W8
1. This Palmolive antibacterial dishwashing liquid appears to use a one san-serif font family with both italic and bold variations.
2. The display font of the brand logo works in tandem with the rest of the label using that font family.
3. The designer is working with some space constraints introduced by the shape of the bottle as well as the images used. It seems that there was sufficient space allocated to type elements to create balance indicated by yellow spaces. The front of the label has its images positioned to the left which leaves the designer making the choice to align their text to the right. The back of the label includes an identical layout, although it also includes a barcode, and a couple of information labels. The designer wraps fine print text around the barcode whereas everything else has a combination of centred text and left-aligned text.
4. There is a clear sense of type hierarchy with use of bold text reserved for Headers and italicised text for sub headers. Descriptions are smaller in scale and are allocated a maximum of three line sections. There is a specific colour palette established either for or by the designer to ensure contrast is efficiently used to maximise text legibility. White text goes against green and green text goes against yellow. This is to also match the brand in its own visual identity indicated by green leaves and bright yellow lemons.
5. Green leaves, bright yellow lemons, sustainability/recyclability logos & banner.
6. I appreciate the consistent dominant colour palette with occasional white. The information that is relevant to their consumer is prioritised with large scale bold type. Overall it is a visually pleasant label that doesn't overcomplicate its purpose.
7. The design choices regarding type on this product's label are simplistic in terms of font but more difficult in the sense that the back of the label can start to feel cluttered due to the amount of information that needs to be included. However, this does not affect its quality and efficiency as much because it prioritises the most relevant information for consumers.
Iteration 1
This first iteration uses two typefaces and one colour only. The exception to the colour constraint would be the logo which incorporates a stylised 'g' beside the main product name. Spacing was addressed by first creating a two-column layout guide which would then be allocated to the type elements provided. A choice of typeface for the rear type contents of the label appear too light in weight. It does not translate well from screen to print when it comes to legibility.
Iteration 2
The second iteration uses one typeface and one colour only. The first issue mentioned in the previous iteration was addressed by keeping a consistent type face which was slightly heavier in weight. Different font variations (regular, semibold, etc.) allowed for a sense of hierarchy and organisation of relevant information to be viewed by the product consumer. The process of spacing and alignment remained identical to the first iteration with only minor adjustments due to the removal of the brand logo. A subtle gradient effect was implemented to compensate for this change and achieves a 'glow' aesthetic.
Iteration 3
The third and final iteration uses one typeface and two colours. It deviates from the layout conventions seen in previous iterations with an exception to the rear type contents. The front of the label presents a centred approach to the typefaces used for the most relevant information. Certain information was scaled down to allow for a more larger presence for the product's brand name and relevant specifications. The label's rear product information is now sectioned with thin line breaks for improved organisation and presentation. One third of the label is allocated with a simple colour (front) while the back of the label remains with a subtle gradient effect. This indicates a clear distinction for the label's visual layout.
