如何像设计师一样观察:字体与标志的隐藏力量 | Jessica Hische
How to see like a designer: The hidden power of typography and logos | Jessica Hische
Intuitive Perception of Type and Logos
Jessica Hische: Most people are better at understanding the feelings and sensations that typography and logos give us than they give themselves credit for, because what we are as people are endless absorbers of patterns, and information, and all this kind of stuff as we move throughout the world. We don’t take time to sit and digest it, but it’s still coming in and getting logged, and so even as a non-designer, I think you can look at examples of logos where something’s not quite right and be like, “Something’s not right here, I just don’t know how to name it.” But I think a good exercise is just like looking at fonts that are available in the world and asking yourself, “What feeling does this give me?”
Lenny Rachitsky: Today, my guest is Jessica Hische. Jessica is a design legend, and it was such an honor to both have her on this podcast and also to work with her on a refresh of my newsletter and podcast logo and brand, which is launching around the same time as this episode comes out. Jessica is a lettering artist specializing in typographical work for logos, film, books, and other commercial applications. Her clients include Wes Anderson, the United States Postal Service, Apple, Nike, Tiffany and Company, The Gap, and Penguin Books, and her work has been featured in design and illustration annals, both in the U.S. and internationally. She’s helped create logos for Philz Coffee, Eventbrite, and Mailchimp, is a best-selling children’s book author, and if you live around the Bay Area, you’ve seen her work all over the city without knowing it. In our conversation, Jessica shares the process that she went through to update my logo and brand for my newsletter and podcast.
What specific elements of a logo and brand impact how you feel about that brand, why a good enough logo is just buying for a long time for most startups, and when it makes sense to refresh your look, also some really clever productivity tips, design advice, and a bunch of really fun stories. Jessica is a master at what she does and I am excited to spread the Jessica Hische gospel. If you enjoy this podcast, don’t forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube. It’s the best way to avoid missing future episodes, and it helps the podcast tremendously. With that, I bring you Jessica Hische. Jessica, thank you so much for being here. Welcome to the podcast.
Custom Typography
Jessica Hische: Happy to be here.
Opportunities for Brand Refreshes
Lenny Rachitsky: I thought it’d be good to start with asking you just to describe what it is you do, because you’re very atypical of the kinds of guests I have in this podcast and you also have very unique skillset.
Jessica Hische: Yes. Well, I will describe what I’m most prominently known for, because I’m a person who just does a lot of things, but the thing that I do the most professionally is custom typography, like bespoke lettering pieces. That translates to working for all kinds of things. Sometimes it’s for film and television. I’ve done movie titles and things like that and television credits and stuff. Sometimes it’s book covers. Actually, a lot of times, it’s book covers, and then a big part of my business is doing logos, and logo refreshes, and things like that, so basically being the person who knows all the things so you don’t have to have that person on staff when it comes to typography.
When to Upgrade Your Brand
Lenny Rachitsky:
Christina Gilbert: Yes. Thank you for having me on, Lenny.
The Logo Refresh Process
Lenny Rachitsky: What is the latest with OneSchema? I know you now work with some of my favorite companies like Ramp, Vanta Scale, and Watershed. I heard that you just launched a new product to help product teams import CSVs from especially tricky systems like ERPs.
Christina Gilbert: Yes. We just launched OneSchema FileFeeds, which allows you to build an integration with any system in 15 minutes as long as you can export a CSV to an SFTP folder. We see our customers all the time getting stuck with hacks and workarounds, and the product teams that we work with don’t have to turn down prospects because their systems are too hard to integrate with. We allow our customers to offer thousands of integrations without involving their engineering team at all.
Common Reasons for Logo Refreshes
Lenny Rachitsky: I can tell you that if my team had to build integrations like this, how nice would it be to be able to take this off my roadmap and instead use something like OneSchema, and not just to build it but also to maintain it forever.
Christina Gilbert: Absolutely, Lenny. We’ve heard so many horror stories of multiday outages from even just a handful of ad records. We are laser-focused on integration reliability to help teams end all of those distractions that come up with integrations. We have a built-in validation layer that stops any bad data from entering your system, and OneSchema will notify your team immediately of any data that looks incorrect.
Exploring Directions for Lenny’s Refresh
Lenny Rachitsky: I know that importing incorrect data can cause all kinds of pain for your customers and quickly lose their trust. Christina, thank you for joining us. If you want to learn more, head on over to oneschema.co. That’s oneschema.co.
Part of the reason I was excited to have you on this podcast is that I was lucky enough to get to work with you on a refresh of my logo and brand for my newsletter and my podcast, which I’m very, very excited about. It’s actually going to be launching right around the time of this episode going live, so this is, in part, a celebration of the new look, and logo, and brand. I thought it’d be an awesome excuse to bring you on the podcast and give an inside glimpse into the process of updating a logo and a brand. Partly, because I think it’ll just be people are like, “What the hell? How did this change? Where did this come from? Why this versus that?” and also just for people that are thinking about this for their own product or business, to understand the process and understand when it might be right for them, when it might be not right for them. Broadly, how does that sound?
Specific Logo Use Cases
Jessica Hische: Sure. Yeah, of course. Everybody that starts a company knows that they need a logo. That is a big thing. Some people start a company and think the logo is going to drive the culture of the company, which I don’t think that that is true. I think that the product itself, and the team you build, and the people you put together are the thing that should be driving things forward, but I do think the logo and the brand assets can generate a lot of both internal and external excitement and just tell people what to expect from the thing that they’re about to engage with. Some people say don’t judge a book by its cover. I’m the opposite, where any book… The cover of the book should be giving you incredible insight into what is on the interior of the book and setting the tone and setting the vibe so that when you open the book and read the book, it’s a symbiotic thing where you’re like, “Oh, I understand what I was getting into. This got me excited about starting it,” and whatever. It keeps that ball rolling.
But with the refresh work that I do, a lot of people start companies and they have a certain amount of money. If they’re bootstrapping it, they have less. If they get venture money, they have a little bit more. But what they don’t want to do is spend venture money on a massive brand exploration when you’re still in the hiring process, you’re still trying to get early stage engineers, and all that kind of stuff, and so I am sort of a weird contrarian in this way in the brand world where brand people are like, “Brand is everything. You need to take a significant investment in brand because that guides the vision of the product or whatever.” But I think being a bit more of an insider within the tech world, I understand that sometimes people start companies and have an intention to do something.
While they’re doing that, they’re building the team, they’re doing cool stuff, but then the company has to pivot for one reason or another, whether a competitor immediately comes out with a thing that you’re doing or the technology that you’re doing gets postponed, whatever’s going to feed into it, and so if you invest super heavily on the whole brand vision from the jump, sometimes it’s like throwing away money if you have to pivot. What I love about the work that I do is that I understand that a lot of people have to just have something to put on decks and have something to put on a holding page or whatever, and internal teams are totally capable of doing that early work. But then if it does become successful, you don’t want to get locked into whatever it is that you had to throw together before an investor meeting or something.
I come in then to take the existing vibe and smooth it out, address any of the concerns that came up. A lot of times, it’s really utilitarian stuff like this doesn’t scale well, or this thing falls apart in this context, or we never had a good avatar version of it, or whatever. Sometimes it’s really specific utilitarian fixes, and sometimes it’s just about growing it up and sophisticated it without losing what was there in the first place that people got excited about.
How Non-Designers Read Logos
Lenny Rachitsky: To give people maybe a couple more tactical piece of advice here, what’s a sign that it’s maybe time to do something with your logo and brand from you took a first pass, it’s good enough, your wife made one, your husband made you a logo, it’s like, “Well, this is great. Let’s just go with this”? What’s a sign that maybe it’s time to, “Okay, we should actually at least uplevel this, not necessarily hire studio but takes something to make it better”?
Reverse Engineering Your Intuition
Jessica Hische: Well, one of the things is if, suddenly, you’re starting to deal with the greater rollout of the look and feel of the brand. If you, at first, just basically had a really beta website and small version of the app but you’re about to do a new one that kind of updates and expands it, that could be a really good time to roll it out. One of the things that a lot of people do when they’re starting a company is that they’ll make a logo with a font that is really popular or widely available or free. If you are about to, let’s say, print a bunch of swag for new hires, or you’re hosting a conference, or whatever is that event where suddenly you’re going to physically invest money in making stuff with your brand on it, that might be a good time to do it.
One of the reasons why I tell people why having a custom logo or custom typography can really matter is that if you’re using something that’s available to everyone, the chances of someone else coming in and copying you are very easy and high. You might be one of these lucky companies that just out the gate is outrageously successful, but with success comes people climbing up behind you trying to copy your success. If that success is very easily copyable and people will try to trick your customers into coming their way by repeating the things that you’re doing, including the branding, one way to avoid that is by doing something that’s more customized when it comes to the logo and brand.
Industry Stereotypes and Competitor Analysis
Lenny Rachitsky: Let’s actually talk about the work that you put into updating my logo and brand. From that, we can spin off into lessons and insights that you have along these lines. Overall, just high level, what’s the process you go through to go through a logo refresh?
Optical Corrections in Typography
Jessica Hische: Sure, of course. Super high level, it’s figuring out what the goals are. Some people have a goal where they want their customers to not notice it at all. They’re like, “Oh, everybody loves this, but I, the person with a design eye, can see all the problems with it. I need to roll something out that fixes the problems that I see but that no one else really notices.” If that’s one approach to it, which is a very close in refresh where we’re just trying out little things to make it feel custom or fixing things that have come up when stress-tested, whether it looks crazy when you scale it and looks like horsey and heavy-handed when you scale it too big or when you scale it too small, you lose a lot of legibility and stuff like that. That’s what would be a really close in exploration.
For other people, they might have bigger goals where they’re about to pivot the company to try to attract a different audience or things like that. They might have this really cool and successful group of people that are super users but they’re trying to expand it, so then it’s about, “What can we do to shift the vibe to make it include these new people without excluding our core folks?” My first round is figuring out what that scope is, how experimental, how broad are we going to go for that first round, because then everything else cascades from there. If we go really broad for the first round, then we’re in this process of narrowing down the scope as we go down. Whereas if we go really close in for the first round, we’re already just talking about really technical stuff.
This is another thing that is a little bit unique to me that not everybody else does, but I will hand off files to clients to try in situ really early on if what we’re trying to do is solve utilitarian issues. Most other people are like, “No, you don’t get the files until we do the final because I don’t want you to run away with this or whatever.” There has to be some trust with it. Yeah, figure out what we’re trying to accomplish and always keep those goals in mind, and then scope out the process based on what those goals are. For each round, we’re addressing different things. First round might be about just capturing the overall look and trying things as broad as we can, and then the next round is, “Okay. Well, now we have generally a look that we want, but is it the right weight? Is it the right letter height? Do we have enough details?” That kind of thing, and then we get narrower and nerdier as we go along in the process.
Returning to the Final Logo
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome. In the experience of my podcast logo, I was an ass. At the end of it, I’m like, “No, this isn’t right,” because we narrowed, narrowed, narrowed, and then I was like, “No, I’m not feeling it,” and then we unnarrowed it and went back. [inaudible 00:15:02]
Jessica Hische: That is not an uncommon experience though. This is why there’s a few things that I’m not opposed to that I know people that are very opposed to. I’m not opposed to Frankensteining options together. To me, it’s like I’m giving you a menu of all the things that we can do, but I’m like a chef that puts a menu together where you can combine different appetizers and different mains and they all still make sense. Some people will give you a menu and if you try to do that, it’s insane and it tastes terrible. But for me, everything that we’re doing, I feel like, mixes and matches fairly well, and I will let you know if it doesn’t.
It’s not unreasonable for clients to go down one path and then use that as validation or confirmation that something that we did much earlier was actually the right way. In that way, if a client ever asks me to do something, they’re like, “Let’s see it in purple or whatever.” There’s designers that will really fight you tooth and nail, because they’re like, “That is wrong, that is wrong,” but I know that some people just have to see it before they can let it go. Sometimes you have to walk down a path before you’re able to understand what the right thing to do was all along.
Script vs. Block Letters
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s exactly how it felt for me. Going back to the goals, the different goals people have when they’re exploring this, you mentioned there’s just little problems with the logo, it doesn’t scale, it doesn’t print well, that kind of thing. Another goal is people are pivoting and they want to change the vibe and the feel of the brand. What other goals might appear that you’ve come across why people want to do this?
Jessica Hische: Well, sometimes there’s a legibility issue that is really glaring once you see it and then people are too close in to notice it, so this is why it’s like you have to show it to a lot of people that aren’t familiar with looking at those letter forms and stuff. The one that came to mind immediately when you asked was when I did a refresh for Jeni’s Ice Cream, which is a really amazing ice cream brand based out of Columbus, Ohio. They had a few utilitarian things in mind. They had this long J that created this pocket of white space underneath it that made it really hard to design with, but then the biggest glaring one was that they decided to make the apostrophe of the Jeni’s over the I as a cool thing. It made the word look like it said penis because of the way that J was drawn.
It had a little loop at the top of the J. That was the most specific fix that I’ve ever had to do, is make the logo not say penis anymore. But yeah, I feel like a lot of it is misreads. When you think about logos and things like that, you want it to be something that, at a super fast glance, people can read it right away. That doesn’t mean that everything has to be simple, but it just means that everything has to be incredibly legible, especially when you’re starting a new company or you have a less recognizable brand. Because eventually, you become a household name and then people can look at just the color and recognize that it’s you or whatever, but it takes a long time building equity before you get that. Until that, it’s really important that the legibility is just super tight.
The Overrated Power of Branding
Lenny Rachitsky: Let’s talk about actually thinking through my new logo and brand. Can you just talk about what you had in mind as you started to explore directions and we started narrowing what was the mindset, and the approach, and the vibe?
Jessica Hische: I think with the Lenny’s brand, you are what I would call a person that has a beloved fan base that we don’t want to exclude or offend by shifting gears super crazily. When I was looking at redoing your brand, it was about what’s here that we can look at that we should keep or at least explore keeping in order to make sure that it still feels the same on the other side? We didn’t want to do anything super drastic. Some of the things to think about in that way are you have this sort of handwritten approach to a lot of the parts of your brand, and I was like, “How do we do something that feels handwritten, that feels like it could jive with the handwriting scripts and stuff that you were using but might feel a little bit more refined moving forward and in a way that could blend with illustration so that the illustration and the letter forms all feel like they were created by the same hand?”
A lot of times for me, when it comes to doing an exploration like that, it’s about how do we make sure everything feels like it was created at the same time and not that we just tacked on new things? Figuring out how to blend everything together is important. Color was also a big one. I feel like people’s color stories are something that is an immediate read, where if you blur your eyes and look at a brand, you can recognize it by its color, and so I think keeping your color similar was a big one too. But then I really wanted to try different approaches with the typography, doing stuff that was a little bit more clean, doing stuff that still had a bit of a funky edge to it. Because your original Lenny’s podcast type had this sort of cut papery, a little bit off kilter vibe to it, and so trying to capture that but with new cleaner typography. That was really fun.
I was using a typeface Degular as part of it, which has a nice wonkiness to it. It was drawn by a friend of mine, James Edmondson, who I love all of his stuff. That was one of the things that we approached because I felt like it could capture the look of the original cut paperesque type. But yeah, it was really fun to try a lot of different things and work within the iconography that you had used on a few stuff with the microphones, and also marshmallows, and campfires, and all kinds of things, and just trying to make a more unified system.
The Non-Technical Perspective
Lenny Rachitsky: Are there things that didn’t work as you tried to explore this process that you recall, that might be worth sharing of just like, “Oh, that was a cool concept,” but didn’t quite work the way you thought?
