GOOD

The Oscars Showed Us Why Typography Matters

It wasn’t the accountants’ fault

The difference between making an embarrassing mistake, and recognizing one.

There was a major twist ending and a major snafu at the very end of the 2017 Academy Awards for the category of Best Picture. The wrong winner was declared. If you look back on the footage and analyze it, you could read on Warren Beatty’s face that something was not right just before the Best Picture winner was announced.


[quote position="right" is_quote="true"]Typography is the art and technique of arranging type to make written language readable.[/quote]

Let’s quickly review the second-by-second timeline of what happened:

1. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway come out to present Best Picture, but are wrongly given the envelope for Best Actress, instead.

2. Warren reads the card, then stops for a moment to read it again to be sure (which the audience thinks is supposed to be comical). He even checks to see if there’s anything else in the envelope.

3. He then proceeded to show Faye Dunaway the card with a facial expression that likely reads, Is this right?

4. Before he could say anything to her, Faye automatically reads the card (which looks like she didn’t fully read it) and announces the wrong winner.

5. A mistake happened that has never happened in the Oscars’ 88-year history.

I would imagine there are multiple redundancies so that something like this does not happen—especially at the Oscars. But there’s one thing the Academy possibly didn’t consider (or forgot) for this year’s winner cards: typography.

Here’s the original screenshot of the Best Picture winner’s card:

Original televised screenshot. © ABC

First, it’s legible. You can tell all the letters apart. Second, it’s somewhat readable, but the visual weight of Moonlight and the producers names are equal and blend together. Lastly, even though it is just a winner’s card, it’s not visually appealing. I think it’s fair to say it’s objectively bland.


\n

Based on that card design, I’ve reconstructed the card Warren and Faye would’ve seen, the one they received:

That’s horrible typography. I will emphasize horrible again. Horrible. Or to be nicer, not good. Look at it again. Of course, anyone could’ve made the same honest error.

The words “Best Actress” are on there—at the very bottom—in small print.

You are on television with millions of people around the world watching. You are a little nervous, and you have to read a card. You will most likely read it from top to bottom (visual hierarchy) without questioning whether the card is right. That look on Warren’s face was, This says Emma Stone on it. Faye must’ve skipped that part to be caught up in the excitement and just blurted out, La La Land.

I don’t blame Faye or Warren for this. This was the fault of two entities: whoever was in charge of the design of the winning card (Was it really a design? C’mon.) and the unfortunate person who handed them the wrong envelope.

A clearly designed card and envelope (don’t even get me started on that gold on a red envelope) would've prevented this.

Here are the main three things wrong with the winner cards in general:

We all know this is the Oscars, but the logo doesn’t need to be at the top of the card.

The category, “Best Actress,” is on the bottom, in small print.

The winner’s name—the main thing that should be read—is the same size as the second line and given equal weight.


\n

Now, let’s imagine an alternate timeline where the presenters were given this modified version of the wrong card, using the same elements of the original card:

via Medium

It may not seem like much to a regular person, but changing the sizing, positioning, and weight of the text makes a big difference. A big enough difference that this embarrassing mistake could’ve been prevented.

Let’s analyze the differences between the original card and my modified card with a side-by-side comparison of subtle, yet important, changes.

Here’s what should’ve been changed based on the three critiques I just made:

1. The logo doesn’t need to be at the top of this card. Everyone knows it’s the Oscars. We move the Oscar logo to the bottom where it’s least important in this context.

2. The award category, “Best Actress,” is moved to the top so that it’s the first thing anyone sees and reads. There is no confusion what the category is because it’s clearly stated first.

3. Emma Stone’s name is bigger than the title, La La Land, because she is the winner of this category. The winner should be the most emphasized thing on the card with all other information, such as the film’s title, in a smaller or a less thick font (I understand that the text can only be so big so as to have a consistent look for all the cards while accommodating longer names).

That’s it. That’s all the designer needed to do. Those three things. I guess hiring a card designer wasn’t in the budget this year.

With a modified card, even if the presenters had gotten the wrong one, none of this would’ve happened because the presenters would’ve looked at it and one of two things would’ve happened: Their eyes would’ve read “Best Actress” or “Emma Stone.” Reading either of those would indicate that this wasn’t the card for Best Picture, and they would’ve asked Jimmy Kimmel or a producer to come to the stage to get it corrected.

[quote position="full" is_quote="true"]The card needed to be written and designed in a way that makes it clear to the reader only the essential information.[/quote]

The card needed to be written and designed in a way that makes it clear to the reader only the essential information. As a creator, the importance of typography is an absolute skill to know, and people—not just designers—should consider learning it. Typography can be immensely helpful when writing a resume that’s well-structured, creating a report that looks exciting, designing a website with an intuitive hierarchy—and definitely for designing award show winner cards.


\n

And lastly, to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, I would like to submit my design template for the 90th Academy Awards winner’s card (my commission fee is more than reasonable). The card is clean and easy to read for any presenter, with only relevant information. Even the words, “The Oscars,” don’t need to be on there (fewer words to read). The statue graphic works fine.

And big congratulations to Moonlight for winning Best Picture!

Oscar Winner Card, front mockup. © benjamin bannister

Oscar Winner Card, back mockup. © benjamin bannister

Articles

The healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom couldn't be more different.

