|
Post by Alight on Oct 11, 2011 15:50:58 GMT
Corporate Identity: Colour StandardsI've noticed that TfL's naming of colours is often rather inaccurate. The three main examples are: 1) Metropolitan line as "Corporate Magenta" when it is clearly 'Plum' (magenta is usually classed as a shade of pink) 2) DLR as "DLR Turquoise" when it would make more sense to label it as "Corporate Teal" to distinguish itself from "Corporate Turquoise" (W&C) 3) Public Carriage Office (Taxi Private Hire) as "Corporate Mauve" when it is clearly indigo. Mauve is a medium shade of purple, similar to lavender. I wonder who was responsible for choosing the colour names? I can understand the DLR being described as 'turquoise' but it seems rather silly to describe the Taxi Private Hire logo as 'mauve' when it most definitely isn't. Interestingly, old documents I came across at the TfL Historical Archives often referred to the Metropolitan line's colour as 'Cerise' because that is what it used to be. For example, the Metropolitan line is shown in cerise on the 1985 tube map.
|
|
|
Post by version3point1 on Oct 11, 2011 17:09:18 GMT
There was more consistency in design standards 30 years ago, where reproducing consistent results would've been a lot more difficult given the lack of automated technology there is today. You will find extensive discussion/argument about LT colour names on Wikipedia as well unfortunately... the amount of times you see the name of a colour changed on there is ridiculous... IIRC, many of the current Corporate Identity documents were published in mid-2005. I think I might have the originals on a hard drive somewhere – I'll have to look – but I'm not sure whether names of colours were changed since then. Relatedly, you will often find that TfL themselves do not adhere to their own colour, let alone design standards. When there was a mass haul of refurbs with regards to signage here on the Uxbridge branch of the Met (where there was absolutely no problem with the existing roundels and signage already on the stations), I made a complaint about how the colour was not compliant to the design standards and went as far as comparing the Pantone settings they'd set down as "standard" to what was put up on the stations. The feedback I got was basically that 1) it was out of TfL's hands because they had contracted somebody to do the work and 2) things vary under different light/lux conditions. My answer to that was that if they couldn't be bothered to check the quality of the work done to ensure it was consistent with the Corporate Standards, then they shouldn't have bothered having the work done at all. Some signage also failed to fall in line with the "standards" with type set incorrectly or the incorrect type being used (especially in the way of temporary signage – it seems that because it's "temporary", it need not follow a standard, even though it is in public view), including removable/changeable vinyl signage that tends to be updated regularly or on order (ironically, I've just noticed on TfL's website that they have an Issue 1 publication on something with regards to this).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2011 18:17:30 GMT
In response to what youv'e seen on the UXB branch, on the western end of the Jubilee line during surface station refurbs, they went round replacing perfectly good signs IN NEW JOHNSTON! With new ones. The only difference is the old ones have "No smoking" written on them next to the no smoking symbol. You can tell because some refurbed stations still have the old ones, so theres not even much continuity. All in all a total waste of money.
|
|