Jessica Hische: With working on this refresh, so much of it was thinking about what are the immediate uses of the logo. Your logo, you have these very specific uses that you need it for, the avatar for the podcast being a top one. Some people, they’ll design a logo and then have these illustrative versions of the logo that get rolled out for other things, but I feel like those layouts were actually more important than even just having a basic letterhead-esque logo. That’s an interesting way to approach it, because usually, it’s like let’s start simple, and expand, and make it crazier. I felt like we had to always keep those things in play, so it was designing brand assets while also designing the logo. Sometimes you’ll see examples of that in early explorations just because it makes it feel real to the client.
That’s why there’s always the tote bag. You got to put the logo on the tote bag and then it feels real or whatever. But in our case, we had really specific uses that needed to get explored very early on, and that made it a slightly different process for me. In terms of things that didn’t work though, I think just trying to work on the level of detail within the illustration and type so that it could shrink down, because we knew… One of the primo examples of the logo being used was on that podcast avatar, and some of the versions felt a little bit too detailed to shrink down that much. Trying to get the balance of that, having the illustrations feel illustrative and whole, but not when they scaled up, to feel too simple like we just pulled it from a icon library. I think that was an interesting challenge.
Pricing Models
Lenny Rachitsky: One of the impetuses for changing my logo, for motivating me, is my wife’s a designer, as you know. She’s got strong opinions about my logo, and she always was making fun of my logo saying it looked like a clip art fireplace that anyone just could just plug and play. She’s always like, “Oh, that’s so bad. You got to change it.” That was one of the motivators. I think I might have shared that when we started working together.
Jessica Hische: Yeah. Also too, I think that really talks to what I was saying earlier about making sure that everything feels like it was created together rather than it feeling like these disparate elements, because I think you can have an icon or logo that is quite simple as long as the rest of the brand matches that simplicity. I think, for you, the biggest thing was making the illustration and the typography just feel like it came from the same universe instead of feeling like these separate elements. When I first moved to San Francisco, I moved to San Francisco from New York, and as a New Yorker, I had an apartment with a full kitchen that never got used. I just ate at restaurants and did takeout for the seven years or whatever that I lived in New York.
Learning to cook, at first, when you learn how to cook, it’s like you’re making a pot full of ingredients and none of the ingredients are actually working together. But then the more you do it and the more you understand how these things are meant to blend and cook at different temperatures at different times, you start having this cohesive dish rather than hot ham water. You know what I mean? I feel like a lot of clients come to me and they have hot ham water when it comes to their brand. It’s just about turning that into a soup, something that feels real.
From Vague Feeling to Clear Direction
Lenny Rachitsky: I want to take a quick tangent. Most people listening to this podcast are not designers. They’re product managers, founders, engineers, and folks building product. I’ve always wanted to see the world through the eyes of a designer, because there’s so much I don’t see and there’s so much that affects how I think about something that I don’t understand when I look at a logo, and so I thought it might be helpful just to spend a little time helping people see a designer a little bit. Let me just ask you this question. When people look at a logo or a brand, what are just elements that make it what it is, that make you feel the thing you want to feel that we may not recognize?
Jessica Hische’s Other Creative Worlds
Jessica Hische: I think most people are better at understanding the feelings and sensations that typography and logos give us than they give themselves credit for, because what we are as people are endless absorbers of patterns, and information, and all this kind of stuff as we move throughout the world. We don’t take time to sit and digest it, but it’s still coming in and getting logged. That’s why if you see something funky in the world, you’re like, “That’s weird. I don’t like that. I don’t know why I don’t like it, but I know I don’t like it.” I think even as a non-designer, you can see that in typography. The whole being able to recognize patterns thing, I talked about this a bit at config, it’s like it’s a safety thing. Looking into the world, your eyes can spot that thing that’s a little bit off, and that thing that’s off feels not safe to you.
It’s thinking about when we look at a meal and there’s a thing on the plate that looks like it’s moldy or something like that. You understand that doesn’t look right to me, this doesn’t smell right to me. Your body knows it before your brain knows it. Even as a non-designer, I think you can look at examples of logos where something’s not quite right and be like, “Something’s not right here, I just don’t know how to name it.” But I think a good exercise is just looking at fonts that are available in the world and asking yourself, “What feeling does this give me?” and just write them down. It doesn’t matter, just give yourself permission to say whatever is happening in your mind, the first thing. Don’t overanalyze it. Just look at it and be like, “That feels calm to me. That feels exciting to me. That feels whatever to me.”
The more you do that, the more you can start seeing similarities in the ones that feel exciting, and the ones that feel calm, and the ones that feel whatever, and then get into analyze mode of, “Oh, these 10 things that I said feel calm are a lighter weight, have more generous spacing, have rounded edges, have rounder bowls to the letter forms.” You just start seeing commonalities between the things. It’s just about seeing them all together to understand what those similarities are. I think anybody can do that. I mean, you’re not going to have the language of the leg of the R and the tittle of the I. Don’t worry about that. You don’t have to know typography language to think about it, but anybody’s capable of doing that. It can be really fun to just stop and ask yourself and notice.
The AI Corner
Lenny Rachitsky: This is great. I want to go actually a little deeper. What I’m hearing is look at something, tap into the feeling you feel when you look at it, actually pay attention to it because there’s wisdom in that. The specific things that you pointed out that impact that feeling are, you mentioned, spacing between the letters, the edges. I imagine there’s just the color of it. What other specific elements impact the way someone feels when they look at a logo?
Jessica Hische: There’s the width of the letter, so if it’s really narrow versus really wide. I always think about the width, the weight, [inaudible 00:28:35] facing, sort of detailed treatment of things, whether things are very hard and jagged or soft and how soft it is. Sometimes we just add a tiny bit of softness so that it just feels printed. You can take a typeface like Helvetica, just the one everybody knows. But if you take Helvetica and just ever so slightly round the edges just a little bit, all of a sudden, you have this typeface that feels more vintage, or softer, or whatever, because we’re perceiving it, we would perceive it if it were printed on paper versus perceiving it as this hard geometric piece of technology that we’re viewing. You know what I mean?
I know that it’s because when you look at stuff printed on a page, it bleeds into the paper a little bit, which means that that softness reminds us in our bodies of a thing that we’ve seen that was printed. It’s cool to sort of walk back your feelings also. You’ll look at something and go, “That feels like this,” and then ask yourself why does it feel like that. It might be because you saw it on a flyer for a band when you were 22, and it brought out that feeling in you of what it felt like to be 22 at that thing. That’s a very specific feeling to you, but it can inform your decisions about design, because you can be like, “Oh, I’m not that much of a special snowflake.” Other people might have that same reaction but have different experiences that are adjacent to that reaction.
It’s cool because you are reverse-justifying decisions. I think that’s a really fun exercise to do, is to Song Exploder your intuition. You make a decision intuitively or look at something and intuit what you feel from it, and then really try to dive in, “Why do I feel that way? What could this have reminded me of that made me feel that way?” You have to be just so forgiving and loose with yourself as you do it because then you’ll get into some really weird stuff, and that’s really great inspiration juice for picking other things.
New Book Teaser
Lenny Rachitsky: I love the exercise that you gave. The one you gave earlier is look at a bunch of fonts, look at your font folder. Is that a place to go, just open up your font folder and just go through them?
Jessica Hische: Totally. Look at your font folder, or go to MyFonts, or a place where there’s a ton of fonts, and just search for something. Search for sans serif or whatever. Search for a really basic category of fonts. Serif, sans serif, script, whatever, the top level edge of stuff, and then just page through, page through, page through. Screenshot stuff that you like and make a folder full of screenshots, and then you can take those screenshots and start categorizing them. “Oh, this one feels feminine. This one feels masculine, this one feels aggressive. This one feels whatever.” Just take some notes on it. Then, you ask yourself, “Well, why did I feel that way?” You’re like, “Oh, well, this feels feminine because it reminds me of wedding invitations,” and wedding invitations feel inherently bridey versus groomy. All of a sudden, you’re like, “Okay. Well, now I know that if I’m going to use a script for something, this zone of script feels very wedding, so maybe I avoid that for this brand that’s actually a cutting edge food packaging company or whatever because it feels too aligned with that industry.”
Stereotypes are real and trends are real, and what can sometimes happen is some industry usurps an entire style for a period of time. If you use anything within that style, it’s like you’re aligning yourself to that industry. I mean, everybody that does branding, one of the things that they do is they analyze the competitors of the company. You just look at a landscape of what are all the competitors doing, what is their visual vibe, and do I lean into that or do I avoid that? If I lean into it, then I’m immediately getting this… Everyone that looks at it understands I’m a FinTech company because I look like a FinTech company. If my whole thing is I’m trying to be divergent from that, I’m trying to show how different I am from the status quo, then you use it as a reactionary thing of I want to do nothing like that and do something really different so people understand this isn’t just another FinTech company.
Recommended Books
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah. I’m thinking green. The color green has to be a part of the logo if you want to be a FinTech company.
Jessica Hische: Yeah, exactly. If you’re trying to be weird, then you’re like teal.
How to Balance Time
Lenny Rachitsky: On this topic of seeing a designer, is there any other tip, just before we move on to a different topic, of just how someone could learn to see a designer a little bit more?
Hope as a Discipline
Jessica Hische: Yeah. Another thing to notice, because I’m assuming you’re… Product people, I feel like a lot of product people end up having some engineering background, whether or not they’re engineers themselves. They have to interface with the engineers and they build stuff, and so they come at it from a data standpoint. I can always tell when there’s an engineer that has suddenly got taken an interest in type design and is now a type designer, because everything is very, very regular. You can draw a grid on top of everything and the lines all line up perfectly. You see lots of reverse justification of that when people are making logos and they have a more engineering background. The thing to notice, that is interesting within type, is that, yes, you’re absolutely following rules, but you’re breaking those rules quite often to correct for optical tricks.
If you look at a geometric sans serif, for instance, that’s like a category of sans serifs, and they’re meant to have a lot of really strong geometry, be very regular, like most of the sans that you think of that you’re like, “I’m in love with this over the last 10 years,” like geometric sanses. But when you really start to examine them, you notice that there’s all these little things that people are doing to make them look perfectly geometric even though they are not mathematically perfectly geometric. That’s another thing that you can do, whether you’re doing it in Figma or doing it somewhere else, is just type out a couple of lowercase letters. Lowercase specifically are really good for analyzing this because they’re smaller than the uppercase letters. You usually have to accommodate for the weight a little bit differently. You’ll notice that when strokes combine, so say I have an A and I’m combining the lower bowl of the A, I’m going to get a little thinner as I come into that.
Or say I have a two-storey A, so a two-storey A is the one that’s like this and then a bowl, you might notice that this vertical of the A there, the bowl actually eats into that stroke a little bit to erase a little bit of that added weight that would’ve been perceived optically had you kept everything perfectly regular. It’s weird because you end up creating something that’s perfect and then have to make it not perfect in order to make it be perceived as perfect. That’s another just fun thing to start noticing. You notice it a lot more on typefaces and typography that is heavier in weight, because when things are heavier weight, you’re constantly managing these really inky moments where things join together and you have to subtract a bunch of weight from that so that it doesn’t get perceived as this dark mark where the letter is happening.
I think about lowercase Rs and lowercase Ns, where the shoulder of the N or the R comes out, sometimes the top of the R is actually narrower at the top than it is on the bottom, and that’s to try to subtract some of that weight in there where that join happens. Anyway, that’s just a fun thing to notice that you have to do that. Once you start seeing it, you start seeing where it happens more often, and the answer of why it happens is because correcting for this optical weight issue. You’re like, “Oh, man. Now I have x-ray vision. I can see all these weird things I’ve never seen before.” It’s very fun. But anyway, a lot of people, when they first start out doing typography, whether you’re an engineer or whether you are a designer, they don’t account for that. I can always just look at something and see whether someone is truly an expert at typography or whether this is a fun hobby for them when they’re pretty fresh at it.
A Designer’s Renovation Philosophy
Lenny Rachitsky: The exercise here is open up Figma, start typing, and make it really big so you can basically see the font really zoomed in.
Jessica Hische: A single letter.
Goodbyes and Contact Info
Lenny Rachitsky: A single letter.
Jessica Hische: Make a single letter the whole page and then just draw some vertical lines, or do the thing where you draw a little circle or whatever and see if that circle is the same size at the point where two strokes join together or the point where the stroke is just vertical and on its own. You’ll notice that there’s differences even in typography that’s meant to look extremely rigid and geometric.
Lenny Rachitsky: I want to come back to my logo just to close the loop there. Talk about just the final result that we landed on, and why you think that was the final answer, and what you think people might get from it, whatever comes to mind.
Jessica Hische: Yeah, totally. I think the final answer or the final logo, we took it down a lot of different paths trying to see where it was going to land, but ultimately ended up keeping it pretty close to home and really focusing on that asset of the fire. We tried so many different versions of it’s microphones with the fire and marshmallows with the fire, et cetera. It was just about sometimes the simplest solution is the correct solution. I don’t know, I just feel like in terms of what we were doing for blowing it out and making it really cohesive, we went a lot of directions where there might’ve been multiple versions of the logo depending on the scale and ultimately ended up in a place where it’s much more in line and consistent across the bar.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah. Maybe what I’ll do is we’ll share, I don’t know if you’re comfortable with that, we could just share all the iterations somewhere that we went through.
Jessica Hische: Oh, yeah. I love sharing iterations. It’s very fun. Yeah.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, cool. Sweet. The biggest issue we had with the podcast logo specifically is, originally, I was thinking the mic made sense to differentiate it from the newsletter. At the end of it, it’s just like, “Why do we have this freaking mic in there? It just feels strange.” That’s where we revisited the whole idea and killed the mic and went back to a different version of the fireplace but with marshmallows.
Jessica Hische: Yeah, I love the marshmallows.
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome. I love it. That was my wife’s… My wife loves the marshmallows also, and it’s so versatile. We can use it in so many different ways.
Jessica Hische: Indeed.
Lenny Rachitsky: I guess maybe one last thread there is we explored handwritten typography that you created from scratch, and then there’s the block letters. Maybe just thoughts on those two options and benefits and why go one direction versus another?
Jessica Hische: The handwritten one, I really liked because I felt like we could bring the line quality of the illustration into the handwriting, but then the only problem with the handwriting is that if you want to blow that out, if you want to include other handwriting throughout the rest of the brand, finding something that matches that perfectly without creating a custom typeface is a whole thing. I really like being able to combine the two, where we have this broader visual vocabulary that we can pull from, because you’re going to have headlines, you’re going to have subheads, you’re going to have all these other uses for typography moving forward. If you just have one thing to pull from, it’s a lot harder to work with. It’s just nicer when you have a few elements to play with. It’s like having a wardrobe. If you have only one shirt and one pair of pants, there’s only so many things that you can do. But if you have all these things that work together and can recombine, then you can blow out a brand system much more easily.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah. That’s one of my favorite things about working with you, is you create all these different variations of ways to use it. It doesn’t always have to be the handwritten one. It could be the blocky outlining one. It’s not like, “This is it, don’t change anything about this. This is the only way to use it.”
Jessica Hische: Well, part of that is because some brands, if you have a massive company, like hundreds of employees generating hundreds of things, sometimes having too many assets can overcomplicate stuff. Because unless you have a really, really well-written brand book outlining how to do everything that people are adhering to very closely, you can get the assets running rampant throughout all of the stuff and being used incorrectly. But because you’re not a massive company and you have creative control over the things that are happening and can help direct that, we can be much more playful with the assets and give you the ability to use things in different ways. It depends on how much you trust all the people that are handling your assets.
I am of the mind that you shouldn’t need a 500-page brand book in order to direct how the brand is used moving forward, and that if you do, the brand might be quite complicated, or there might be even just parts of the logo that make it difficult to work with. My goal always when designing a logo is to design a logo that’s so easy to use that you don’t have to be an extremely skilled designer to design well with it. That’s my number one goal, because I know not everybody is going to be at a stage where they have an internal brand team or a designer that’s a rock star designer that can work with really complicated assets and make them look good.
