Overlapping elements always makes a brand design harder to decipher. Let’s talk about
it. Overlapping elements was once a popular technique
in identity designs, but people learned more than a hundred years ago that it reduces legibility.
Placing type over an image makes both the image and the type harder to read.
Similar to overlapping is the practice of placing the signature inside a visual element,
which makes the type subordinate to the shape and reduces its legibility, as in the case
of the former Best Buy identity. When the signature type is very brief, it can work,
but only marginally. Larger signatures suffer considerably from this approach. It should
be avoided. Putting type over any other element(s) does
nothing to benefit legibility. Sometimes overlapping with lighter elements can be survived but
the text is never made easier to read by doing so.
When the type over an element is only middle value, legibility is ruined.
Sometimes placing type over another element can help with contrast, but one wonders why
they didn’t put something dark under all of that type, instead of just in the middle.
Of course, if the type had been given enough contrast, there would have been no need for
any shape behind the type. (remember our talk about Busy Backgrounds?)
When any text is placed over a busy background, elements that are both light and dark, legibility
is severely compromised as we can clearly see here.
The pinnacle logo is severely compromised in legibility by overlapping it on the pyramid
shape. In this fish logo, the name Conte’s Is subordinated
to the shape of the fish. The words “Market & Grill” are severely subordinated is the
top fin and the word “Westport” is even more so in the lower fin. Why do that? Does
it help communicate? No. The same was true of the Best Buy name being
subordinated to the price tag shape. The new identity has the tag subordinated to the words,
which is better. Often the motivation to overlap identity elements
is little more than an attempt to camouflage uninspired, lackluster or mismatched elements
as we can clearly see in our first sample. Placing the logo in the middle of a two-word
signature disrupts the reading of the signature. Then, separating it from the signature for
a different layout becomes a breach of design continuity. Best to not do it at all. Capital
One, on the other hand, fixed the low-contrast “One,” but improved nothing by adding
a hackneyed swoosh shape that intersects the signature, making it harder to read.
Pepto Bismol’s name became easier to read by omitting the pink background. Oxygen’s
identity is better without the unrelated yellow “O.”
The Utah Jazz identity took a drastic turn for the worse by sacrificing clear and unified
type for a sickly conceived and poorly executed letter “J” cobbled together from other
poorly drawn parts. Furthermore, the secondary dropshadow lines on the main letters compromises
clarity, especially in front of the word UTAH, where it could be easily mistaken for an extra
letter “I.” Arianespace’s new logo is better designed
and separating the elements improves legibility. As with so many other issues relating to legibility,
the problems are magnified when viewed at a distance or when the elements are small.
Here you can clearly see the problem of overlapping as well as the superiority of the solid logo
over the 3D one. As with any other action that lessens clarity,
overlapping elements should be avoided. It may not be a total disaster, but it never
improves legibility. Instant clarity and readability are indispensable qualities of successful
corporate identity, which is why overlapping is a deadly sin of logo design.
For more information, go to LogoDesignTheory.com. If you found this useful, be sure to like
this video, subscribe and share this with anyone who needs to know more about logo design.