3 people in my class evaluated my 3 No News Is Good News posters. Here is their feedback...
What statement/fact/question is being communicated to you?
1. What else is underwater? More than 1%, grammar isn't very good.
2. I don't know. I think it is saying only 1% of ocean floors have been surveyed, but the sentance on the poster doesn't read correctly. My first thought was maybe a spelling mistake "ever" instead of "never".
3. I am unsure if the symbol is less than or more than! So not everyone will understand this. From the statement do you mean "never" been explored or have we only explored 1% of the ocean?
Yep, after checking I did get the symbol wrong! But the spelling of ever is correct, going from the article is states "Less than 1% of the world's ocean floors have ever been surveyed".
Is this being communicated in a clear and focused way? What could be developed further?
1. No. Strength of wording and research into correct symbol use.
2. No. Just the sentence structure. Visually I think it looks really good' the layout is good, simple but eye-catching. I also like the large use of type.
3. No. The wording on the statement. Also "What else is undiscovered underwater? What was the first thing? Very confusing mixed messages.
To me it is quite clear, however I know the background to the posters and they must work without the background to be effective. I should possibly get rid of the question "What else is undiscovered?" as this is causing confusion.
Have the posters been kept "simple and to the point"? Is a statement, fact or question being posed?
1. Yes. Fact - use of figures suggests use of a fact.
2. Yes. A question which is followed by a fact. This is because there is a statistic written (%).
3. No. Very simple but not grasping the point. It isn't clear what the article was about. I think they are getting a statement across yet confused with what it is.
My posters weren't really about the story of the article which was about a lost city and was more about the fact we don't know what is really underwater, a quote from my article. I don't really understand what 3. means.
Has the restriction of two colours plus stock been met? Are the two colours plus stock appropriate? Why?
1. Yes. Yes. Black and white has high impact upon suitable colour for subject.
2. Yes. Yes. The blue "stock" is appropriate ti the ocean and the black and white keeps it simple and bold. I think any other colour would have been too busy and made it uneasy to read.
3. Yes. Yes. Appropriate colour blue for the ocean. The white % sign is very clear which is effective. I believe the black in blue also looks clear.
Do the posters work as a set or series? Why and could they be developed further?
1. Yes. Similar consistent images work well, with subtle variations yet effective. The alignment to the stroke of the 1 is a nice detail. I think the >1% should be in the same place.
2. Yes. Same illustration and typography also colour scene makes it obvious they belong together.
3. Yes. They defiantly work as a series. Yet the image along doesn't say anything about the statement very unclear what the message is of a fish in the ocean is meant to reflect. It looks lonely, maybe they have all dies? Pollution from the boat?
I will develop using the >1% in the same place if I keep it in and am happy 1. picked up on the alignment. Think I need to make it clear that the small fish in the large space of ocean seen represents the statement of "Less than 1% of the world's ocean floors have ever been surveyed". Possibly need to think about making it more about this and less about the city/boat.
Is it clearly evident which poster is type, image and type/image?
2. This is clear however I think the type only poster the >1% could be slightly smaller as it looks almost image like as it takes over most of the space.
I will experiment with making the >1% smaller and see what works best.
Are the posters "memorable, immediate high impact and clear"?
1. Text has main impact and then imagery and layout support.
2. I think the colour scheme makes them memorable and also they illustration. If you were to see them all in separate places, you would recognise them as a set. The simplicity makes them clear and stand out. I think they are fairly high impact in the way the colours are sharp and bold.
3. The posters are memorable and have effective visuals the colours work just a pity I am unsure of the article and what the posters are trying to display. The image poster alone gives mixed messages and I don't know you begin to think of ideas from the high rise buildings which would lead you to believe the pollution from the busy city and one lonely fish.
I will try taking out the buildings as these were in to show the distinction between sea and land. I thought I needed the city in to show the sea was sea! However I think the waves are enough of a trigger and the city may be giving the wrong message.
Do you feel the brief has been fulfilled to its full potential?
2. Unsure. I do really like these! Its just because I couldn't make sense of the message. This is the only thing I would change, just so it makes sense to a wider audience. I really like the little fish too!
Now looking back I don't think it fulfills the brief! I am definitely going to do some tweeking and makes them communicate my fact better.
After this crit I thought more about how I could make my design better and communicate the message more effectively. I took on board the comments made and thought more from the perspective of my audience. Here is my final design...