I just want the assets to teach you themselves, by just how they exist, how to use it. You, as a person that has any taste whatsoever, and hopefully people that you’re hiring for any job at your company have some degree of taste. If you hire an engineer, they have to have taste about how that happens. If you hire a marketing person, they have to have taste about how that happens. They should be able to look at that and intuit most of the way that you should be able to use it without being explicitly told, “Do not do this.”
Lenny Rachitsky:
This is a good circle back to something you touched on earlier that I wanted to come back to, which is a lot of companies, in your opinion, put too much weight on the power of brand, and rebranding, and how much a brand can fix their problems. Can you just again share your perspective on just how this might be an issue for people where they almost overemphasize the power of brand? [inaudible 00:44:32]
Jessica Hische: Yeah. Well, there’s different companies. There’s companies where brand is literally everything, where they’re doing something that’s not crazy innovative in the first place and the brand is the thing that is the whole company, and that’s fine. That’s a completely valid way to do stuff. It’s like people that can take in information and recommunicate it in a way to another audience or whatever that they hit that audience in a way that the original information couldn’t do. Think about all of the people who write books on psychology, and medicine, and all kinds of stuff that write it for a broader popular audience. They’re the ones reading the medical papers, they’re the ones digesting all of this really huge complicated data, and turning it into something that normal people can read. I think that there are companies that are doing that. They’re taking a thing that is not innovative or isn’t like they’re not the only ones doing it, but they’re repackaging it in a way that takes that and makes it so accessible to so many people.
In that case, brand can matter immensely, where the brand really is the thing that shows people that the thing that you’re doing has value. But for a lot of people, the brand should be somewhat invisible so that the thing itself becomes the star. If we think about the experiences that we have using products, sometimes there’s products where there’s a ton of fun and delight built into how you use it, and that can happen through brand through design choices and things like that. Sometimes the delight is the fact that nothing is getting in your way as you’re using that product. You just figure out what’s your ethos of your company. Is the whole thing about doing a thing well, doing it simply, and making sure that everything gets out of the way of that experience, or is it like we’re trying to generate this delightful thing or we’re trying to open it up to a new audience or whatever? Depending on whatever that goal is, brand can have a different place in that equation.
Lenny Rachitsky: I think some of this unique perspective on the power brand and the need for it in tech companies comes from you’re not like a tech person. You work with tech people, you work with tech companies. Do you feel like that has an impact on the way you think and the value that you bring to companies to give them this very outside perspective?
Jessica Hische: I mean, most of the folks that I know that work in brand or traditional graphic design, print design, they don’t necessarily have a lot of insight into how building companies works. They’re not friends with a ton of startup founders and things like that. I’ve just had been in this very fun position being like everyone’s token creative person in The Bay for a while, and this been for a long time. I remember speaking at a Silicon Valley event that was women in Silicon Valley in 2009 or 2010, something like that. It’s interesting to be a person that has never actually, themselves, worked at a tech company but felt so involved and understanding about how all of that works. My partner, the reason why we’re in The Bay is because he got hired by Facebook back in 2011. We were olds at the time. Take that with a grain of salt, don’t judge me.
Because we were 28, 29 coming over to work at Facebook and everybody there was 23, 24, and so all the people that we ended up meeting in The Bay were more people our age that were moving on to start companies and things like that. We just got to see that perspective so clearly of what it is to branch out on your own, to fundraise, to do all this stuff, to pivot, to do little experimental apps and see where that goes to get acquired as a team versus getting acquired as a technology or whatever. I’ve been able to see that in a way that I feel like a lot of people that do my job don’t get to see. That makes me very sympathetic and towards what it is to want to build a brand as a founder. I understand that you have limited resources and those resources aren’t necessarily going to get devoted to doing a 500,000 of money at all for a year to try to get things going, you certainly should not spend half of that money on branding.
That’s my opinion, but that’s not to say that brand can’t be important and can’t come in at some level or can’t be thought of as a partnership between you and someone else where… There’s this whole idea of fractional leadership now, which I feel like hasn’t really infiltrated my world as much, but I don’t know why it hasn’t, because most people don’t have internal comms teams, internal brand teams, until the company is very mature. The idea that you could bring someone in who is a real expert in whatever it’s that they do, just as you need them, and they just get consultant equity kind of thing, that should be more present because people don’t necessarily need to have internal brand teams for the first six months to a year of when they’re doing stuff unless they grow really significantly.
Lenny Rachitsky: Along these lines, you have a pretty unique way of pricing your work. For people that may want to explore this with you, share whatever you can about just how you think about pricing and ideally even an order magnitude of pricing so they’re like, “Oh, okay. We should actually do this.”
Jessica Hische: To go back to the process how it’s always about figuring out what people are trying to accomplish, so a lot of my process scales depending on how broad of an exploration that we’re doing. The way that I treat it is I treat my branding work not dissimilarly to how I treat commercial lettering, which is atypical. Brand people, what they typically do is because the client has to own the assets outright at the end no matter what, they tend to do is bill everything that the client owns everything as you are moving along. It’s all sort of work for hire, but the idea being that it’s a buyout of everything that is being made. What that means is that when a branding agency is pricing stuff for you, they’re taking the buyout rights and baking it into every round of work so that every round gets more expensive because you are owning all of the work.
What I do is I treat it much more like a commercial lettering project where I say, “You have to own the rights to this eventually, but hey, let’s break that out and let’s keep the creative process lighter and less expensive so then we have more room to explore. So then if some stakeholder comes in last minute and blows everything else up and we need to start over, you haven’t already paid to own everything that we’ve created, you just pay to own the thing that we create in the end that gets chosen.” I really like the idea of keeping the creation process more flexible and to try to scale to what people need versus having a really rigid way of approaching everything. Sometimes people will bring me on really early in the process, where if they have an internal team or if they’re working with an external agency or something, they want me there from the get out.
Some people are like, “We have no money and we are going to try to do this as much as we can inside of our business, but then can we hire you at the end to make it look good? If we can get everybody bought in and get it 80% of the way there.” Depending on what people’s budgets are, I have different ways of working, or just depending on what their needs are. Because my whole thing too is I don’t want to step on anybody’s toes, because sometimes companies have these really amazing designers that are working in-house, and it sucks as a designer who started at a company and thinks that you might be able to get a chance to work on what is considered the most important asset in terms of the brand and they just farm it out to someone else instead of letting you touch it. To me, that’s a recipe for anything that I create to be immediately killed, because someone inside is going to be like, “It’s time to shine,” and then they’re just going to kill all my work.
I’m always like, “How do we collaborate? How do I make it so that I’m an asset to you? Not that I’m trying to step on your toes, not that I’m trying to take over what’s the cool juicy work from the people who inside that are really excited to do it.” I just want them to feel as bought in as I can be. But yeah, it becomes interesting. I feel like I get told by branding people that I’m too inexpensive because they’re like, “Oh, for what you do, it should be 60 or $70,000 at a minimum to do all this kind of stuff.” I’m like, I feel like the majority of the projects that I do end up being between 25 and 35, but depending on how you bring me in, it can be less if it’s just as a consultant. It’s not out of the realm of possibilities to hire a proper crazy expert at stuff. It’s not like you’re thinking about sinking half a million dollars into the brand. That’s a very different experience.
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome. Thank you for sharing that. Before we get into other stuff that you do, because like you said at the top, there are many other things you do outside of this specific time of work, is there anything else you think might be helpful or important for people to know about working with you on a logo refresh or just thinking about logos and this whole space we talked about?
Jessica Hische: The best thing is just seeing what’s there and really being able to understand what’s not working about it and what your goals are. Like I said with that reverse justification of intuition, I think if you know that the logo is not quite where you want it to be, just spend a couple days asking yourself why. “What is the thing about this that bothers me?” Don’t get specific. Don’t be like, “The way the R is,” or whatever. Maybe that’s the thing that we talk about down the line, but always think big picture before you think minutiae, because sometimes people think that… They’ll throw a bunch of minutiae stuff at me, but it’s because they haven’t really stopped to think about what is the overall thing that’s bothering them.
You just never get there if you’re always trying to address detail before you address the big picture stuff. You have to just always start super top level, and really ask yourself very broad questions about why you think it’s not working, and then go tighter, and tighter, and tighter, and be like… It really could be like, “This C has always bothered me,” and then we can get real specific about that when I’m doing the refresh. But I think I also need to understand the overall reason why we’re doing this, not just the little bugaboo that bothers you specifically but might not bother anybody else.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah. When I was thinking about this, it feels like my whole feeling was this could be better. That’s all it was for me initially, is just like I feel like it could be a lot better. I imagine that’s enough for some people, just like, “I think this could be better,” and then here’s things [inaudible 00:55:50].
Jessica Hische: Yeah. That’s definitely enough for some people, because I think sometimes… I think you, specifically, had a very clear vibe going on with all of your brand stuff. Some people, it’s totally like a mishmash grab bag of random trends and there’s no real voice that’s coming through. But I feel like you’ve been doing this for a while, and when you see everything together, there’s definitely a very clear vision and vibe that you get from everything. I always tell people that having terrible vision can be your best asset when it comes to logo and brand, because it allows you…
Just take your glasses off if you have terrible vision, and look at it, and get the feeling when you can’t see the detail. You have to be looking at it with blurred eyes. What is the overall look of this thing? Just trying to get as broad and noodly as you can with it instead of it being about those really specific one by one stuff. I think when you blur your eyes on your brand, there was a really clear cohesiveness to it already. It was just about massaging it into a more consistent professional-looking place.
Lenny Rachitsky: Well, I can’t look at the old logo anymore now that I’ve gotten this thing coming together, so I’m really excited for this to come out. Just a couple closing questions. One is you have a lot of other stuff going on that is not just typography and logo refreshes. You have children’s books, you do lettering for classics, you have a store in Oakland. Talk about all these other things you got going on in case it might interest people.
Jessica Hische: Sure. Yeah, of course. I’m based here in The Bay, as we’ve talked about, and I have a studio in Downtown Oakland. My studio is like Barbie’s creative Dream house, where the top floor is my office, that’s where I’m right now, and then the bottom floor on one side is a workshop. I do a lot of printmaking. I went to college at a school that was very focused on interdisciplinary work, and I feel like I bring a lot of manual analog processes into my work a lot. I find it really important to make physical things as a part of my creative process, so I do a lot of printmaking. On the other side downstairs is a brick and mortar store. I’ve always wanted to have a brick and mortar store because, as an artist, I think having people have a physical connection to your work can be really important.
I think one of the reasons why people hire me to do things for them is because one of the gifts of working with someone that is a real nerd professional about whatever it is that they do is that they bring you along the journey and give you the language to talk about the thing through their eyes and through their experience. To me, the funnest thing for me is actually telling clients and teaching them about all the things that we are doing along the way so then they go out into the world as a newly-minted type nerd and can communicate all of these things to other people. That connection is just really important. The connection to the work, the story behind it, I feel like that’s one of the ways that we create lasting work, is understanding that the work exists because there’s a story behind it. Things, if they’re just created because of the aesthetics or they’re just created quickly or whatever, it’s really easy to discard them because there’s not a story behind it.
But if you think about all the objects in your life that have followed you throughout your life, what’s a thing that you’ve had since you were in fifth grade or whatever that is still magically in your possession in your house? You have that because the story of that thing is so important to you. I think that the work that we create, the design that we create, can have that. It can be imbued with so much story and meaning, that when we think about moving on from it, we’re like, “Ugh, but this.” I think that’s one of the ways to build a lasting brand, is to just make sure that the story of creating it feels so real, and visceral, and important. The store is a way for people to have a physical connection to other work that I create, like the prints and things like that.
With the kids’ book stuff, that’s also about creating lasting stuff. I like creating physical things in the world. I like repackaging things that I’ve learned in therapy in a way that kids will appreciate and enjoy. I’m just always thinking about what’s a way that I can say a thing that has been said before but hasn’t been said in this way. If I can turn that into a physical object that people can have and appreciate, all the better. But yeah, I don’t know. While, professionally, what I do is considered very niche, I feel like all the things that I do are quite diverse, because they tickle different parts of my brain. I have to use my hands in different ways and my mind in different ways. It’s how I’ve been able to generally avoid feeling burnt out as a creative, is just being able to move on between different kinds of work and just feel excited about different things at different times.
Lenny Rachitsky: For folks that want to maybe check out the store, how do they find it? It’s called Jessica and Friends, is that right?
Jessica Hische: Yes. It’s called Jessica Hische and Friends.
Lenny Rachitsky: Jessica Hische and Friends.
Jessica Hische: You can just Google JH&F.
Lenny Rachitsky: Google Maps, yeah. [inaudible 01:01:17]
Jessica Hische: Yeah. I put JH&F on as a part of the Google Maps name so I don’t have to spell my name to strangers, because I have a weird German spelling last name. I also have a second store called Drawling, which is drawing with an L thrown in there. That one is an all-ages art supply store that’s sort of a kids’ art supply store. That one grew out of JH&F as well. Those two stores exist. With my books, if you just look up my last name on any of your favorite booksellers, you’ll find me.
Lenny Rachitsky: Last question. I’m just going to throw this out there in case something interesting comes up. We have a segment on this podcast called AI Corner, where I like to see how people have found ways to use AI in their work, in their life to be more productive, do cool things. Is there some way that you’ve found a way to use AI in the work that you do that makes you do more interesting stuff?
Jessica Hische: A little bit. I am in this really interesting position in terms of AI where my partner works at Meta on GenAI stuff. He’s a director on the GenAI team at Meta and is very bought into AI as a whole thing. I am a little [inaudible 01:02:28] about its impact on a lot of the things that we do. I think, overall, it will become a tool and be very useful, especially in a lot of different fields. But I think this timeframe in which it’s more novelty is going to have not the best impact on things like illustration, but eventually, we’ll all come out of it and it’ll be fine. In terms of how I’ve been able to integrate it into my process, I did some work for Salesforce last year where the theme for Dreamforce was going to be very AI-driven. I felt like I needed to explore AI as a part of the generative process for creating that art.
I did have fun creating custom lettering and then trying to run it through stable diffusion to get stable diffusion to generate instances of my lettering in different styles. We were making these clouds. We ultimately didn’t end up using it, but it was still really neat to see. I could see the validity of that in the creative iterative process. I think the biggest thing for me is that I find that the sloggy, slow dregs of work is very fulfilling to me, that a lot of the evangelists of AI are like, “Oh, imagine if you could spend all of your time high level thinking, and coming up with the concepts, and guiding the vision, and whatever, and then just get AI to do everything else that you don’t care about.” For me, that just sounds like not the most holistic approach to how I work, because the reason why I do all the things that I do and why my process is the way that it is because while I love thinking and I love coming up with conceptual stuff, I find it to be very cerebrally taxing.
I need a break from that by doing the more low-key production end of stuff. That’s my favorite part of the process, is we know what we’re doing, and now it’s just about going in. When it comes to judging logos, for instance, the days that I spend knowing exactly what I’m going to do and all it is me just moving little Bezier handles around and getting it feeling right and whatever, those are pure therapeutic zen for me. I think I will always have that as a part of my work and will probably not have AI be outputting that part. But I have been able to have it be helpful in the iterative process a little bit, both through generating sketches with that project and then also through a lot of stuff with writing with my kids’ books and things like that, is coming up with lists of words and concepts that are adjacent to each other, whatever.
I have found that Claude and ChatGPT are very good for things like that. I’m working on another kids’ book now, and I’m trying to think of the directions that it can take. One of them is sort of illustrating different feelings and things like that. I could sit there and brainstorm what are the different emotions or whatever, or I can just ask Claude like, “List 50 emotions,” and then I can cherry-pick the ones that come up that feel right. I do find it’s really good for that early brainstorming stuff, and that’s been really nice.
Lenny Rachitsky: Is there anything else that you want to share or leave listeners with before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
Jessica Hische: Yes. Well, I do have a new kid’s book coming out in October.
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, [inaudible 01:06:02].
Jessica Hische: Aside from all the logo stuff, please do check out my kids’ books. It’s called My First Book of Fancy Letters, and it is like a new spin on an alphabet book, but instead of it being an alphabet book for brand new babies, which you could totally buy it for brand new babies because it is very simple, and fun, and they’ll like the bright pictures, it’s for the age where kids can recognize letters but can’t necessarily read and write yet because they get so into seeing letters drawn in these different styles and imagining what other letters could be drawn in. Each of the letters is drawn to represent the word that it sounds like. Letters can be athletic, bubbly, or creepy, and then it’s like, “Well, what does a creepy C look like?”
When kids are starting to understand letter sounds and recognizing letters, they can start thinking about what other words start with that letter sound, and then they start listing stuff out and become immediate over-the-shoulder art directors. It’s been really fun showing it to other preschoolers, and TK, and kindergarten kids, because they’re immediately like, “Well, R should be a river. It should be a river.” I’m like, “Well, how do you draw a river?” It becomes this fun imagination exercise too, so definitely check that out. It’s up for pre-order now and comes out October 22nd.
Lenny Rachitsky: That is so delightful. I know you have multiple kids. Do you start to see the idea with one age of kid and then by the time the next kid reaches that age, it’s ready and published? Does that work timing-wise?
Jessica Hische: Yeah, the only thing is both of my… Well, my oldest child is a real super reader. She’s always ahead of the game. The second that she could read, she was like, “Oh, picture books are for babies.” Now she’s reading, she goes into Pegasus books and is just like, “Where are your books for teenagers?” They’re like, “You’re nine. We’re not going to show you that, but here are the middle grade books or whatever.” There is a little bit of that. You are a parent, but you are a parent of a very young person. Kids don’t want to buy anything you’re selling as a parent. There’s a little bit of that where I feel like I get so many wonderful letters from other families about how it’s their favorite book, and they read it every night, and it’s so important, and then my kids are like, “Yeah, yeah. It’s just mom’s book, whatever.”
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, that’s bittersweet. Well, with that, Jessica, we’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. Are you ready?
Jessica Hische: I’m ready.
Lenny Rachitsky: Speaking of books, first question, what are two or three books that you’ve recommended most to other people?
Jessica Hische: Rick Reuben’s creativity book is so good. Definitely recommend that. I haven’t listened to it on audiobook. I read the physical book, but I also heard the audiobook is very zen. I feel like it’s just a very good palate cleanser in terms of being an artist and creating because it feels both high level but also very actionable, so really recommend that. In terms of learning about and understanding typography, there’s this book called Inside Paragraphs by Cyrus Highsmith. It’s very small and very digestible. You can read it in one bathroom visit, and it’s illustrated really well. It has cool illustrations. If you want to learn about some basics of type and typography, it’s a really great book, and incredibly accessible, and not like reading Bringhurst or something like that, so big ups to that book. Oh, what’s another book?
I don’t know. I feel like I’m just going to end up recommending all the books that I’m currently reading. This month, I read both Patti Smith’s Just Kids, which I loved also and was also… I feel like I’m reading a lot of books about being an artist more so than being a designer. That book, I found really interesting, just hearing her story of moving to New York and having nothing. Just trying to be an artist, and make art, and having that be the thing that drove everything that she and Robert Mapplethorpe did. I don’t know, I just feel like I’m looking for ways to get out of my very business-driven sensibilities around art making and get into a space that’s more loose, and free, and driven by passions and feelings more so than necessarily career-based milestones and things like that. This is a wild card one too. I just finished The Emperor of All Maladies. I’m just a big fan of reading things about human biology and things like that and found it totally fascinating, so do read that one too.
Lenny Rachitsky: I can’t help but ask, how do you have time to read, raise children, work on so many projects, have a run a store? What is your secret?
Jessica Hische: Well, you get pretty ruthless about your schedule when you’re a parent, where when you’re at the office, you are just heads in working, and so I think just trying to stay as focused as possible in that way. I do this thing where I bounce back and forth between projects a lot as I’m losing steam, and so having multiple things to work on keeps me motivated to keep working. I think it’s kind of an ADHD thing, where I will start my day one way and then as soon as I start losing steam, I switch to a different thing, lose steam, switch to a different thing, lose steam, switch to a different thing. Rather than taking breaks, I just take a break by working on something that feels fresh. That can be super helpful.
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s an awesome tip.
Jessica Hische: Yeah. I mean, it’s incredible. I also would tell people when I had first started out, I had a full-time job and then was doing freelance in the evenings. People were like, “How do you not get burnt out, whatever?” It’s because my day job was so different from my night job that it felt like I was doing two separate eight-hour shifts instead of one continual sixteen-hour shift. I think that’s something to sort of think about, is that there’s always going to be things that need to get done as a part of your work or things that you’re interested in and passionate about. Just having enough diversity in what that means is going to allow you to maintain enthusiasm for doing all those different things for much longer. Actually, the more homogenous your life and career and job is, the faster you’re going to burn out, so just making sure that you have enough variety and all the things that you do.
Lenny Rachitsky: That was an awesome tip. I’m glad I went there. Okay, back on track to our lightning round. Is there a recent favorite movie or TV show you’ve really enjoyed?
Jessica Hische: Severance was my favorite TV show I think I’ve ever watched.
Lenny Rachitsky: The second season’s coming out.
Jessica Hische: I know. That came to mind because I knew the second season was coming out, so I’m just really excited about it, but I think that was probably tops for me.
Lenny Rachitsky: Is there a favorite product you’ve recently discovered that you really love?
Jessica Hische: Oh, yeah. Well, there’s a few things. Well, there was one that’s just a super random one that was just pure delight. There’s a Japanese brand, Penco, and they make a lot of wonderful stuff. I carry a lot of their stuff in my store. One of the things I bought recently from them is a pen cup, a pencil cup. It’s ceramic, but it looks like a paper bag, a lightly crumpled paper bag, and then it just has printed on it Penco, whatever. I just really like it when you take an existing object and give it a new form. I find that to be very delightful, and so that was, I think, one of the things that I really loved recently that I bought for the store.
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome. Pick two more questions. Do you have a favorite life motto that you often think about, come back to share with folks, find useful, and work your life?
Jessica Hische: It’s funny being a lettering artist because I’m not much of a quotes gal, all things considered. I should be because I could make a million dollars by just making “live, laugh, love” pillows or whatever, but I am not usually continually collecting quotes. But I was just at a conference up in Portland called XOXO, and one of the presenters showed a quote on the screen that resonated with me more than most things that I’ve seen in recent memory. I feel like this is my new… It was one of those quotes that I was like maybe I should get a tattoo of that. When it gets to that level where you’re considering a tattoo, you’re like, “Okay, that’s official.” It was “hope is a discipline”. I just really loved that. It’s by Mariame Kaba or Mariame Kaba.
The idea that we have to choose to create positivity, that it’s like a choice, and that in order to dream of these things, you can actually create structure and discipline around it, and that it’s not just something that is just inherent and comes, you have to actually have a practice around being hopeful and positive. I just really liked that as a concept because I feel that way just about navigating through life, that everything that we do is a choice and that we can choose to frame things one way or frame things another way. Understanding that you have power in that, I think, is really important, and so I just really loved that. Hope is a discipline.
Lenny Rachitsky: I really love that. I love any quote that inspires you to not feel like a victim, and gives you agency, and reminds you that you have agency over.
Jessica Hische: Exactly. That’s, I think, was the biggest thing for me is just… Because I feel very well-resourced in being able to deal with hardship because I’m always able to recontextualize and reframe. I think part of that is doing so much intuition justification, which is what we talked about, is walking through things, being like, “Why is this? Why does that happen, la, la, la?” When something bad happens, it’s understanding why it happened and then understanding the paths that it can take forward and the different attitudes that you can bring to it that can help you come out of it.
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s beautiful. Okay, final question. I know that you recently remodeled your home. It’s quite stunning. You share photos of it online. You worked with this amazing architect to help make it as amazing as it is. As a designer, here’s the question, how do you find the balance between trusting someone, their own perspective and design approach, versus pushing into a direction you think that it should go? How do you find a balance as a designer?
Jessica Hische: Well, I actually feel like it’s quite easy for me to trust people to do their own thing, because as long as I go to them as being like, “I appreciate you and your vision and that’s why I’m paying you,” then the last thing that I want to do is micromanage them, because the reason why I’m paying them is because I don’t have the bandwidth to do that myself. Because honestly, I’m one of those people that if I had nothing going on, if my job totally blew up or whatever, I would probably be one of those people that just specialize in a different thing every six months and would be like, “I’m going to build a house now from the ground up. I’m going to do this from now, whatever.” I just feel very capable of doing anything that I want to do because I understand that I can find the resources for it.
When I hire people to help me do a thing, it’s because there is this implicit trust in what they do and that that’s why I want to work with them. With the house, I definitely had opinions about stuff. But in general, I’m just like, “Hey, this is your thing. You’re the expert. What do you think? Let me give you the parameters and the things that we have to think about. Because you know more about wood resources, and you know more about the cabinet spacing, and whatever, you tell me what you think is going to work best based on all these things that I laid out for you.” I found it to be quite easy. I only got really wigged out about a couple of different fine tune-y stuff.
Lenny Rachitsky: I imagine architects and designers are like, “Oh no, it’s going to be a designer I’m working with. They have opinions.” I’m glad it wasn’t that bad.
Jessica Hische: I feel like my strength with the work that I do in general is just being incredibly decisive and understanding that there’s 10 good answers to every one question. Some people are real maximalists about decision-making and need to look at every gray sofa that exists before they can choose the one gray sofa. Whereas I feel like I can look at 10 gray sofas and go, it feels like there’s two or three categories of sofa here, and then within those categories, there’s a couple of good options. Here’s a brand that I recognize is known for being of high quality. That one’s good enough. I can get to it really quickly, and I feel like not everybody can do that. And I think that that permeates through everything that I do in my life. It definitely is a huge part of the logo work, because you really can do anything when it comes to typography.
It can go in 50 million directions. It’s just about having someone tell you, “Yes, we could take this anywhere, but these are the valid paths. If we go down this path, this is the most intuitive and most correct way to do it that is closest and most accessible to us. We can noodle on it until kingdom come, but do we have to? This is good.” I don’t know. I feel like there’s some weird knowledge around understanding that nothing is ever 100% perfect, and the most you can aspire and get to is 99.8 or whatever. That last 0.2%, you could spend your whole life trying to do that, or you could move on and do other things and understand that it’s nearly perfect.
Lenny Rachitsky: That is really good advice and a freeing piece of advice. Jessica, it’s been an honor to work with you on this logo. I am really excited for people to see it, for it to be the new look of everything I’m doing. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to learn more and potentially work with you, and how can listeners be useful to you?
Jessica Hische: Oh, yeah. Of course. I have a website that I occasionally update. It is jessicahische.is/awesome. You’ll notice I have a bunch of weird URLs on my website. That’s a place to find me. Otherwise, I am on Instagram and Threads a lot. I was formerly a very active Twitter person, and now I’m not really there so much and I bop around with the Twitter clones, but I’m on Threads quite a bit. Instagram and Threads are good for social. Email, I’m easy, hello@jessicaHische.com. What your readers could do for me, I think it’s the work that I do in terms of the logo refresh stuff. I feel like this audience is just totally my perfect audience for it because you guys are all a bunch of smart, awesome founders that want beautiful logos, but understand that sometimes you just got to get that first viable option out the door. Once you’re ready, you come to me and I help you and it’s great.
Lenny Rachitsky: A match made in heaven. Jessica, thank you so much for being here.
Jessica Hische: Happy to be here. Great convo.
Lenny Rachitsky: So good. Bye, everyone. Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Glossary
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| Inside Paragraphs | Cyrus Highsmith 所著的字体排印入门书(不译) |
| Severance | Apple TV+ 出品的悬疑剧集(不译) |
| The Emperor of All Maladies | Siddhartha Mukherjee 所著的癌症传记(普利策奖获奖作品)(不译) |
| Bezier handles | 贝塞尔手柄(矢量图形编辑中控制曲线形状的操控点) |
| bootstrapping | 自力更生 |
| brand refresh | 品牌焕新 |
| Bringhurst | 指 Robert Bringhurst,所著 The Elements of Typographic Style 是字体排印经典(不译) |
| buyout | 买断 |
| Degular | 一款具有歪斜感的西文字体(不译) |
| FinTech | 金融科技 |
| fractional leadership | 分时制领导力(按需聘请高管/专家的模式) |
| geometric sans serif | 几何无衬线体 |
| James Edmondson | 字体设计师,Degular 字体的设计者 |
| Lenny Rachitsky | 播客主持人,产品/科技领域知名播客 Lenny’s Podcast 的主播 |
| lettering | 字母绘制 |
| lettering artist | 字母绘制艺术家 |
| logo refresh | 标志焕新 |
| Mariame Kaba | 美国社会活动家、废除主义运动倡导者(不译) |
| maximalist | 最大主义者(此处指决策时追求穷尽所有选项的倾向) |
| micromanage | 微观管理 |
| noodle | 磨(在设计中反复微调、过度纠结) |
| optical weight | 视觉粗细 |
| Patti Smith | 美国歌手、作家、艺术家(不译) |
| Penco | 日本文具/生活用品品牌(不译) |
| Rick Rubin | 美国知名音乐制作人,著有关于创造力的书(不译) |
| Robert Mapplethorpe | 美国摄影师、艺术家(不译) |
| sans serif | 无衬线体 |
| script | 手写体 |
| serif | 衬线体 |
| shoulder | 肩部(字母笔画部件) |
| Song Exploder | 一档拆解创作过程的播客节目(不译) |
| stakeholder | 利益相关者 |
| stress-tested | 压力测试 |
| super users | 超级用户 |
| swag | 周边 |
| two-storey A | 双层 A |
| typography | 字体排印 |
| venture money | 风险投资 |
| work for hire | 雇佣创作(著作权归委托方所有的创作模式) |
| XOXO | 在 Portland 举办的一个面向独立创作者的会议(不译) |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
如何像设计师一样观察:字体与标志的隐藏力量 | Jessica Hische
如何像设计师一样观察:字体与标志的隐藏力量 | Jessica Hische
字体与标志的直觉感知
Jessica Hische: 大多数人在感知字体排印和标志所传递的情感与感受方面,比自己以为的要敏锐得多,因为作为人类,我们在世间行走时是永不停歇的模式和信息吸收者。我们不会特意坐下来消化这些东西,但它们仍然在持续输入、被记录下来。所以即使你不是设计师,我相信你也能看到一些标志的例子,感觉”哪里不太对”,只是说不出具体是什么。但我认为一个好的练习就是去看看世界上可用的字体,然后问自己:“它给我什么感受?”
Lenny Rachitsky: 今天我的嘉宾是 Jessica Hische。Jessica 是设计界的传奇人物,能请她上这档播客,并与她合作更新我的 newsletter 和播客的标志与品牌形象,我深感荣幸——这次品牌焕新恰好在本期节目上线的同一时间发布。Jessica 是一位字母绘制艺术家(lettering artist),专注于为标志、电影、书籍及其他商业应用创作字体排印作品。她的客户包括韦斯·安德森(Wes Anderson)、美国邮政、Apple、Nike、Tiffany & Company、The Gap 和 Penguin Books,她的作品已被收录于美国及国际的设计与插画年鉴。她参与创作了 Philz Coffee、Eventbrite 和 Mailchimp 的标志,同时也是一位畅销儿童书作家。如果你住在湾区附近,你一定在城中各处见过她的作品,只是你不知道而已。在这次对话中,Jessica 分享了她为我的 newsletter 和播客更新标志与品牌形象的全过程——标志和品牌中的哪些具体元素会影响你对一个品牌的感受,为什么对大多数创业公司来说一个”够用就行”的标志就能撑很久,什么时候适合对品牌形象进行焕新,以及一些非常聪明的效率技巧、设计建议和一堆有趣的故事。Jessica 是她那个领域的大师,我很高兴能在这里传播 Jessica Hische 的福音。如果你喜欢这档播客,别忘了在你喜欢的播客应用或 YouTube 上订阅和关注。这是避免错过未来节目最好的方式,也对播客帮助极大。好了,让我请出 Jessica Hische。Jessica,非常感谢你的到来,欢迎来到播客。
Jessica Hische: 很高兴来到这里。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我想可以从请你描述一下你做的事情开始,因为你和我通常请来的嘉宾很不一样,你的技能组合也非常独特。
定制字体排印
Jessica Hische: 好的。我会描述我最广为人知的那部分工作,因为我是一个什么都做的人,但我职业上做得最多的就是定制字体排印,也就是定制的字母绘制作品。这会转化为各种不同的工作。有时候是为影视服务——我做过电影片头之类的,还有电视字幕等。有时候是书籍封面——实际上很多时候都是书籍封面。然后我业务的一大部分是做标志、标志焕新之类的工作,基本上就是做那个在字体排印方面无所不知的人,这样你就不需要在团队里专门养一个这样的角色。
品牌焕新的契机
Lenny Rachitsky: 我之所以特别期待请你上这档播客,部分原因是我有幸和你合作,对我 newsletter 和播客的标志与品牌形象进行了焕新,对此我非常非常兴奋。它实际上会在本期节目上线的同一时间发布,所以在某种程度上,这是对新面貌、新标志、新品牌的一次庆祝。我觉得这是一个绝佳的理由把你请到播客上来,让人们窥见更新标志和品牌形象的幕后过程。一方面是因为我觉得人们会好奇”怎么回事?怎么变了?从哪来的?为什么选这个而不是那个?“另一方面也是为那些正在为自己的产品或生意考虑这件事的人,帮助他们理解这个过程,理解什么时候适合做、什么时候不适合做。整体来说,这个方向你觉得怎么样?
Jessica Hische: 当然,没问题。每个创业的人都知道自己需要一个标志,这是毋庸置疑的。有些人创业时会认为标志会驱动公司文化,我不这么认为。我认为真正推动公司前进的应该是产品本身、你建立的团队、你聚集的人。但我确实认为标志和品牌资产能够激发大量内部和外部的热情,并且告诉人们他们即将接触的东西会有什么样的体验。有人说不要以貌取人,比如不要以封面来判断一本书。我恰好相反——任何一本书……封面都应该让你深刻洞察书中的内容,定下基调、营造氛围,这样当你翻开书、阅读它的时候,会形成一种呼应:“哦,我明白自己将要进入什么样的体验了。封面让我对开始阅读充满期待”,诸如此类。它让那种期待感持续下去。
但就我做的品牌焕新工作而言,很多人创业时手头有一定的资金。如果是自力更生,资金就少一些;如果拿到风险投资,就稍微多一些。但他们不想把风险投资的钱花在大规模的品牌探索上——因为那时候你还在招人阶段,还在努力招到早期工程师,诸如此类。所以在品牌领域,我某种程度上算是一个异类。品牌圈的人会说”品牌就是一切,你需要在品牌上做重大投入,因为品牌引导产品的愿景”之类的话。但我觉得因为我在科技圈内部有一定了解,我理解有时候人们创业时是有明确意图的。
在执行的过程中,他们在搭建团队,在做很酷的事情,但公司可能因为各种原因不得不转向——也许竞争对手立刻推出了你正在做的产品,或者你依赖的技术被推迟了,任何因素都可能影响走向。所以如果你从起步阶段就大力投入整个品牌愿景,有时候一旦需要转向,那些钱就等于打了水漂。我喜欢我这份工作的原因在于,我理解很多人只需要一个能放在演示文稿上的东西、一个能放在临时页面上的东西,而内部团队完全有能力在早期完成这些工作。但如果公司真的成功了,你不会想被绑死在某个为了赶投资会议而临时拼凑出来的东西上。
我就是在那个节点介入的——把现有的调性打磨顺畅,解决浮现出来的各种问题。很多时候是非常实用层面的事情:比如这个标志放大后效果不好,或者在那个场景下会散架,或者我们从来没有一个合适的头像版本之类的。有时候是具体的功能性修复,有时候就是让它变得更成熟、更精致,同时不丢失最初让人们兴奋的那些东西。
什么时候该升级品牌
Lenny Rachitsky: 给大家一些更实操的建议吧——有什么迹象说明你可能该对你的标志和品牌做点什么了?当初你做了第一版觉得还行,你太太做了一个,你先生给你做了个标志,你觉得”挺好,就用这个吧”。有什么迹象表明可能是时候——“好吧,我们至少应该提升一下,不一定要请工作室,但做点什么让它变得更好”?
Jessica Hische: 其中一个信号是,如果你突然要面对品牌视觉的大规模推广。如果你最初基本上只有一个非常早期的测试版网站和一个小型版本的应用,但你即将做一个更新和扩展的新版本,那可能就是一个很好的焕新时机。很多人创业时会用一个很流行、很容易获取或免费的字体来做标志。如果你即将——比如说——为新人大量印制周边,或者你要主办一场会议,或者任何你需要真金白银地投入把品牌印到实物上的场合,那可能就是一个好时机。
我告诉人们为什么拥有定制标志或定制字体排印很重要,原因之一是:如果你用的是人人都能拿到的东西,别人抄袭你的可能性就非常高,而且非常容易。你可能是那种一上来就非常成功的幸运公司,但成功之后会有人跟风上来试图复制你的成功。如果这种成功很容易被复制,别人就会试图用你做过的那些事来诱骗你的客户转向他们——包括品牌形象。要避免这种情况,一种方式就是在标志和品牌方面做更加定制化的东西。
标志焕新的流程
Lenny Rachitsky: 我们来具体聊聊你为更新我的标志和品牌所做的工作吧。从中我们可以延伸出你在这方面的经验和见解。先从大面上说,你做一次标志焕新,整体流程是什么样的?
Jessica Hische: 当然。大面上来说,首先要弄清楚目标是什么。有些人的目标是希望客户完全察觉不到变化。他们会说:“哦,大家都喜欢这个,但作为一个有设计眼光的人,我能看到它所有的问题。我需要推出一个新版本,修复我看到的问题,但其他人基本不会注意到。“如果这是其中一种策略,那就是一种非常贴近原版的焕新——我们只是在做些小调整,让它感觉更精致,或者修复在压力测试中暴露出来的问题,比如放大后看起来很笨重、粗犷,缩小后又丧失大量辨识度之类的。这就属于非常贴近原版的探索。
对另一些人来说,他们可能有更大的目标——比如公司即将转向,试图吸引不同的受众。他们可能已经拥有一群非常核心、非常成功的超级用户,但想要扩展,那么问题就变成了:“我们能在调性上做什么调整,让它包容这些新的人群,同时又不排斥我们的核心用户?“我的第一轮工作是弄清楚这个范围——第一轮我们要多实验性、多广泛,因为之后一切都会从这里往下延伸。如果第一轮走得很广,那我们就在后续过程中不断收窄范围。而如果第一轮就很贴近原版,那我们一开始讨论的就全是技术层面的事情。
Jessica Hische: 这也是我的做法中比较独特的一点,不是所有设计师都会这样做——如果我们要解决的是实用性问题,我会在很早的阶段就把文件交给客户,让他们在实际场景中试用。大多数其他人会说:“不行,最终交付之前你拿不到文件,因为我不想让你拿着这个跑掉之类的。“这中间需要一定的信任。总之,要搞清楚我们试图达成什么,始终把这些目标记在心里,然后根据这些目标来规划整个流程。每一轮我们都在解决不同的问题。第一轮可能只是捕捉整体感觉,尽可能广泛地尝试;下一轮则是:“好的,现在我们大致有了想要的方向,但字重对不对?字母高度对不对?细节够不够?“诸如此类。然后随着流程推进,我们的范围越来越窄,也越来越深入细节。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太好了。就拿我的播客标志来说,我其实挺难搞的。到最后我说:“不对,这不行。“因为我们一路收窄、收窄、再收窄,然后我说:“不行,感觉不对。“然后我们又打开了范围,重新回去。
Jessica Hische: 不过这种经历其实很常见。这就是为什么有些做法我不排斥,但我知道有些人非常排斥。我不排斥把不同方案拼接在一起。对我来说,我给你的是一张我们所有可选项的菜单,但我就像一个精心设计菜单的主厨——你可以搭配不同的前菜和主菜,它们放在一起仍然说得通。有些人给你的菜单,如果你这样搭配,就很离谱,味道很差。但对于我来说,我们做的所有东西,我觉得都能比较好地混搭组合,如果不行的话我会告诉你。
客户走上一条路,然后用这个过程来验证或确认我们很早之前做的某个方向其实才是对的——这完全合理。正因如此,如果客户让我做什么,比如”我们看看紫色版本之类的”,有些设计师会跟你死磕到底,因为他们觉得”那样是错的,那样是错的”,但我知道有些人就是得亲眼看到才能放下。有时候你得先走一段路,才能明白正确的选择其实一直就在那里。
标志焕新的常见原因
Lenny Rachitsky: 我的感受正是如此。回到目标这个话题,人们在探索标志焕新时有不同的目标,你提到过有些人只是觉得标志有些小问题——缩放效果不好、印刷效果不好之类的。还有一个目标是公司在转型,想要改变品牌的调性和感觉。除此之外,你还遇到过哪些原因让人们想做这件事?
Jessica Hische: 有时候是可辨识度的问题——一旦你看到就非常明显,但当事人离得太近反而注意不到。这就是为什么你需要把标志给很多不熟悉那些字母形态的人看。你刚才问这个问题,我立刻想到的一个案例是我为 Jeni’s Ice Cream 做的焕新,那是俄亥俄州哥伦布市一个非常出色的冰淇淋品牌。他们有几个实用性方面的需求。他们那个长长的大写 J 在下方制造了一片空白区域,导致很难做设计搭配。但最明显的问题是,他们决定把 Jeni’s 的撇号放在字母 I 的上方,觉得这样很酷。结果因为那个 J 的绘制方式,整个词看起来像是在写 “penis”。
那个 J 的顶部有一个小环。那是我做过的最具体的修复需求——让标志不再看起来像在写 “penis”。不过话说回来,我觉得很多情况都是误读的问题。当你思考标志之类的东西时,你希望它是一个人在快速一瞥之下就能立刻读对的东西。这不意味着一切都必须简单,而是意味着一切都必须具有极高的可辨识度,尤其是当你创立新公司或品牌还不够知名的时候。因为最终,你会成为一个家喻户晓的名字,那时候人们光看颜色就能认出是你之类的,但在那之前需要很长时间来建立品牌资产。在此之前,可辨识度必须做到非常扎实。
Lenny’s 品牌焕新的探索方向
Lenny Rachitsky: 我们来聊聊你为我设计新标志和品牌时的实际思考过程吧。你能否谈谈,当你开始探索方向、我们开始收窄范围时,你的心态、方法和想要的感觉是什么样的?
Jessica Hische: 我觉得对于 Lenny’s 这个品牌,你属于那种拥有忠实粉丝群体的人,我们不希望通过太大的转变来排斥或冒犯这些粉丝。当我审视你的品牌焕新时,核心问题是:现有的东西里有哪些值得保留,或者至少值得探索保留的,以确保焕新之后它仍然给人同样的感觉?我们不想做任何太剧烈的改变。从这个角度出发,需要考虑的是——你的品牌中很多部分都采用了手写的风格,我就想:“怎么做一种有手写感的设计,能和你之前使用的手写字体搭配协调,但在未来又感觉更精致一些,同时还能和插画融合,让插画和字母形态都像是出自同一人之手?”
对我来说,做这种探索时,很多精力花在确保所有东西感觉像是同一时间创作的,而不是我们只是生硬地贴上了新东西。弄清楚如何把一切融合在一起很重要。颜色也是一个重要因素。我觉得品牌的色彩故事是一种即时可识别的东西——如果你眯起眼睛看一个品牌,光凭颜色就能认出它来。所以保持你的颜色相近也很重要。但另一方面,我确实想在字体排印上尝试不同的方法——做一些更干净利落的东西,同时保留一点古怪的棱角。因为你原来的 Lenny’s 播客字体有一种剪纸般的、略微歪斜的感觉,所以我想捕捉那种气质,但用更干净的新字体排印来呈现。这真的很有趣。
我用了一款叫 Degular 的字体作为其中的一部分,它有一种恰到好处的歪斜感。它是我朋友 James Edmondson 设计的,他的所有作品我都很喜欢。这是我们尝试的方向之一,因为我觉得它能捕捉到原来那种剪纸风格字体的外观。不过,尝试各种不同的东西,在你已经用过的图标体系——麦克风、棉花糖、篝火等等——的基础上工作,努力打造一个更统一的系统,这整个过程确实很有趣。
Lenny Rachitsky: 在这个探索过程中,有没有什么你记得的、尝试过但没成功的想法?值得分享的那种——比如”哦,那是个很酷的概念”,但实际效果没有你预期的那样好?
标志的具体使用场景
Jessica Hische: 在这次焕新工作中,很大一部分精力花在思考标志的直接用途上。你的标志有一些非常具体的用途——播客头像就是其中最重要的一个。有些人会先设计一个标志,然后再为其他场景推出插画版本,但我反而觉得那些版式设计实际上比一个基础的信笺式标志更重要。这是一种很有意思的切入方式,因为通常的做法是从简单开始,然后扩展、让它变得更复杂。但我感觉我们必须始终把这些具体用途放在心上,所以在设计标志的同时也在设计品牌资产。有时候你会在早期的探索方案中看到这些具体应用的示例,因为这能让客户觉得方案是真实的。
这也是为什么大家总会画一个帆布袋——你得把标志放上去,然后它才感觉”真实”了之类的。但在我们的情况里,有一些非常具体的用途需要在很早的阶段就去探索,这对我来说是一个略有不同的流程。至于说哪些尝试不太成功的话,我觉得主要是在插图的细节程度和字体之间找平衡,好让它能缩小到很小的尺寸。因为我们知道……标志使用的首要场景之一就是播客头像,而有些版本在缩小到那个尺寸时显得太精细了。要在这之间取得平衡——让插图保持手绘感和完整性,但在放大时又不至于让人觉得太简单、像是从图标库里随便拽出来的——我觉得这是一个有趣的挑战。
Lenny Rachitsky: 促使我更换标志的一个动因,正如你所知,我妻子是设计师。她对我的标志有很强烈的看法,一直嘲笑我的标志看起来就像一个任何人都能拿来即用的剪贴画壁炉。她总说:“哦,那太糟糕了,你得换掉。“这也是推动我的动力之一。我想在我们开始合作时我就跟你分享过这件事。
Jessica Hische: 是的。而且我觉得这也呼应了我之前说的——确保所有东西感觉像是同时创作的,而不是这些各自独立的元素。因为我认为,只要品牌的其他部分与那种简洁相匹配,一个图标或标志完全可以很简单。对你来说,最重要的事情是让插图和字体排印感觉来自同一个世界,而不是各自独立的元素。我最初搬到旧金山的时候,是从纽约搬过来的。作为一个纽约人,我在纽约有一间带完整厨房的公寓,但从来没用过。在纽约住的七八年里,我就是在餐厅吃饭、叫外卖。
刚开始学做饭的时候,你就像是在把一堆食材扔进一口锅里,而所有食材实际上并没有配合在一起。但做得越多,你就越理解这些东西应该如何融合、在不同的温度和时间下烹饪,你开始做出一道完整的菜,而不是一锅热火腿水。你懂我的意思吗?我觉得很多客户找到我的时候,他们的品牌就是热火腿水。我们要做的就是把它变成一道汤——一种感觉完整、真正成立的东西。
非设计师如何看懂标志
Lenny Rachitsky: 我想稍微岔开一下话题。这个播客的大部分听众不是设计师——他们是产品经理、创始人、工程师,以及做产品的人。我一直想用设计师的眼睛看世界,因为有太多我看不到的东西,太多影响我对一个事物感受的因素——当我看着一个标志时,我并不理解它们。所以我想花一点时间帮助大家稍微像设计师一样看东西也许会有帮助。让我问你这个问题:当人们看一个标志或品牌时,有哪些元素构成了它——让你感受到它想传达的那种感觉、而我们可能意识不到的元素?
