Interview: The Blind Foundation

On the eve of New Zealanders receiving their voting papers to rank the alternative flag designs I thought it timely to share an interview with the Blind Foundation.

A couple of months ago I stumbled on a Facebook post about their fascinating work to make the Flag Consideration Process more accessible. I got in touch with the Blind Foundation to find out how this had come about and to learn more about what they had created. Phil Turner (Accessible Formats Manager), with input from Helga Sonier (Engagement and Communication Adviser) and Dave Klassen (Production Team Manager) kindly answered my questions.

Although I’ve been critical of many parts of the Flag Consideration Project run by the government, there’s definitely been some well-considered and interesting issues addressed. In this case, the Blind Foundation have created an excellent resource of braille, tactile graphics and large print books to help those with a visual impairment take part in deciding and understanding the designs we’re about to rank.

So, sit back and find out more about an important and interesting phase of the process to make selecting an alternative flag more accessible.

Q&As

Dan (DN): How did the Blind Foundation become involved with the Flag Consideration Project?

Blind Foundation (BF): The Blind Foundation have a long standing and excellent relationship with the Electoral Commission. They consulted us very early on to understand the engagement required around the flag project in order to ensure inclusivity. Once things got rolling the flag panel were in touch directly about the website, accessible formats and communications. We scheduled regular meetings with the panel and the Electoral Commission and we have worked in partnership throughout the process.

DN: Were the books created with any involvement from the official FCP team? If so, what involvement did they have?

BF: The books weren’t created with the direct involvement of the FCP, but did utilise the official (and also accessible) descriptions that the Blind Foundation created in collaboration with the FCP.

Our original impetus for undertaking the work on the booklets was to supplement the work that the FCP was doing with the accessible brochures, official descriptions, DVD, etc. All of these are great but are based on descriptions using words, tactile diagrams are a unique experience that allow New Zealanders who are blind or have low vision to obtain the same information that a sighted person would get through a visual image.

DN: Was the foundation remunerated for the work by the FCP?

BF: The Blind Foundation has been subsidised by the FCP for the costs of producing the written accessible material, and the accessible descriptions that actually became the Official Descriptions released.

The books however, were completed using the Blind Foundation’s donated funds, such as from our Blind Week Appeal in late October.

Find out more about supporting the Blind Foundation.

DN: Can you describe the process and involvement the foundation had in creating the book/s? Can you also describe the different versions?

BF: The Blind Foundation’s Accessible Formats Service was solely responsible for the production of the books. The idea for creating them came about when we discovered some potential shortfalls in the way our clients were able to access flag information. We had done a project last year for Hamilton City creating accessible maps of Hamilton (press release), and we identified that the process we used for that could be modified to allow us to produce these books and address those shortfalls.

We have created two different versions of the book.

1. Large Print – a version that follows the Clear Print Guidelines. This version still has traditional text which has been enlarged to 18pt font size. Diagrams are done using swell paper (explained in the next question) which allows for lines and patterns to be felt. Note: users of the large print versions will use a combination of sight and touch to get a good overall picture of the flag.

2. Braille – this version is a little more foreign to sighted people. The braille versions of the book utilise a combination of braille and tactile graphics (again with swell paper). When using braille and associated diagrams, we utilise patterns and a key to show the various colours.

DN: How is a book like the tactile braille version produced?

BF: The books consist of two different inserts, normal 160gsm paper for text only content and a special swell paper for diagrams.

Text Content

Software - Text descriptions are created utilising specialist software called Duxbury.

Embossers – The final prepared files are embossed using our specialist braille embossers from Index. We have 2 of the Braille Box embossers costing the Blind Foundation approximately $20,000 per device. We have an array of other smaller capacity embossers to supplement our production capability.

Paper – We use a specially imported (from the US) 160gsm paper that works best with the embosser, having the best composition to hold the dots. The paper is a special size of 11 x 11.5 inches that matches international braille standards allowing for a suitable amount of content to be placed on a page. For consistency, we use this paper for the large print printed text version as well.

Staff – The Blind Foundation’s seven producers of braille are a highly skilled team with years of experience producing braille. Two thirds of their work is producing braille for students who are blind or have low vision, under contract to the Ministry of Education. The other third is spent on internal Blind Foundation work and special projects like this for central government, local government, community groups and socially responsible corporates.

Diagrams

Design - Initially the diagrams are designed using Adobe InDesign, making changes to the available flags in order for them to work tactually. Text is also laid out in InDesign.

