We’re constantly receiving multiple messages from our environment. They are communicated in different ways, one of them being design. The NY Times article refers to the confusion that can result when the design of a traffic signal has not been thought through so that the importance of the message is conveyed. Clearly, the person in charge of designing the new traffic signal has not evaluated the impact of the elements in the design, not even if it is right to the eyes of the receiver. The design has caused a different result than expected. It didn´t perform the function for which it was conceived.
Similarly, and based on the idea of the need for innovation to continue as part of a market (or "innovate or die" as we say in Spain) UPS or Citroën companies chose redesign their logo. In the author´s eyes, not a very good job, possibly damaging the image that the companies did have. I do not share this opinion, since Citroën worked on the new logo and grill design in tandem, even placing the new mark where it was traditionally. This is how a logo design remains in line with the actual designs of their new vehicles, which I think is a very good approach. (See images below)
In summary, the definition of good or bad graphic design, or functionality, can sometimes be subjective and dependent on the eye of who's evaluating, but it is quite clear that a product's value or image, can be changed by its design.
