Homework#1 How to Ruin a Great Design Response

I thought that the article was very interesting. I do not think I have ever looked at or considered the designs of signs in a way that I will probably look at them now. I have always looked at the positions of signs, for example while parking as poorly designed, rather than the design of the sign in general. The writer of the article made some interesting points that I had to dig into in a deeper way. I was unaware of what the original logos of UPS and befell Cintroen looked like. By researching a little more past this article, that helped me to have a better understanding of  the writer's point of view. After looking up the logos of the two companies, I can totally agree with the writer. It seems as though when other companies are engaging in a design change( which I do not think is a bad idea, depending on the outcome of the design), by the looks of the logo, it looks like someone has taken the lazy route and placed a sticker where there use to be an innovative masterpiece. A design which was created out of simplicity, which represented clarity is now another digitized logo that is no longer a good representation of its earlier intent. I understand the need for clear logos as it draws a person in and leaves no quesiton of what it is. It is concise and to the point and no one can ever question or argue about the clarity of the sign. It is what it says. I can also see the frustration of the company who partnered with the European McDonalds franchise. If I were the original artist of the chairs it would be a slap in the face to then see my word counterfited, and at worst to  purchase both the authentic and the counterfeit and put them in the same establishment. This was another article I had to research more on to get a better understanding of what happened. Although what McDonalds did was technically legal, as the  right to a design law only goes for 25 years, I thought it tacky. But at the sametime, customers will not probably know the difference too much. At most, cusotmers will walk in and see a make over, think it nice and continue to eat there without a second thought. McDonalds did what it had to do, but it does feel like McDonalds cheapened the authenticity by dismissing the value of the original creator.