Swell paper for diagrams – the swell paper that we use is a specialist product imported from the UK. Whilst we print on it using normal printers, the magic begins when we heat it through a specialist machine. The chemical make-up of the paper is designed to swell in response to the black ink pigment. The result is a raised tactile line with thickness dependent on the amount of black used in the diagram.

Collation

Finally, our Post Production team collate the books by manually compiling the outputs, adding hard covers, binding and labelling them.

DN: How are the two Kyle Lockwood flags distinguished in the book? Would it have been easier to have four distinct / different designs to compare via touch?

BF: We are able to work around the colours by utilising different patterns in the braille version. For the Large Print version it didn’t really have a significant impact.

It could be said that having the same design with different colours actually cut down the time we needed for production.

DN: Is there a particular design that lends itself to being reproduced and easily understood via braille?

BF: The two plain black and white designs are the easiest to be reproduced in a tactile format, although the Koru flag created a little bit of difficulty with providing an accurate text description. Accurately explaining the unfurling Koru, so that you could draw it was not as easy as you would expect.

DN: What happened with the inclusion of Red Peak? Was it a simple task to add another flag to your books?

BF: For the books that we have already distributed we will be sending them out as loose-leaf addendums. For any books we produce in the future it will be included as part of the book.

DN: How will the books be used and distributed?

BF: The books are available at our 18 Blind Foundation offices throughout the referendum process. After this they will be incorporated in to our Library Service and also, as an important part of New Zealand history, copies will be kept in our archive.

The Blind Foundation runs an accessible formats library for our members.

DN: Are you aware of any other examples of flags being made accessible for people with visual impairments? For example is there a tactile / braille ‘world book of flags’ that was used as reference? Or do you have any examples of similar projects?

BF: As part of our contract with the Ministry of Education we have created tactile flags for school students in the past. These are normally located within specific text books.

We’re not aware of an actual world book of flags that has been made into a tactile format, however it is highly likely that it does exist. Currently, due to the way copyright laws are setup, our ability to share with our international counterparts is limited. Neil Jarvis, Blind Foundation Executive Director Strategic Relationships, is spear heading a campaign in New Zealand for us to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty. Once ratified it will allow us to engage better with our international colleagues preventing double up of production work. For the moment however, we have to produce most content locally under a specific exemption to the Copyright Act 1994 (Section 69, New Zealand Copyright Act 1994).

DN: Did the foundation help with any other part of the Flag Consideration Project? For example accessibility on the official site?

BF: As mentioned earlier, the Blind Foundation created the official descriptions for the long list of flags to ensure they were as accessible as practical.

We developed accessible versions (braille, large print, etext and audio) of flag referendum leaflets and documentation. We will send these directly to our membership in alternative formats on behalf of the Flag Consideration Panel (FCP).

With regard to accessibility on the official site, we referred the flag panel to accessibility guidelines and other resources to ensure their site was amenable to people who are blind or have low vision.

We also consulted with regard to the best most practical ways our clients would ‘see’ flag information. Blind Foundation clients have been involved in the making of the instructional DVD and in the testing for the dictation voting process.

Another service not previously mentioned is our Telephone Information Service (TIS). The FCP have provided content for us to upload all public flag communications to the TIS. The service will synthetically convert the content to audio.

DN: Has the foundation had any involvement with the new ‘brighter money’ process and the accessibility of the currency redesign? If so, can you add any details and background to that process?

BF: Yes we have been. Some basic information can be found on our website. As with the Electoral Commission we have a longstanding relationship with the Reserve Bank. They consulted us early in the design of the new money to ask advice with regard to size, contrast, colour and overall accessibility. As such we were able to plan in advance any training requirements for our clients in accepting the new money and being ready for it’s introduction.

Furthermore we were involved with the Reserve Bank in the re-design of a note gauge that uses braille and large print to establish note denomination by touch. The Reserve Bank will be supplying our clients with this important tool as the new money is rolled out.

DN: Is there anything else you’d like to share or comment on about the flag process?

BF: I would like to yet again acknowledge the support of the Flag Consideration Panel in ensuring that this process is accessible to all New Zealanders. Their engagement with us through the process has been exemplary.

Thanks again to the Blind Foundation for taking time to answer and provide so much detail in response to these questions about the work they have been doing. Hopefully they highlighted an important part of the process to make the flag consideration project more accessible.

Interview: Thomas Le Bas

Continuing with the series of interviews I’ve been adding to the site, I asked designer Thomas Le Bas some questions this week.

Le Bas is the brains behind flagpost.nz, another Design & Democracy project initiative from Massey University. Built in collaboration with Springload, the site added the abiltiy to discuss, vote and annotate flag submissions of which the official site didn’t allow. The site also integrated flagtest.nz.