Jessica Hische: 我觉得大多数人在感知字体排印和标志传达的情绪与感受方面,其实比他们自己认为的要厉害得多,因为我们作为人,是在这个世界里不停地吸收模式、信息和各种各样的东西的。我们不会停下来去消化它,但它仍然在输入、在记录。这就是为什么当你在世界上看到某个奇怪的东西时,你会说:“那很怪,我不喜欢。我不知道为什么不喜欢,但我知道我不喜欢。“我认为即使作为非设计师,你在字体排印中也能看到这一点。能够识别模式这件事——我在 Config 大会上也谈过一些——它其实是一种安全机制。观察这个世界时,你的眼睛能捕捉到那个有点不对劲的东西,而那个不对劲的东西会让你觉得不安全。
就像我们看着一盘菜,里面有个东西看起来像是发霉了一样。你直觉就知道”这看起来不对,这闻起来不对”。你的身体比你的大脑先知道。即使作为非设计师,我觉得你也可以看着一些标志的例子,觉得”有什么不太对”,然后说”这里有什么不对,我只是不知道怎么命名它”。但我觉得一个很好的练习是,去看看世界上可用的字体,然后问自己:“这给我什么感觉?“然后把它写下来。无所谓,允许自己说出脑海中冒出的第一个念头就好。不要过度分析。看着它就说:“这让我觉得平静。这让我觉得兴奋。这让我觉得……随便什么。”
你做得越多,就越能在那些让你觉得兴奋的字体之间、那些让你觉得平静的字体之间、以及其他感觉的字体之间看到共性,然后进入分析模式:“哦,我说感觉平静的那十个东西,笔画更细,间距更宽松,边角更圆润,字母的碗部更圆。“你开始看到这些东西之间的共同点。关键在于把它们放在一起看,才能理解那些相似之处是什么。我觉得任何人都能做到这一点。你当然不会知道什么叫 R 的腿、i 的点这样的字体排印术语。不用担心。你不需要掌握字体排印术语就能去思考它,但每个人都有能力做这件事。停下来问问自己、去留意,其实可以很有趣。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这很棒。我想再深入一些。我听到的是:去看一个东西,捕捉你看到它时的感受,真正去注意它,因为其中蕴含着智慧。你具体指出的影响那种感受的要素包括——你提到了字母之间的间距、边角。我想还有颜色。还有哪些具体的元素会影响一个人看标志时的感受?
Jessica Hische: 还有字母的宽度——是非常窄还是非常宽。我通常会考虑宽度、粗细、朝向,以及一些细节处理——比如是非常硬朗、锐利的,还是柔和的,以及柔和的程度如何。有时候我们只是加一点点柔和感,让它感觉像是印刷出来的。你可以拿 Helvetica 举例——就是大家都知道的那个字体。如果你把 Helvetica 的边角稍微、稍微圆一点点,突然之间,你就得到了一款感觉更复古、更柔和的字体,因为我们在感知它时会把它当作印在纸上的东西来感知,而不是把它当作我们正在观看的一块硬邦邦的几何技术产品来感知。你懂我的意思吧?
逆向推理你的直觉
Jessica Hische: 我知道这是因为我发现,当你看印刷在纸上的东西时,墨水会稍微渗入纸面,这意味着那种柔和感在身体层面唤起了我们对印刷品的记忆。逆向追溯自己的感受其实很酷。你会看着一个东西说:“这个给我一种这样的感觉”,然后问自己为什么会这样觉得。也许是因为你 22 岁时在一张乐队传单上见过它,而它唤起了你当时作为一个 22 岁人那种特定的感受。这种感受对你来说非常私人,但它可以指导你的设计决策,因为你会意识到:“我又不是什么特别的花朵。“其他人可能也会有同样的反应,只不过他们关联的是不同的、但相邻的经历。
这很酷,因为你是在逆向为自己的判断找理由。我觉得这是一个非常有趣的练习,就是对你的直觉做一次 Song Exploder 式的拆解。你先凭直觉做一个决定,或者看一个东西、凭直觉感受它带给你的情绪,然后真正深入去想:“我为什么会有这种感觉?这个东西可能让我想起了什么,才让我产生了这种感觉?“在做这件事的时候,你必须对自己非常宽容、非常放松,因为你会挖掘出一些非常奇怪的东西,而这些恰恰是选择其他设计的绝佳灵感源泉。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢你给的那个练习。你之前说的是看一堆字体,看你的字体文件夹。是不是直接打开字体文件夹翻一遍就行?
Jessica Hische: 完全可以。看你的字体文件夹,或者去 MyFonts,或者任何有大量字体的地方,随便搜点什么。搜无衬线体或者什么都行。搜一个最基本的字体类别——衬线体、无衬线体、手写体,随便哪个最顶层的大类,然后就一页一页地翻,翻,翻。看到喜欢的就截图,建一个截图文件夹,然后把这些截图拿来做分类。“哦,这个感觉偏女性化。这个感觉偏男性化,这个感觉有攻击性。这个感觉怎样怎样。“随手记一些笔记。然后问自己:“我为什么会有这种感觉?“你就会想:“哦,这个感觉女性化是因为它让我想起了婚礼请柬。“而婚礼请柬天然地更偏向新娘而非新郎那一侧。突然之间你就明白了:“好吧,那我现在知道了,如果我要用手写体做什么东西,这一类手写体感觉太’婚礼’了,所以如果这个客户实际上是一家前沿食品包装公司,我可能要避开这个方向,因为它跟那个行业的感觉太绑定了。“
行业刻板印象与竞品分析
刻板印象是真实存在的,潮流趋势也是真实存在的。有时候会出现一种情况:某个行业在一段时间内霸占了整个风格。如果你在那个风格范围内使用任何东西,就等于是在向那个行业靠拢。我的意思是,所有做品牌焕新的人,他们都会做一件事——分析这家公司的竞争对手。你就是去看竞争对手们都在做什么,视觉调性是什么样的,然后决定我要靠拢它还是避开它。如果我靠拢它,那我立刻就能获得一种……所有看到它的人都明白我是一家金融科技公司,因为我看起来就像一家金融科技公司。如果我的核心诉求是要与那个现状区分开来,要展示我与现状有多么不同,那你就把它当作一种反面参照——我什么都不想跟它一样,我要做一些截然不同的东西,让人们明白这不是又一家金融科技公司。
Lenny Rachitsky: 对。我在想绿色。如果你想开一家金融科技公司,绿色似乎必须出现在标志里。
Jessica Hische: 对,没错。如果你想走怪异路线,那就用蓝绿色。
Lenny Rachitsky: 关于”像设计师一样去看”这个话题,在我们转到其他话题之前,还有什么建议吗?怎样才能让人稍微多学会一点像设计师那样去观察?
字体中的光学修正
Jessica Hische: 有。还有一件事值得留意。因为我估计你们——产品人员,我觉得很多做产品的人多少都有一些工程背景,不管他们自己是不是工程师。他们需要跟工程师对接,他们自己也构建东西,所以他们是从数据的角度来切入的。我总是能看出一个工程师什么时候突然对字体设计产生了兴趣并开始做字体设计师,因为他们做的所有东西都非常、非常规整。你可以在所有东西上面画一个网格,线条全部完美对齐。当具有工程背景的人做标志的时候,你会看到很多这种逆向合理化的处理。字体里一个值得注意的有趣之处在于:你确实在遵循规则,但你也在相当频繁地打破这些规则,以修正视觉上的错觉。
比如说,你去看一款几何无衬线体——这是无衬线体里的一个类别,它们理应具有很强的几何感,非常规整。就是过去十年里你会爱上的那些无衬线体——大多数都是几何无衬线体。但当你真正仔细审视它们时,你会注意到人们在里面做了各种小手脚来让它们看起来是完美的几何形状,尽管它们在数学上并不是完美的几何形状。这是另一件你可以做的事——不管你是在 Figma 里还是别的地方做——就是打几个小写字母出来。具体来说小写字母特别适合做这种分析,因为它们比大写字母更小。你通常需要在粗细上做不同的补偿。你会注意到,当笔画交汇的时候——比如我有一个 A,两条笔画在下方交汇的地方,笔画会在靠近交汇处变细一点。再比如一个双层 A——双层 A 就是有一条斜线然后在底部有一个碗部的那种——你可能会注意到 A 的那根竖线,碗部实际上会切入那根笔画一点,抹掉一点额外的粗度,因为如果你把所有东西都做得完全规整的话,那个位置在视觉上会显得更粗。这很奇怪,因为你先创造了一个完美的东西,然后又不得不让它变得不完美,才能让人觉得它是完美的。这就是另一个值得开始留意的有趣现象。在粗体字重上你会更容易注意到这一点,因为当字重很粗的时候,你一直在处理那些笔画交汇处的墨水堆积问题,必须从那些位置减掉一部分粗度,才不会让那个位置被感知为字母结构处的一个深色墨团。
我会想小写 R 和小写 N 的例子——N 或 R 的肩部出来的地方,有时候 R 顶部的宽度实际上比底部要窄,那就是为了在笔画交汇处减掉一些粗度。总之,这是一个值得留意的小乐趣。一旦你开始看到它,你就会在更多地方发现它的存在,而它出现的原因就是为了修正这种视觉粗细的问题。你会觉得:“天哪,我现在有透视眼了。我能看到以前从未注意到的所有这些奇怪的东西。“这非常有趣。不过总之,很多人——不管你是工程师还是设计师——刚开始做字体排印的时候,都不会考虑这一点。我总是只需看一眼就能判断一个人是真正的字体排印专家,还是这只是一个刚入门的业余爱好。
Lenny Rachitsky: 所以这个练习就是——打开 Figma,开始打字,把字号放得非常大,这样你基本上就能把字体放大来看。
Jessica Hische: 一个字母就行。
Lenny Rachitsky: 一个字母就行。
Jessica Hische: 把一个字母撑满整页,然后画一些竖线,或者画一个小圆圈什么的,看看在两道笔画交汇的地方和笔画只是竖直独立存在的地方,那个圆圈的大小是否一样。你会发现,即使是那些看起来极其刚硬、几何化的字体排印,也存在这样的差异。
回到最终标志
Lenny Rachitsky: 我想回到我的标志,把这个话题收个尾。聊聊我们最终定下的结果,为什么你认为那是最终答案,你觉得人们能从中获得什么,想到什么说什么都行。
Jessica Hische: 当然。我觉得最终答案或者说最终的标志,我们走了很多条不同的路径,看看它最终会落在哪。但最终还是保持了相当接近初衷的方向,真正聚焦在火焰这个核心资产上。我们尝试了太多不同的版本——带火焰的麦克风、带火焰的棉花糖等等。但有时候最简单的方案就是正确的方案。我不知道,我只是觉得就我们把整个品牌系统展开、让它真正统一协调这件事来说,我们走了很多方向,比如可能根据不同尺寸有不同的标志版本,但最终落在了一个在整个体系内更加统一、一致的位置上。
Lenny Rachitsky: 对,也许我们可以——不知道你是否愿意——我们可以把所有迭代过的版本分享出来。
Jessica Hische: 哦,当然,我很喜欢分享迭代过程,非常有意思。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的,太好了。播客标志我们遇到的最大问题是,最初我觉得放个麦克风是合理的,可以跟邮件通讯区分开来。但做到最后就觉得,“为什么我们要把这个该死的麦克风放在里面?感觉很奇怪。“于是我们重新审视了整个想法,砍掉了麦克风,回到了另一个带棉花糖的壁炉版本。
Jessica Hische: 对,我很喜欢棉花糖。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太棒了,我也很喜欢。我太太……我太太也很喜欢棉花糖,而且它非常灵活,我们可以用很多不同的方式来使用它。
Jessica Hische: 确实。
手写体与方块字母
Lenny Rachitsky: 我想最后再聊一个线索——我们探索了你从零创作的手写字体排印,然后还有方块字母。也许可以说说对这两个方向的看法,各自的优势,以及为什么选择其中一个方向而不是另一个?
Jessica Hische: 手写的那个我真的很喜欢,因为我觉得我们可以把插图的线条品质带入到手写感里。但手写体唯一的问题是,如果你想把它扩展出去,想在品牌其他地方也加入手写元素,要找到完美匹配的东西而不去专门设计一套定制字体,这是一件很麻烦的事。我真的很喜欢把两者结合起来,这样我们就有一个更丰富的视觉语汇可以调用,因为你将来会有标题、副标题,还有字体排印的各种其他用途。如果你只有一样东西可以调用,那就很难操作。当你有几样可以互相搭配的元素时,就会好很多。就像衣柜一样——如果你只有一件衬衫和一条裤子,你能做的搭配就那么多。但如果你有所有这些可以互相组合的物件,那你就能轻松地构建出一整套品牌系统。
Lenny Rachitsky: 对,这也是跟你合作我最喜欢的一点,就是你创作了这么多不同的变体和使用方式。不一定非得是手写的那种,也可以是粗轮廓方块的那种。不是那种”就这样了,什么都别改,这是唯一的用法”。
Jessica Hische: 这部分原因是,有些品牌——如果你是一家大公司,几百名员工,产出成百上千的东西——有时候素材太多反而会把事情搞复杂。因为除非你有一本写得非常详尽的品牌手册,指导所有操作,而且大家都在严格遵循,否则素材可能在整个体系中泛滥,被错误地使用。但因为你不是一家大公司,你对正在发生的事情有创作控制权,可以引导方向,所以我们在素材上可以更加灵活,给你更多不同使用方式的空间。这取决于你对所有经手品牌素材的人有多信任。
我的理念是,你不应该需要一本五百页的品牌手册才能指导品牌未来的使用方式。如果需要的话,那说明品牌本身可能相当复杂,甚至可能只是标志中有些部分让它在实际使用中变得困难。我设计标志时始终追求的目标是,设计一个用起来非常简单的标志,不需要是非常专业的设计师也能用好它。这是我的头号目标,因为我知道不是每个人都处于拥有内部品牌团队或超级明星设计师的阶段,能驾驭非常复杂的素材并让它们看起来好看。
我就是希望素材自身就能教会你怎么用——通过它们的存在方式,自然而然地告诉你该怎么使用。你,作为一个有基本审美判断力的人——而且希望你公司招聘的任何岗位的人都有一定程度的审美——你招一个工程师,他在工程方面得有审美判断;你招一个市场人员,他在市场方面也得有审美判断。他们应该能看一眼就直觉地知道该怎么用,而不需要被明确告知”不要这样做”。
品牌被高估的力量
Lenny Rachitsky: 这正好可以接上你之前提到的一个我想回来聊的点——在你看来,很多公司对品牌的力量、对品牌焕新、对品牌能解决多少问题赋予了过高的权重。能不能再分享一下你的看法,谈谈这对人们来说可能是一个怎样的问题——他们几乎过度强调了品牌的力量?