The UK's National Health Service is the largest government-run healthcare system in the world and the US's is largest private sector system.

Almost all essential health services in the UK are free, whereas in America cost can vary wildly based on insurance, co pays and what the hospitals and physicians choose to charge.

A medical bill in the US

One of the largest differences is cost. The average person in the UK spends £2,989 ($3915) per year on healthcare (most of which is collected through taxes), whereas the average American spends around $10,739 a year.

So Americans should obviously be getting better care, right? Well, the average life expectancy in the UK is higher and infant mortality rate is lower than that in the US.

RELATED: The World Health Organization declares war on the out of control price of insulin

Plus, in the U.S., only 84% of people are covered by private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. Sixteen percent of the population are forced to pay out of pocket.

In the UK, everyone is covered unless they are visiting the country or an undocumented resident.

Prescription drugs can cost Americans an arm and a leg, but in the UK, prescriptions or either free or capped at £8.60 ($11.27).

via Wikimedia Commons

The one drawback to the NHS system is responsiveness. In the UK people tend to wait longer for inessential surgeries, doctor's appointments, and in emergency rooms. Whereas, the US is ranked as the most responsive country in the world.

RELATED: Alarmingly high insulin prices are forcing Americans to flock to Canada to buy the drug

The New York Times printed a fair evaluation of the UK's system:

The service is known for its simplicity: It is free at the point of use to anyone who needs it. Paperwork is minimal, and most patients never see a bill. … No one needs to delay medical treatment until he or she can afford it, and virtually everyone is covered. …

According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent 17.2 percent of its economic output on health care in 2016, compared with 9.7 percent in Britain. Yet Britain has a higher life expectancy at birth and lower infant mortality.

Citizens in each country have an interesting perspective on each other's healthcare systems. UK citizens think it's inhumane for Americans have to pay through the nose when they're sick or injured. While Americans are skeptical of socialist medicine.

A reporter from Politics Joe hit the streets of London and asked everyday people what they think Americans pay for healthcare and they were completely shocked.

Health

Bans on plastic bags and straws can only go so far. Using disposable products, like grabbing a plastic fork when you're on the go, can be incredibly convenient. But these items also contribute to our growing plastic problem.

Fortunately, you can cut down on the amount of waste you produce by cutting down on disposable products. And even more fortunately, there are sustainable (and cute) replacements that won't damage the environment.

Coconut bowls


Cocostation

Who says sustainable can't also be stylish? These cute coconut bowls were handmade using reclaimed coconuts, making each piece one of a kind. Not only are they organic and biodegradable, but they're also durable, in case your dinner parties tend to get out of hand. The matching ebony wood spoons were polished with the same coconut oil as the bowls.

Cocostation Set of 2 Vietnamese Coconut Bowls and Spoons, $14.99; at Amazon

Solar powered phone charger

Dizaul

Why spend time looking around for an outlet when you can just harness the power of the sun? This solar powered phone charger will make sure your phone never dies as long as you can bask in the sun's rays. As an added bonus, this charger was made using eco-friendly silicone rubber. It's win-win all around.

Dizaul Solar Charger, 5000mAh Portable Solar Power Bank, $19.95; at Amazon, $19.95; at Amazon

Herb garden kit

Planter Pro

Put some green in your life with this herb planter. The kit comes with everything you need to get a garden growing, including a moisture meter that helps you determine if your herbs are getting the right amount of food to flourish. All the seeds included are certified to be non-GMO and non-hybrids, meaning you can have fresh, organic herbs right at your fingertips.

Planter Pro's Herb Garden Cedar Planter, $39.00; at Amazonedar Planter, $39.00; at Amazon

Reusable Keurig cups

K & J

Keurig cups are convenient, but they also create a ton of plastic waste. These Keurig-compatible plastic cups are an easy way to cut down on the amount of trash you create without cutting down on your caffeine. Additionally, you won't have to keep on buying K Cups, which means you'll be saving money and the environment.

K&J Reusable Filter Cups, $8.95 for a set of 4,; at Amazon

Low-flow shower head

Speakman

Low-flow water fixtures can cut down your water consumption, which saves you money while also saving one of the Earth's resources. This shower head was designed with a lighter flow in mind, which means you'll be able to cut down on water usage without feeling like you're cutting down on your shower.

Speakman Low Flow Shower Head, $14.58; at Amazon

Bamboo safety razor

Zomchi

Instead of throwing away a disposable razor every time you shave, invest in an eco-friendly, reusable one. This unisex shaver isn't just sustainable, it's also sharp-looking, which means it would make a great gift for the holidays.

Zomchi Safety Razor, $16.99; at Amazon

The Planet
Instagram / Leonardo DiCaprio

This August, the world watched as the Amazon burned. There were 30,901 individual fires that lapped at the largest rainforest in the world. While fires can occur in the dry season due to natural factors, like lightning strikes, it is believed that the widespread fires were started by loggers and farmers to clear land. Brazil's president, Jair Bolsonaro, cites a different cause: the actor Leonardo DiCaprio.

DiCaprio wasn't accused of hanging out in the rainforest with a box of matches, however President Bolsonaro did accuse the actor of funding nonprofit organizations that allegedly set fires to raise donations.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet