« Topics
cylon63,609 posts since 6 Mar 2005
London London
You know something? The more I watch that new mixed paint ident, the more I like it! The mixture of different colours (it should mix more), the light actually reflecting off it and causing a shine, the music. A very clever computer animation.
I have been told BBC has names and the people submitting the work has names... BBC term for the first once is Slice
harshy6,008 posts since 24 Mar 2001
I’ve worked in many a company where you build them something really nice, fits the design rationale, only for the client who always decide to break the design guidelines to suit their own means.
denton and MMcG198 gave kudos
MMcG198632 posts since 14 Dec 2014
UTV Newsline
What a load of trivial pedantic whinging

What you consider to be trivial and pedantic items are actually key elements within any design package. BBC Two's OSP - and countless other design projects - will have been delivered with strict rules surrounding typography and layout. These rules tend to get into a good level of detail (some of which are even more "trivial" than the items mentioned in the article). Yes, to the vast majority of the viewing public, these items seem trivial (as noted in the article) but from a professional design perspective, they are important. Important enough for organisations such as ITV and Channel 4 (and many others) to follow such rules quite meticulously. Channel 4 has always been outstanding in this regard. I understand that ITV has a good deal of automation in the workflow for construction of trails and their associated endboards, thus removing many of the manual errors we see on BBC Two's trails.

Having worked and spoken with many designers over the years, there is nothing as deflating as handing over a design, and seeing the client gradually butcher it over time and deviate from the rules. I suspect in BBC Two's case, the problems are not due to any conscious decision - most of the issues look like simple sloppiness.
cylon6, Colorband and denton gave kudos