Jessica Hische: 对,这个问题要分情况来看。有些公司,品牌本身就是一切——它们做的事情本来就不是什么疯狂创新的,品牌才是整个公司的核心,这没问题,这完全是一种正当的做法。就像有些人能够吸收信息,然后以另一种方式重新传达给另一个受众群体,用原始信息做不到的方式触达那些人。想想所有写心理学、医学以及各种领域通俗读物的人——他们在阅读医学论文,消化所有这些庞大而复杂的数据,然后将其转化为普通人能读懂的东西。我觉得确实有公司在做这样的事——它们拿一个并不创新的东西,或者说并非只有自己在做的东西,重新包装,让它变得对如此多的人来说触手可及。
在这种情况下,品牌可能极其重要,因为品牌真正在向人们展示你所做的事情是有价值的。但对很多人来说,品牌应该是某种程度上隐形的,好让产品本身成为主角。想想我们使用产品时的体验——有时候有些产品在使用过程中融入了大量的趣味和愉悦感,这可以通过品牌、通过设计选择等途径实现。而有时候,愉悦感恰恰在于使用产品时没有任何东西挡你的路。你只需要想清楚你公司的精神内核是什么——整个理念是做好一件事,简单地把事做好,确保一切都不妨碍那个体验?还是说我们要创造一种令人愉悦的东西,或者我们要把它打开给新的受众?取决于目标是什么,品牌在那个等式中的位置也会不同。
非技术背景的独特视角
Lenny Rachitsky: 我觉得你对品牌力量以及科技公司对品牌需求的这种独特视角,可能源于你本身不是一个科技圈的人。你和科技圈的人合作,和科技公司合作。你觉得这一点是否影响了你的思维方式,以及你为公司带来的价值——给了他们这种非常外部的视角?
Jessica Hische: 嗯,我认识的大多数从事品牌设计或传统平面设计、印刷设计的人,并不一定对如何建立公司有太多洞察。他们不是一大堆创业创始人的朋友之类的。而我一直处于一个非常有趣的位置——在湾区的一段时间里,我是每个人身边的那个”创意人”代表,而且这种情况持续了很久。我记得2009年还是2010年左右,我在一个硅谷活动上做过分享,是关于硅谷女性的活动。作为一个从未真正在科技公司工作过、却感到如此参与其中并理解这一切如何运作的人,这种体验很有意思。我的伴侣,我们之所以在湾区,是因为他2011年被 Facebook 录取了。当时我们已经算”老人”了。这话你听着就行,别评判我。
因为我们来 Facebook 工作的时候已经二十八、二十九岁了,而那里所有人都是二十三、二十四岁。所以我们在湾区最终认识的人更多是和我们同龄的、正在出去创办公司的人。我们就这样非常清晰地看到了那个视角——自己出来单干是什么样,融资是什么样,做所有这些事是什么样,转型是什么样,做些实验性的小应用看看能走多远,作为团队被收购和作为技术被收购有什么不同。我得以看到这些,而我觉得很多做我这一行的人看不到。这让我对作为创始人想要打造品牌的心情非常共情。我理解你的资源有限,那些资源不一定会投入到做一次20万美元的品牌探索上——因为当你总共只有50万美元撑一年去启动事情的时候,你当然不应该把一半的钱花在品牌上。
这是我的观点。但这并不是说品牌不重要,也不是说品牌不能在某个层面上介入,或者不能被视为你和另一个人之间的合作关系……现在有一种叫 fractional leadership 的概念,我觉得它还没有真正渗透到我的圈子里,但我不明白为什么没有,因为大多数公司在非常成熟之前都没有内部沟通团队、内部品牌团队。这个理念是,你可以在需要的时候请一位真正的专家——不管他擅长什么领域——他们以顾问的形式拿一些股权之类的。这种做法应该更普遍,因为人们在前六个月到一年内不一定需要内部品牌团队,除非他们的增长非常显著。
定价方式
Lenny Rachitsky: 沿着这个思路,你在定价方面有相当独特的方式。对于那些可能想和你探讨合作的人,能不能分享一下你对定价的思考,最好能给一个量级的概念,让他们觉得”哦,好的,我们确实应该考虑这个”?
Jessica Hische: 回到我之前说的流程——一切都要弄清楚人们想达成什么目标,所以我的很多流程会根据我们探索的范围有多广来调整。我的做法是,我把品牌设计工作当作和商业 lettering 项目差不多来对待,这不太典型。品牌设计的人通常的做法是——因为客户最终无论如何都必须完全拥有这些资产——他们倾向于把客户拥有所有东西这一点在推进过程中就计入账单,本质上都是 work for hire,但核心理念是对所有产出的内容做买断。这意味着当品牌代理公司给你报价时,他们把买断权利算进去,分摊到每一轮工作中,所以每一轮都变得更贵,因为你在拥有所有的作品。
我的做法是把它当作商业 lettering 项目来处理。我会说:“你最终必须拥有这个的权利,但我们可以把它拆开来,让创作过程更轻量、成本更低,这样我们就有更多探索的空间。如果某个利益相关者最后一刻跑进来把一切都推翻,我们需要从头开始,你不需要为拥有我们创作的所有东西而付费——你只需要为最终被选中的那个作品付费。“我真的很喜欢让创作过程保持更灵活的理念,试图根据人们的需求来调整,而不是用一种非常僵化的方式来处理一切。有时候人们会非常早就把我拉进流程中——如果他们有内部团队,或者正在和外部代理公司合作,他们会希望我从一开始就在场。
Jessica Hische: 有些人会说:“我们没什么预算,打算尽量在内部把事情做到位,但最后能不能请你来让它看起来漂亮?只要我们能让大家认可,把事情推到八成好的程度。” 根据客户的预算和需求,我有不同的合作方式。还有一个重要的原则是,我不想踩任何人的脚趾——有时候公司内部有非常优秀的设计师,而作为一个从公司起步的设计师,你本以为有机会参与品牌最重要的资产的创作,结果公司却把活外包给别人,不让你碰——这种事情让人很沮丧。对我来说,这是让我做出来的东西立刻被毙掉的配方,因为内部会有人觉得”终于轮到我大显身手了”,然后就会把我所有的工作都推翻。
所以我一直在想的是:“我们怎么协作?我怎么才能成为你的助力,而不是在踩你的脚趾,不是在抢内部那些跃跃欲试的人觉得最有意思的活儿?” 我希望他们能尽可能地参与进来。不过话说回来,情况变得挺有趣的。品牌行业的人会告诉我我定价太低了,他们会说:“以你做的这些事情来说,至少应该是六七万美元起步。” 而我觉得我做的大多数项目最终都在两万五到三万五之间,不过取决于你把我以什么角色引入,如果只是作为顾问,费用可以更低。请一个真正的专家来做这些事情并非天方夜谭,并不是说你需要往品牌上砸五十万美元——那完全是另一种体验了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太好了,谢谢你分享这些。在我们聊你做的其他事情之前——就像你开头说的,你在这类工作之外还有很多其他事情在做——关于和你合作 logo 焕新,或者关于 logo 和我们讨论的这个领域,你还有什么觉得可能对大家有帮助或重要的想说的吗?
Jessica Hische: 最重要的是审视现有的东西,真正搞清楚它哪里不对劲,以及你的目标是什么。就像我之前说的那个”直觉的反向论证”——如果你知道 logo 还没达到你想要的状态,就花几天时间问问自己为什么。“到底是什么地方让我不舒服?” 不要一上来就具体到”那个 R 怎么怎么样”之类的。也许那个确实是我们后面会讨论的点,但一定要先想大局,再想细节,因为有时候人们会朝我扔一堆细节问题,但他们其实并没有真正停下来思考,困扰他们的到底是什么。
如果你总是在处理细节之前不去解决大局问题,你永远也到不了那个终点。你一定要从最顶层开始,问自己一些非常宽泛的问题——为什么觉得它不好——然后一层一层地收紧。到最后可能确实是”这个 C 一直让我不舒服”,那当我在做焕新的时候,我们可以具体讨论这个。但我也需要理解我们做这件事的整体原因,而不是仅仅那个只困扰你个人但可能不困扰其他人的小毛病。
从模糊感觉到清晰方向
Lenny Rachitsky: 对。我当初想这件事的时候,整体感觉就是”这个可以更好”。我最初就是这么想的——就是觉得它可以好很多。我想对一些人来说,这样就够了——“我觉得这个可以更好”,然后把东西交给对方。
Jessica Hische: 对,对一些人来说确实够了。我觉得你个人的情况是,你所有的品牌物料已经有了一个非常明确的调性。有些人的品牌完全是一堆随机趋势的杂烩,没有真正清晰的声音传递出来。但我觉得你做这个已经有一段时间了,当你把所有东西放在一起看的时候,确实能感受到一个非常清晰的愿景和氛围。我一直跟人说,视力不好在 logo 和品牌这件事上可能是你最大的资产,因为它让你……
如果你视力不好,就把眼镜摘了,去看那个东西,在你看不清细节的状态下去感受它。你必须眯着眼睛、带着模糊的视线去看它——这个东西整体给人的感觉是什么?尽量从最宏观、最混沌的层面去感受,而不是纠结于那些一个一个的具体细节。我觉得当你模糊着眼睛看你的品牌时,它已经有一种很清晰的整体性了,我们要做的只是把它打磨到一个更统一、更专业的状态。
Lenny Rachitsky: 嗯,现在这个新方案正在成型,我已经看不了旧 logo 了,所以我真的很期待它最终面世。最后还有几个收尾问题。第一个是,你在字体排印和 logo 焕新之外还有很多其他事情在做——儿童书、经典文学的 lettering、奥克兰的一家商店。聊聊你正在做的这些其他事情吧,也许大家会感兴趣。
Jessica Hische 的其他创作世界
Jessica Hische: 当然好。就像我们之前聊到的,我在湾区这边,工作室在奥克兰市中心。我的工作室就像芭比的创意梦想屋——顶层是我的办公室,就是我现在所在的地方,底层的一侧是一个工坊。我做很多版画。我上的大学非常注重跨学科创作,我觉得我把很多手工模拟工艺融入到了我的作品中。我认为在创作过程中制作实体物件非常重要,所以我做大量版画。底层另一侧是一家实体店铺。我一直想拥有一家实体店,因为作为艺术家,我认为让人们与你的作品产生实体的连接是非常重要的。
我觉得人们请我帮他们做事的原因之一是,和一个对自己领域真正痴迷的专业人士合作的好处在于——他们会带你走过整个旅程,用他们的眼光和经验赋予你谈论这件事的语言。对我来说最有趣的事情之一,其实是告诉客户、教他们了解我们在整个过程中做的所有事情,然后他们就像一个新晋的字体极客一样走进世界,能把这些东西传达给其他人。这种连接真的非常重要——与作品的连接、作品背后的故事。我觉得这是我们创造持久作品的方式之一,就是理解作品的存在是因为它背后有一个故事。如果一件东西只是因为美学而存在,或者只是快速做出来的,它很容易被丢弃,因为它背后没有故事。
但如果你想想你生命中那些一直陪伴你的物品,有什么是你从五年级起就一直拥有的、至今还神奇地留在你家里的东西?你之所以保留它,是因为那个东西的故事对你如此重要。我认为我们创造的作品、我们所做的设计,也可以拥有这种特质。它可以被注入如此丰富的故事和意义,以至于当我们想要放手时,会犹豫说”但是这个……”。我认为打造持久品牌的方式之一,就是确保创作它的故事让人感到如此真实、如此切身、如此重要。这家店就是让人们与我创作的其他作品——比如版画之类的——产生实体连接的一种途径。
至于童书方面,那同样是为了创造持久的东西。我喜欢在世界中创造实体物件。我喜欢把我在心理治疗中学到的东西,重新包装成孩子们能欣赏和喜欢的方式。我一直在思考:如何用一种从未被采用过的方式,去说那些已经被说过的话。如果我能把它变成一个人们可以拥有和欣赏的实体物件,那就更好了。不过说实话,我也说不太清。虽然从职业角度看,我的工作被认为是相当小众的,但我觉得我做的所有事情其实相当多元,因为它们触动了我大脑的不同部分。我需要用不同的方式使用双手,用不同的方式使用头脑。这也是我一直以来大体上能避免创意倦怠的原因——就是在不同类型的工作之间切换,在不同的时间对不同的事情感到兴奋。
Lenny Rachitsky: 如果有人想去逛逛这家店,怎么找到它?叫 Jessica and Friends,对吗?
Jessica Hische: 对,叫 Jessica Hische and Friends。
Lenny Rachitsky: Jessica Hische and Friends。
Jessica Hische: 谷歌搜索 JH&F 就行。
Lenny Rachitsky: 谷歌地图,对。
Jessica Hische: 嗯,我在谷歌地图上把 JH&F 加到了店铺名称里,这样就不用向陌生人拼读我的名字了,因为我的姓是那种奇怪的德语拼写。我还开了第二家店叫 Drawling,就是 drawing 里面塞了个 L。那是一家全年龄段美术用品店,偏儿童美术用品店的方向。那家店也是从 JH&F 衍生出来的。这两家店都在营业。至于我的书,你在任何喜欢的书店搜索我的姓就能找到。
AI 角落
Lenny Rachitsky: 最后一个问题。我就抛出来,看看能不能引出什么有趣的内容。我们这个播客有一个环节叫 AI 角落,我喜欢了解大家如何在工作和生活中找到使用 AI 的方式,来提高效率、做有趣的事情。你在自己的工作中有没有找到什么使用 AI 的方式,让你做出更有趣的东西?
Jessica Hische: 有一点。我在 AI 方面处于一个非常有趣的位置:我的伴侣在 Meta 做生成式 AI 相关的工作,他是 Meta 生成式 AI(GenAI)团队的总监,对 AI 整件事非常投入。而我对它对我们许多工作的影响则有些……说不清的感受。我认为从长远来看,它会成为一种工具,在很多不同领域都非常有用。但我认为在当前这个它还更像新玩意的阶段,对插画之类的事情不会产生最好的影响。不过最终我们都会度过这一段,一切都会好起来的。至于如何将它融入我的创作流程——去年我为 Salesforce 做了一些工作,Dreamforce 大会的主题将非常以 AI 为驱动。我觉得我需要把 AI 作为创作那件艺术品的生成过程的一部分来探索一下。
我确实尝试了创作自定义的字母绘制,然后把它放进 Stable Diffusion 里运行,让 Stable Diffusion 以不同风格生成我的字母绘制的变体。我们在制作一些云朵。最终我们没有采用那个方案,但看到效果还是挺有趣的。我能看到它在创意迭代过程中的价值。对我来说最重要的一点可能是——我发现那些拖沓、缓慢的琐碎工作对我来说反而非常有满足感,而许多 AI 的布道者会说:“想象一下,如果你可以把所有时间都花在高层次的思考上、提出概念、引导方向之类的事情上,然后把你不在乎的其他所有事情都交给 AI 去做。“对我来说,这听起来并不是最完整的工作方式,因为我之所以做所有这些事情、我的流程之所以是这个样子,是因为虽然我热爱思考、热爱构思概念性的东西,但我觉得这些非常耗费脑力。
我需要通过做一些更低调的制作层面的事情来让自己喘口气。那是我最喜欢的阶段——我们知道要做什么了,现在就是去执行。比如评判标志的时候,我最享受的日子就是那种我清楚地知道要做什么,剩下的就是移动小小的贝塞尔手柄(Bezier handles)、调整到感觉对了为止——那些时刻对我来说是纯粹的治疗和禅意。我想我工作中永远会保留这一部分,大概不会让 AI 来输出这部分。但我确实在迭代过程中让它帮了一些忙,既包括通过那个项目生成草图,也包括在我的童书写作等方面,用它来生成彼此关联的词汇和概念列表之类的。
我发现 Claude 和 ChatGPT 在这类事情上非常擅长。我现在正在写另一本童书,在思考它可以往哪些方向发展。其中一个方向是描绘不同的感受之类的。我可以坐在那里头脑风暴各种不同的情绪,或者我也可以直接问 Claude”列出50种情绪”,然后从中挑选出感觉合适的。我确实发现它很适合那种早期的头脑风暴阶段,这真的很好用。
新书预告
Lenny Rachitsky: 在我们进入激动人心的闪电问答之前,还有什么想和听众分享的吗?