I’ve spent much of the process talking to Thomas, sharing articles, opinions, and providing feedback, so thought it would be interesting to document his views and experiences.

Q&As

Dan (DN): What is your Masters project and thesis about? It’s not “actually” about flags right, so how does it relate to the New Zealand flag consideration project?

Thomas (TL): As a designer that specialises in visual communication I certainly have an interest in the New Zealand flag, but the Masters has evolved to be about more than that. What I have been exploring with my research is how to facilitate a public design process that empowers the public. The goal being to get them to collaborate together, explore and contribute to discussion, and ultimately try make that engagement have impact on the outcome of the process. In short, Flagpost looked at empowering New Zealanders to work together on their own identity, connecting design process and solutions to people’s own values of national identity.

DN: Did you set out to create the flagpost.nz site, or did that come about from research and seeing how the official process unfolded?

TL: Flagpost came out of research, understanding (and foreseeing) the context, and development of ideas to explore the topic through design. The main catalyst was probably seeing that the official Flag Consideration Project was offering the “illusion of inclusion” through their standfor.nz public engagement initiative, and simply a lack of empowerment and two-way dialogue with design itself.

DN: How has flagpost.nz been recieved? Do you feel it’s successfully contributed to the process?

TL: The reception has been surprisingly positive. Given the amount of negativity on the standfor.nz platform I was thinking Flagpost might get the same. But I think the fact that Flagpost offered a more constructive space and discourse was directed at flag design, the platform didn’t act as a channel for backlash. As for contribution, I think it has helped some get feedback on their designs and engage with the idea of meaning and values in their designs more. My Masters so far has certainly opened my eyes to other perspectives and ideas, and has even influenced my own design process. Sadly, I wish there had been some opportunity to present my learnings and insights to the Flag Consideration Panel themselves.

DN: If you had the chance, what would you have wanted to share with the Flag Consideration Panel?

TL: It would have been nice to be able to present my process and research, but I think more so being able to present the findings from Flagpost. After all, it was these kinds of insights that I think would have been valuable to their process and could have offered some impact from the public engagement Flagpost had. But hey, maybe they’ve been using Flagpost all along and I just don’t know.

DN: How has your Masters project been received by the media? Have you felt their coverage and reporting on your work and the official process has been appropriate / ideal?

TL: Positive, but as always the more the merrier. I think Flagpost struggled to make that point of difference. It seemed to have a more nuanced purpose that was hard to communicate to the media and public—especially when media preferred the whacky and piss-take designs to the more meaningful and plausible ones offered by the public.

DN: Do you think the other last-minute sites that popped up using the NZ Flag API to vote and rank flags (for example: picking from two poorly designed flags and only being able to vote for one) without meaningful discussion added to the noise and was symbolic of what people wanted? The “tinder for flags” experience?

TL: I had consciously stayed away from the ‘tinder for flags’ idea. It had definitely come up in development, but ultimately it is a very shallow experience for both the public and for the selection process. I’m yet to delve deeper into research around these kinds of approaches, but essentially good design isn’t just found through democratic voting. Flagpost looked to offer more texture through the discussion space and tagging. It wasn’t always about the votes.

DN: What do you make of the official process and how submissions were collated and presented by the flag.govt.nz team?

TL: Collation and presentation seemed smooth, but I think it was the exploration and engagement aspect that was lacking—which is precisely what Flagpost looked to try do better. In fact, earlier in the year we pitched an initiative that would have sat in the space of public engagement and inclusion, to the Flag Consideration Project (prior to the Flagpost concept). This was sadly declined and Clemenger BBDO’s standfor.nz was what came out in the end. However, tools like flagtest.nz were a fantastic addition to the experience of Flagpost. It’s a pity more like this wasn’t offered from the official process to enable the public to test designs more rigorously, but my feeling is that it’s mostly a timing issue.

DN: I also attempted to get flagtest.nz included or intergrated with the official site, but unfortuntely that offer was declined and didn’t happen either.

DN: Do you think design has been involved at an appropriate level throughout the process (for example, not having designers represented on the panel)? Do you think this has impacted the results and selections in the “long-list”?

TL: Big disappointment here, especially given the results of the long list. I had a rather optimistic outlook on the Panel and their selection process, despite the lack of a design/vexillology expert. All along they said there would be design and flag expertise consulted —even the Designer’s Institute of New Zealand was apparently involved— but I’m really disappointed at the quality of the selection. I now have doubts about the rigour of the selection process and how much any designer or expert advice was taken into account.

