A blind spot in AI-powered logo makers: visual design principles

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is already embedded in several digital tools used across design disciplines. Although it offers advantages in automating and facilitating design tasks, this technology has constraints to empowering practitioners. AI systems steadily incorporate machine learning to deliver meaningful designs but fail in critical dimensions such as creativity. Moreover, the intensive use of AI features to provide a design solution – so-called AI design – challenges the boundaries of the design field and designers’ roles. AI-powered logo makers exemplify a horizon where non-designers can access design tools to create a personal or business visual identity. However, in the current context, these online businesses are limited to randomize layout solutions lacking the visual properties a logo requires. This article reports mixed-method research focusing on AI-powered logo makers’ processes and outcomes. We investigated their capability to deliver consistent logo designs and to what extent their algorithms address logo design principles. Initially, our study identified representative visual principles in logo design-related literature. After probing AI-powered logo makers’ features that enable logo creation, we conducted an exploratory experiment to obtain solutions. Finally, we invited logo design experts to evaluate whether three visual principles (proportion, balance and unity) were incorporated into the layouts. The assessment’s results suggest that these AI design tools must calibrate the algorithms to provide solutions that meet expected logo design standards. Even focusing on a particular AI tool and a few visual principles, our research contributes to initial directions for developing algorithms that embody the complex aspects of visual design syntax.

Keywords

AI design AI-powered logo maker artificial intelligence logo design visual design principles

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adobe (nd) Adobe Sensei. Available at: https://www.adobe.com/sensei.html (accessed 30 June 2020).

Airey

(2010) Logo Design Love: A Guide to Creating Iconic Brand Identities. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.

Arnheim

(1974) Art and Visual Perception. A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Basu

(2019) Algorithms Are a Designer’s New BFF – Here’s Proof. Available at: https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/principles/emerging-technology/automation-ai-wont-replace-designers/ (accessed: 30 April 2020).

Bernal

Haymaker

Eastman

(2015) On the role of computational support for designers in action. Design Studies 41(Part B): 163–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2015.08.001.

Bertin

(1983) Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Boden

(1998) Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 103(1/2): 347–356. DOI: 10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00055-1.

Brandmark (nd, a). Available at: https://brandmark.io (accessed 30 April 2020).

Brandmark (nd, b) Deep learning for logo design. Available at: https://brandmark.io/intro/ (accessed 30 April 2020).

10.

Cautela

, et al. (2019) The impact of artificial intelligence on design thinking practice: Insights from the ecosystem of startups. Strategic Design Research Journal 12(1): 114–134. DOI: 10.4013/sdrj.2019.121.08.

11.

Colton

De Mántaras

Stock

(2009) Computational creativity: Coming of age. AI Magazine 30(3): 11–14. DOI: 10.1609/aimag.v30i3.2257.

12.

Creswell

(2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

13.

Cross

(2001) Can a machine design? Design Issues 17(4): 44–50. DOI: 10.1162/07479360152681083.

14.

Dondis

(1973) A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15.

Dorst

Cross

(2001) Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies 22(5): 425–437. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.

16.

Du Sautoy

(2019) Can AI ever be truly creative? New Scientist 242(3229): 38–41. DOI: 10.1016/S0262-4079(19)30840-1.

17.

Faimon

Weigand

(2004) The Nature of Design: How the Principles of Design Shape our World – from Graphics and Architecture to Interiors and Products. Cincinnati, OH: How Design Books.

18.

Flaticon (nd) Available at: https://www.flaticon.com (accessed 30 April 2020).

19.

Foroudi

Melewar

Gupta

(2017) Corporate logo: History, definition, and components. International Studies of Management and Organization 47(2): 176–196. DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2017.1256166.

20.

Frascara

(2014) Communication Design: Principles, Methods, and Practice. New York, NY: Allworth Press.

21.

García Ferrari

(2017) Design and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Dangers and opportunities for a mutating discipline. The Design Journal 20(sup1): S2625–S2633. DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2017.1352774.

22.

Girling

(2016) AI and the future of design: What skills do we need to compete against the machines? O’Reilly Media. Available at: https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/ai-and-the-future-of-design-what-skills-do-we-need-to-compete-against-the-machines (accessed 23 March 2020).

23.

Girling

(2017) AI and the future of design: What will the designer of 2025 look like? O’Reilly Media. Available at: https://www.oreilly.com/radar/ai-and-the-future-of-design-what-will-the-designer-of-2025-look-like (accessed 23 March 2020).

24.

Groupe

, et al. (1992) Traité du Signe Visuel. Pour une Rhétorique de l’Image. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

25.

Hastings

(nd) khroma. Available at: http://khroma.co (accessed 30 June 2020).

26.

Heilbrunn

(1997) Representation and legitimacy: A semiotic approach to the logo. In: Nöth

(ed.) Semiotics of the Media: State of the Art, Projects, and Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 175–188. DOI: 10.1515/9783110803617-013.

27.

Henderson

Cote

(1998) Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing 62(2): 14–30. DOI: 10.2307/1252158.

28.

Hübner

Fillinger

(2019) Perceptual balance, stability, and aesthetic appreciation: Their relations depend on the picture type. I-Perception 10(3). DOI: 10.1177/2041669519856040.

29.