Jessica Hische: 有的。嗯,我确实有一本新童书将在十月出版。
Lenny Rachitsky: 噢,太好了。
Jessica Hische: 除了所有标志相关的事情之外,请一定看看我的童书。这本书叫 My First Book of Fancy Letters,是对字母图画书的一种全新演绎。但它不是给刚出生的宝宝的那种字母书——当然你也可以买给刚出生的宝宝,因为它非常简单、有趣,宝宝会喜欢那些明亮的图画——它是面向那些已经能认出字母但还不一定能读写的年龄段的孩子。因为这个年龄段的孩子会非常着迷于看到用不同风格绘制的字母,然后想象其他字母可以怎么画。每个字母都被绘制成代表它所对应的那个词的样貌。字母可以是运动型的(athletic)、泡泡型的(bubbly)、或者诡异型的(creepy),然后就会引出”那么诡异的 C 应该长什么样?”
当孩子们开始理解字母的发音并认识字母时,他们就可以开始思考还有哪些词以那个发音开头,然后他们会开始列举各种东西,变成站在你身后指手画脚的小美术指导。给其他学龄前、TK 和幼儿园的孩子看这本书真的很有趣,因为他们会立刻说”R 应该是一条河(river)。它应该是一条河。“我就说”那你会怎么画一条河呢?“这就变成了一个有趣的想象力练习。所以一定要去看看这本书。现在已经开始预售了,10月22日正式上市。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太令人愉悦了。我知道你有好几个孩子。你是不是先从一个年龄段的孩子身上看到灵感,然后等到下一个孩子到那个年龄的时候,书正好写好出版了?时间上是这样运作的吗?
Jessica Hische: 是的,唯一的问题是,我的两个孩子……嗯,我的大孩子是个超级书迷,总是走在我们前面。她刚学会认字就说,“哦,图画书是给小宝宝看的。“现在她自己跑去 Pegasus 书店,直接问”你们的青少年读物在哪里?“店员说,“你才九岁,我们不会给你看那些,不过这里有一些中级读物之类的。“确实有那么点意思。你是一位家长,但你是一位孩子还很小的家长。孩子们才不想买你作为家长推销给他们的任何东西。我会有那种感觉——我收到那么多来自其他家庭的美好来信,说这本书是他们最喜欢的,每天晚上都要读,非常重要——然后我自己的孩子却说,“嗯嗯,这就是妈妈的书,随便吧。”
Lenny Rachitsky: 嗯,真是又甜又心酸。好了,说到这里,Jessica,我们已经进入了非常令人兴奋的快问快答环节。准备好了吗?
Jessica Hische: 准备好了。
推荐书目
Lenny Rachitsky: 说到书,第一个问题:你有哪两三本书是最常推荐给别人的?
Jessica Hische: Rick Rubin 那本讲创造力的书非常好,强烈推荐。我没听过有声书版本,我读的是纸质书,但我也听说有声书版本非常有禅意。我觉得它对于从事艺术创作的人来说是一种很好的”味觉清洁剂”,因为它既有高屋建瓴的视野,又有非常切实可行的建议,所以真的很推荐。在学习和理解字体排印方面,有一本 Cyrus Highsmith 写的书叫 Inside Paragraphs。这本书非常小,非常好消化。你上一次卫生间就能读完,而且插图非常出色,很酷。如果你想了解字体和字体排印的一些基础知识,这是一本非常好的书,极其易读,不像读 Bringhurst 之类的书那样——所以大力推荐这本书。哦,还有一本什么书呢?
我也不确定。我觉得我最后推荐的都是我目前正在读的书。这个月我读了 Patti Smith 的 Just Kids,我也非常喜欢,这也是……我觉得我读了很多关于做艺术家的书,而不是关于做设计师的书。那本书让我觉得非常有意思,听她讲述自己搬到纽约、一无所有的故事。只是努力想做一个艺术家、做艺术,而这就是驱动她和 Robert Mapplethorpe 所做一切的力量。我不知道,我只是觉得我在寻找各种方式,想跳出我那种以商业为导向的艺术创作思维,进入一个更加松弛、自由、由热情和情感驱动的空间,而不是被职业里程碑之类的东西所驱动。还有一张”外卡”推荐。我刚读完了 The Emperor of All Maladies。我就是很喜欢读关于人体生物学之类的书,觉得这本书完全令人着迷,所以也推荐读一读。
如何平衡时间
Lenny Rachitsky: 我忍不住想问,你怎么有时间读书、养孩子、做那么多项目、还经营一家商店?你的秘诀是什么?
Jessica Hische: 嗯,当了父母之后,你会对自己的日程变得非常狠。在办公室的时候就是埋头工作,所以我觉得就是要尽量保持那种专注度。我有一个习惯,就是在项目中来回切换——当我对一个项目开始失去动力的时候,就换到另一个。同时有多个项目可以推进,能让我保持工作的动力。我觉得这有点像 ADHD 的做事方式——我以一种方式开始一天,然后一旦开始失去动力,就切换到另一件事,再失去动力,再切换到另一件事,再失去动力,再切换到另一件事。我不是通过休息来恢复,而是通过做一件感觉新鲜的事来当作休息。这个方法非常有用。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这是个超棒的技巧。
Jessica Hische: 对,真的很有效。我也想告诉人们,我刚开始入行的时候,有一份全职工作,然后晚上做自由职业。人们会说,“你怎么不会精疲力竭之类的?“因为我的白天工作和夜晚工作完全不同,感觉像是做了两个独立的八小时班次,而不是一个连续的十六小时班次。我觉得这是值得思考的一点——你的工作中总会有些需要完成的事情,或者是你感兴趣和热爱的事情。只要保证这些事情之间有足够的多样性,你就能在更长的时间里对所有这些不同的事情保持热情。事实上,你的生活、事业和工作越单一,你就越快会精疲力竭,所以要确保你在所有做的事情中有足够多的变化。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这真是个超棒的技巧。幸好我追问了这个。好,回到我们的快问快答。你最近有没有特别喜欢的一部电影或电视剧?
Jessica Hische: Severance 是我看过的最喜欢的电视剧。
Lenny Rachitsky: 第二季要出了。
Jessica Hische: 我知道。我想到这部剧就是因为我知道第二季要出了,所以我特别兴奋,但我觉得那大概是我心目中排名第一的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 有没有最近发现并且特别喜欢的某个产品?
Jessica Hische: 哦,有。嗯,有好几个。有一个特别随机的,纯粹就是觉得好玩。有一个日本品牌叫 Penco,他们做了很多很棒的东西。我的店里就卖了很多他们的产品。我最近从他们那里买的一件东西是一个笔筒。它是陶瓷的,但看起来像一个纸袋,一个微微起皱的纸袋,上面印着 Penco 什么的。我就是非常喜欢那种把一个已有的物品赋予新形式的设计。我觉得那非常令人愉悦,所以那大概是我最近买进店里、自己也特别喜欢的东西之一。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太棒了。再挑两个问题。你有没有一个最喜欢的人生座右铭,经常想起、经常与人分享、觉得很有用、并在生活中践行的?
Jessica Hische: 作为一个字母绘制艺术家,说来有趣,总的来说我并不是一个爱收集名言金句的人。按理说我应该是,因为我完全可以靠做”live, laugh, love”抱枕之类的东西赚一百万美元,但我通常不会持续不断地收集名言。但我最近去 Portland 参加了一个叫 XOXO 的会议,其中一位演讲者在屏幕上展示了一句话,比我能想起来的近期看到的大多数东西都更让我产生共鸣。我觉得这就是我的新……那种让我想说”也许我应该把这句话文在身上”的名言。当一句话到了让你考虑纹身的地步,你就知道,“好吧,这是正式的了。“那句话是”hope is a discipline”(希望是一种自律)。我真的很喜欢这句话。它是 Mariame Kaba 说的。
希望是一种自律
Jessica Hische: 这种理念就是说,我们必须主动选择去创造积极性——这是一种选择。为了构想出那些美好的东西,你实际上可以围绕它建立结构和自律。它不是什么与生俱来的、自然降临的东西,你必须真正养成一种实践,去保持希望和积极。我真的非常喜欢这个概念,因为我在应对生活中的种种时也有同感——我们所做的一切都是一种选择,我们可以选择以一种方式来看待事物,也可以选择以另一种方式来看待。理解到你在这方面拥有力量,我觉得是非常重要的,所以我真的很喜欢那句话:希望是一种自律。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我真的很喜欢这句话。我喜欢任何能激励你不再觉得自己是受害者、赋予你能动性、提醒你拥有主动权的名言。
Jessica Hische: 没错。我觉得对我来说,最大的感受就是……因为我在应对困境时感觉自己的资源很充沛,因为我总是能够重新构建语境、重新审视。我认为部分原因在于我做了大量的直觉论证,就是我们之前谈到的那个——一步步梳理事情,追问”为什么会这样?那又是怎么回事?“当糟糕的事情发生时,去理解它为什么发生,然后理解接下来可以走的路径,以及你可以用不同的态度去面对它,从而帮助你走出来。
设计师的装修哲学
Lenny Rachitsky: 说得太好了。好的,最后一个问题。我知道你最近翻修了房子,效果非常惊艳,你也在网上分享了照片。你和一位很棒的建筑师合作,才让它变成现在这样。作为一个设计师,问题来了:你如何在信任对方的视角和设计方法,与你自己想要推动的方向之间找到平衡?作为一个设计师,你怎么找到这个平衡?
Jessica Hische: 嗯,其实我觉得信任别人让他们做自己擅长的事,对我来说还挺容易的。因为只要我找他们的时候心态是”我欣赏你、欣赏你的眼光,所以我才付钱给你”,那我最不想做的就是对他们进行微观管理。因为我付钱给他们的原因,就是我自己没有那个精力去做。因为说实话,我是那种人——如果我什么事都没有,如果我的工作彻底没了之类的,我大概会是那种每六个月就专攻一个不同领域的人,会说”我现在要从头开始造一栋房子”之类的。我就是觉得自己有能力做任何想做的事,因为我知道自己可以找到所需的资源。
当我雇佣别人帮我做一件事的时候,其中就包含着对他们所做的事情的信任,这也正是我想和他们合作的原因。在房子这件事上,我对一些东西确实有想法。但总的来说,我的态度就是”这是你的专业领域,你是专家,你怎么看?让我把参数和需要考虑的事项告诉你。因为你对木材资源更了解,你对柜体间距更了解,等等,你根据我列出的这些来告诉我你觉得什么方案最好。“我觉得这对我来说挺轻松的。只有几个很细碎的微调事项让我有点焦虑。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我能想象建筑师和设计师会说,“糟糕,要和一个设计师合作,他们一定会有很多意见。“很高兴情况没有那么糟。
Jessica Hische: 我觉得自己在所有工作中的一大优势就是极度果断,并且理解每一个问题都有十个好的答案。有些人在做决定时是彻头彻尾的最大主义者,需要在选择一张灰色沙发之前把所有存在的灰色沙发都看一遍。而我呢,我可以看十张灰色沙发,然后判断出这里大概有两三种沙发类别,每个类别里有几个好的选项。这是一个我认可的品牌,以高品质著称。那张够好了。我可以非常快地做出决定,我觉得不是每个人都能做到这一点。而且我认为这一点渗透到了我生活中的方方面面。这在标志工作中绝对是一个很大的优势,因为在字体排印领域,你真的可以做任何事情。
它可以往五千万个方向发展。关键是要有人告诉你:“是的,我们可以把它带向任何方向,但这些是合理的路径。如果我们走这条路,这是最直观、最正确的做法,离我们最近、最容易触达的。我们可以没完没了地磨下去,但有必要吗?这个就很好了。“我不知道。我觉得这里有一种奇怪的认知,就是理解到没有什么东西是百分之百完美的,你能追求并达到的最高程度就是百分之九十九点八之类的。最后那百分之零点二,你可以花一辈子去追求,或者你也可以继续前行去做其他事情,理解到它已经近乎完美了。
告别与联系方式
Lenny Rachitsky: 这真的是非常好的建议,一条让人感到释然的建议。Jessica,能和你一起做这个标志是我的荣幸。我真的迫不及待想让人们看到它,让它成为我所做一切的新形象。最后两个问题。如果大家想了解更多、有可能和你合作,网上哪里可以找到你?听众们可以怎么帮到你?
Jessica Hische: 哦,当然。我有一个偶尔会更新的网站,地址是 jessicahische.is/awesome。你会发现我网站上有一堆奇怪的网址,那是找到我的一个地方。另外,我在 Instagram 和 Threads 上很活跃。我以前是一个非常活跃的 Twitter 用户,现在不太在那里了,我在各个 Twitter 的替代品之间跳来跳去,但 Threads 上还挺多的。Instagram 和 Threads 是社交方面的好去处。邮件的话也很方便,hello@jessicaHische.com。你们的读者能帮到我的,我觉得就是我在标志焕新方面的工作。我觉得这个受众群体完全就是我最理想的客户群,因为你们都是一群聪明、很棒的创始人,想要漂亮的标志,但理解有时候你必须先把第一个可行的方案推出来。等你准备好了,来找我,我帮你,效果会很好。
Lenny Rachitsky: 天作之合。Jessica,非常感谢你来做这期节目。
Jessica Hische: 很高兴来到这里,很棒的对话。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太好了。大家再见。非常感谢收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅。也请考虑给我们评分或留下评价,这真的能帮助更多听众发现这个播客。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多关于这个节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| Inside Paragraphs | Cyrus Highsmith 所著的字体排印入门书(不译) |
| Severance | Apple TV+ 出品的悬疑剧集(不译) |
| The Emperor of All Maladies | Siddhartha Mukherjee 所著的癌症传记(普利策奖获奖作品)(不译) |
| Bezier handles | 贝塞尔手柄(矢量图形编辑中控制曲线形状的操控点) |
| bootstrapping | 自力更生 |
| brand refresh | 品牌焕新 |
| Bringhurst | 指 Robert Bringhurst,所著 The Elements of Typographic Style 是字体排印经典(不译) |
| buyout | 买断 |
| Degular | 一款具有歪斜感的西文字体(不译) |
| FinTech | 金融科技 |
| fractional leadership | 分时制领导力(按需聘请高管/专家的模式) |
| geometric sans serif | 几何无衬线体 |
| James Edmondson | 字体设计师,Degular 字体的设计者 |
| Lenny Rachitsky | 播客主持人,产品/科技领域知名播客 Lenny’s Podcast 的主播 |
| lettering | 字母绘制 |
| lettering artist | 字母绘制艺术家 |
| logo refresh | 标志焕新 |
| Mariame Kaba | 美国社会活动家、废除主义运动倡导者(不译) |
| maximalist | 最大主义者(此处指决策时追求穷尽所有选项的倾向) |
| micromanage | 微观管理 |
| noodle | 磨(在设计中反复微调、过度纠结) |
| optical weight | 视觉粗细 |
| Patti Smith | 美国歌手、作家、艺术家(不译) |
| Penco | 日本文具/生活用品品牌(不译) |
| Rick Rubin | 美国知名音乐制作人,著有关于创造力的书(不译) |
| Robert Mapplethorpe | 美国摄影师、艺术家(不译) |
| sans serif | 无衬线体 |
| script | 手写体 |
| serif | 衬线体 |
| shoulder | 肩部(字母笔画部件) |
| Song Exploder | 一档拆解创作过程的播客节目(不译) |
| stakeholder | 利益相关者 |
| stress-tested | 压力测试 |
| super users | 超级用户 |
| swag | 周边 |
| two-storey A | 双层 A |
| typography | 字体排印 |
| venture money | 风险投资 |
| work for hire | 雇佣创作(著作权归委托方所有的创作模式) |
| XOXO | 在 Portland 举办的一个面向独立创作者的会议(不译) |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)