logo may draw the response "omg 2 kewl" or "OMG 2 kewl" if they wanted to emphasize their emotional excitement for the piece. :)
To each their own. Me, it bothers, I envision red pen marks and points-off whenever I see a lower case letter starting a proper name or a sentence. But I also accept that this reaction is no longer the norm.

Hello Herb. Quote #9:-

"While you are steadfast in using the form of a letter to recognize its meaning, you appear to be less concerned with WHICH letter(s) to use in the first place, which would seem to me to be much more important."

Yes, I realise my spelling is not good, but I wouldn't have thought that more important. In a finished piece of art it could be AS important, but I think the point is I do not miss spell words deliberately and for a finished piece of art work I would make sure the spelling is correct. The use of lower case letters for proper names is a deliberate act.

I don't see the relevance that the upper and lower case distinction is a fairly recent addition.

"Depending on context, such things as multi-colored (or multi-coloured) text, random words in bold, and undifferentiated zeroes and ohs or ones and ells, are much more disturbing to me than the use or non-use of upper-case glyphs."

I find this sentence a bit confusing ("zeroes and ohs" etc.) but I understand that we all have different things "that interfere with our unhampered interpretation of text". That is why it is important not to stray too far away from the rules under the excuse of artistic liscence. But it seems to me that capitals for proper names (whether in a piece of text or on its own in a logo) is as fundamental as full stops at the end of a sentence and capitals at the begining.