DN: How do you think the roadshows and public consultation has helped? Do you think the “stand for” campaign helped shape submissions?

TL: I think the roadshows and meetings were needed to offer alternative engagement opportunities to the wider community. It is sad that the numbers were low and the media were able to exploit that, but I think more could have been done to get more aware of those events. I’m still unsure myself how the ‘What do you stand for?’ impacted on the process. Maybe it inspired people in designing flags, maybe it helped the panel make a selection—but I had difficulty connecting the arbitrary responses and the resulting word-cloud to anything visual, let alone flag related.

DN: How different is the New Zealand “long-list” to the process in Fiji with their variations (amalgamations) of ideas?

TL: Despite Fiji’s amalgamation approach (and the consistent use of their blue), they actually have far more variety I think. There are a few in there that show some influence of vexillological understanding, or as I would put it, speak in a flag language.

DN: What do you mean by “a flag language”?

TL: I suppose what I mean is the conventions and elemental consistency of flags—specifically national flags in this case. And I think this goes beyond the general principles of good flag design. Consider the differences between city flags; which host a troublesome amount of illegible seals, corporate flags; which are often just their logo on a stick, and the flag of South Africa. The flag of South Africa, and many other national flags, exercise an extreme level of abstraction and reduction that often results in pure geometric forms to express larger concepts. Something I’ve also noticed myself is that in national flags there is a lack of curves beyond that of circles or those that can be explained by simple math—what does that suggest?

DN: You re-organized the submissions to illustrate their similarity, was this responding to the lack of different ideas represented?

TL: Absolutely. It was clear that the panel had categorised them like this themselves, but mixed them up to present them to the public. To me it showed two things: there was a narrow range of symbolism they considered worthy, or at least weren’t interested in taking risk. But it also shows a lack of understanding for what this part of the national conversation could be about. Instead of giving us an array of themes and narratives (concepts!) they have unveiled shallow and poorly finessed options that differ on colour and which of three symbols is used (details). As a professional designer, I would not be presenting to a client variations in detail—otherwise that’s what the conversation becomes about, not concepts and meaning.

DN: How do you rate the panel’s performance and selection of submissions for the long-list?

TL: Poorly. Surely expert consultation would have at least picked up on the issues (and I don’t mean legally) that might arise out of having logos in the flag selections, or a bastardised Union Jack flag—the flag of another country! Even sketchier is the fact that you have 5 Kyle Lockwood flags, 6 Sven Baker flags, Gareth Morgan’s $20,000 winner, and the winner of an online crowdsourced competition. To me that suggests some unfairness and foul play in the selection, and simply a lack of design understanding.

DN: What do you make of the Gareth Morgan’s designmyflag.nz competition? Note: Le Bas submitted a design that has an unfortunate similarity to the official “winner”.

TL: Gareth’s competition was both good and bad, but I’m glad it happened. Through my Masters research I found that national identity tends to be controlled or swayed by those in power; Government, business interests, and the media—and Gareth has some of that. I was conflicted with this because I had wanted to empower the public. I was also werey of the fact that it was a competition ultimately judged by him.

Nonetheless, the positives were there. The competition gave design some monetary value—something that the official process completely lacked and ought to be recognised as having value (I remember Prof. John Burrows even saying at the Wellington meeting, “All the designer gets is eternal fame and glory”). It was also great seeing a brief used in his process that really helped give designs a direction and conceptual foundation, despite this being ‘Gareth’s brief’. The competition also pointed out the importance of designers and visual communicators on the judging Panel (despite him completely disregarding their selection). In the end, a valuable exercise.

Regarding my entry though, it certainly brought to my attention the lack of recognition for similarity of designs and ideas. I would have thought that if this were an open process, these kinds of things would be recognised; both in Gareth’s competition and the official process.

DN: What’s next for flagpost.nz and your Masters project? Do you have any other thoughts to share?

TL: What’s next is currently up in the air. I think the long list has thrown the project off a bit, but that could be a good thing. I was sort of expecting a large enough variety in the long list to engage the public more on the conceptual qualities and ideas, but I think that is much harder to do now. We will just have to watch this space. I do however look forward to seeing what the final four are, but more so whether we get any deeper insight into the selection process and thinking of the Panel.

Thanks again to Thomas for taking time to answer these questions. Hopefully they provide an interesting view on his Masters project and flagpost.nz site.

“Taking a leaf from Canada’s flag debate”

The NZ Herald has published an article today by historian Grant McLachlan with his opinions about the flag process. I’d previously been curating examples of the local media coverage, but had not discussed it of late. This pause was mainly due to the numerous self-promotion pieces surrounding particular flag submissions and a general lack of in-depth reporting critiquing the process, our identity and the flag designs. Thus, it was pleasing to see some interesting points made in McLachlan’s piece.

