Response - NY Times Article

The phrase "crimes against design" goes beyond a poorly conceived image. It is a response to changing designs when there is no need to. New marketing when the old marketing worked, new road signs because a significant time had passed since the originals' conception. I understand the confusion and even outrage that "crimes against design" invoke. I've felt the annoyance. I think the road sign example is perfect because it's a situation where the confusion has immediate impact. If a road sign is confusing, it screws you up. You miss a turn, have to reroute, possibly have an accident. I like the examples of Citroen and UPS because it stresses how important designs can be to a company's history, and that by changing a design you can impact the history you have with consumers. It's not just "how to ruin a design," it's how to ruin a "great" design. The article stresses this distinction, and it makes the point that much more interesting to me.