IDEO (2015) The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. Available at: http://www.designkit.org/resources/1 (accessed 23 March 2020)

30.

Jun

Cho

C-H

Kwon

(2008) The role of affect and cognition in consumer evaluations of corporate visual identity: Perspectives from the United States and Korea. Journal of Brand Management 15(6): 382–398. DOI: 10.1057/bm.2008.11.

31.

Kaufman

, et al. (2007) Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and Creativity 2(2): 96–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2007.04.002.

32.

Kaufman

Baer

Cole

(2009) Expertise, domains, and the consensual assessment technique. Journal of Creative Behavior 43(4): 223–233. DOI: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01316.x.

33.

Kim

Lim

(2019) A comprehensive review on logo literature: Research topics, findings, and future directions. Journal of Marketing Management 35(13/14): 1291–1365. DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2019.1604563.

34.

Koffka

(1935) Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York, NY: Harcout, Brace and Company.

35.

Laing

Apperley

Masoodian

(2017) Investigating the effects of client imagery on the ideation process of graphic design. Design Studies 53: 78–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2017.08.001.

36.

Lamb

Brown

Clarke

CLA

(2018) Evaluating computational creativity: An interdisciplinary tutorial. ACM Computing Surveys 51(2): 1–34. DOI: 10.1145/3167476.

37.

Lelis

, et al. (2020) Typography: The constant vector of dynamic logos. Visual Communication 21(1). DOI: 10.1177/1470357220966775.

38.

Lisi

(2015) Will AI ever support design thinking? In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings (AIDE 2015 – 1st Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Design), ed. Lisi

Borgo

Ferrara Italy, 22 September, 33–40.

39.

Logomaster.ai (nd) Available at: https://logomaster.ai (accessed 30 April 2020).

40.

Logopony (nd) Available at: https://www.logopony.com (accessed 30 April 2020).

41.

Looka (nd) Available at: https://looka.com (accessed 30 April 2020).

42.

Lupton

Phillips

(2008) Graphic Design: The New Basics. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

43.

McCormack

, et al. (2020) Design considerations for real-time collaboration with creative artificial intelligence. Organised Sound 25(1): 41–52. DOI: 10.1017/S1355771819000451.

44.

Miceli

, et al. (2014) Breaking through complexity: Visual and conceptual dimensions in logo evaluation across exposures. Psychology & Marketing 31(10): 886–899. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20741.

45.

Mollerup

(1999) Marks of Excellence: The History and Taxonomy of Trademarks. London: Phaidon Press.

46.

The Noun Project (nd) Available at: https://thenounproject.com (accessed 30 April 2020).

47.

Petersen

Joo

(2012) Improving collaborative concept evaluation using concept aspect profile. In: Swan

Zou

(eds) Interdisciplinary Approaches to Product Design, Innovation, & Branding in International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing). Bingley, Bradford: Emerald Publishing Limited, 207–222. DOI: 10.1108/S1474-7979(2012)0000023014.

48.

Pfeiffer Consulting (2018) Creativity and Technology in the Age of AI. Report for Adobe. Available at: https://www.pfeifferreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Creativity-and-technology-in-the-age-of-AI.pdf (accessed 8 November 2020).

49.

Pittard

Ewing

Jevons

(2007) Aesthetic theory and logo design: Examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing Review 24(4): 457–473. DOI: 10.1108/02651330710761026.

50.

Poulin

(2011) The Language of Graphic Design. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.

51.

Sanders

EB-N

Stappers

(2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design 4(1): 5–18. DOI: 10.1080/15710880701875068.

52.

Schwarz

Winkielman

Reber

(2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality & Social Psychology Review 8(4): 339–363. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3.

53.

Skaggs

(2017) FireSigns: A Semiotic Theory for Graphic Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

54.

Stickdorn

Schneider

(2011) This Is Service Design Thinking. New York, NY: John Wiley.

55.

Sun

Park

(2019) A study of an online logo design making platform. Archives of Design Research 32(1): 101–112. DOI: 10.15187/adr.2019.02.32.1.101.

56.

Tailor Brands (nd) Available at: https://www.tailorbrands.com (accessed 30 April 2020).

57.

Thomas

(2000) How to Design Logos, Symbols & Icons. Cincinnati, OH: How to Design Books.

58.

Van der Lans

, et al. (2009) Cross-national logo evaluation analysis: An individual-level approach, Marketing Science 28(5): 968–985. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1080.0462.

59.

Veryzer

Jr Hutchinson

(1998) The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4): 374–385. DOI: 10.1086/209516.

60.

Vocke

Constantinescu

Popescu

(2019) Application potentials of artificial intelligence for the design of innovation processes. In: 29th CIRP Design Conference 2019 (Procedia CIRP) (ed. Putnik

), Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal, 8–10 May, 810–813. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.230.

61.

Wheeler

(2013) Designing Brand Identity: An Essential Guide for the Whole Branding Team. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

62.

White

(2017) The Elements of Logo Design: Design Thinking, Branding, Making Marks. New York, NY: Allworth Press.

63.

Wix (nd) Available at: https://www.wix.com/logo/maker (accessed 30 April 2020).

64.

Yeoun

Jung

(2021) An exploratory experiment on the possibility of AI-powered logo design tool. Design Convergence Study 20(2): 113–128. DOI: 10.31678/SDC87.7.