McLachlan starts off by highlighting the symbols present in the Canadian submissions and their similarities to the themes seen in the New Zealand process.

In Canada during 1964, initial designs proposed by a “special flag committee” were rejected. Canadians had submitted 3541 designs. Of those, 2136 contained the maple leaf (their silver fern), 408 contained Union Jacks, 389 contained beavers (their Kiwi), and 359 contained Fleurs-de-lys (their Koru/Southern Cross).

This is a fascinating example of another country’s struggle with a bias towards existing symbols and how they subsequently featured prominently in the Canadian submissions.

The flag.govt.nz team provided some “insights on flag designs” from the New Zealand submissions where we can see the themes and ideas used to represent “what we stand for” or more appropriately our people, country and culture. Unsurprisingly these themes (for example; peace, multiculturalism, independence growth, strength and sport), were illustrated with symbols influenced by their existing usage in New Zealand’s visual language. The Southern Cross (featured in 2919 submissions), Koru (1397) and Fern (1375) made up roughly a third of the submissions, with the Kiwi (440) trailing behind with the Union Jack (461). Note: of a total of 10,000+ submissions, many featured more than one symbol.

The flagpost.nz site by Thomas Le Bas & Design Democracy provides further in-depth analysis of the symbols and colours used in the submissions.

The public mind has offered up a vast variety of icons and symbols; Moa, Matariki, Waka, and even the odd laser-Kiwi and bicycle. However, the most common symbols across the flag submissions have been quite clear. These have been the Southern Cross, the Fern, and the Koru.

You can read more about the insights related to the submissions symbols & meanings along with a detailed breakdown of the use of colour throughout the designs on flagpost.nz.

Unlike New Zealand, the sentiment for change in Canada was very different. As usual, Wikipedia has plenty of information about “The Great Canadian Flag Debate”:

In 1958, an extensive poll was taken of the attitudes that adult Canadians held toward the flag. Of those who expressed opinions, over 80% wanted a national flag entirely different from that of any other nation, and 60% wanted their flag to bear the maple leaf.

It was still controversial, yet the majority of those who wanted a new flag were aligned with the idea of using the maple leaf. However, as McLachlan points out, the public mood changed on the announcement of the process.

Canada’s popular opinion was as fickle as ours. It went from being strongly in favour of a flag change to being strongly against when their Prime Minister announced the process to consider alternatives.

In this YouTube video titled “Canadian Flag Design Jeered” you can see the controversy captured by the media at the time.

One of the most amusing sections in McLachlan’s article is his opinions on our Prime Minister John Key’s (flip-flop) views in support of different designs. They illustrate how political both the process in New Zealand and Canada became, despite attempts to position it as anything but…

Key’s inconsistent public comments are the result of internal party rumblings. His original “doodle” was a silver fern on a black flag. He then strangely surrendered his support for a black flag due to Isis also having one.

Key surrendered our national colours to terrorists.

What I suspect really happened was that the National Party hierarchy protested at the removal of the Southern Cross from the flag, which appears on their party logo, at the expense of a silver fern, which appears on Labour’s.

I’ll write more about the use of black and the ISIS flag at some other point, for now though I find McLachlan’s thoughts about the potential impact of political party logos hilarious.

Finally, the thing that stood out the most and with which I whole-heartedly agree with McLachlan on is the irony that many of the final forty flags do not meet the published guidelines:

The greatest flaw in the process is that, of the 40 flag designs selected by the Flag Consideration Panel, only a handful meet the criteria of their design guide and their video describing “What makes a good flag design.”

Here’s part of the transcript from the “what makes a good flag design” video that DINZ helped create with the Flag Consideration Panel:

The Designers Institute of New Zealand have outlined five principles of design and how they can be applied to flags.

These five principles are: simplicity, colour, the rule of thirds, symmetry and asymmetry, and context.

The first is simplicity.

Flag design is an exercise in simplicity: the composition of basic elements in a defined field, a reduced colour palette, and no language.

The process should be reductive. It’s as much about what’s not included as what is.

No doubt there will be further critique of the process and finalists on the “long-list”. For now, the parallels to The Great Canadian Flag Debate are interesting to consider.

“Dear Designer”

Along with thousands of other “designers”, I received an email yesterday with the news a “long-list” of forty flags had been announced.

Unfortunately none of my designs made the cut. Below is the letter from the panel:

10 August 2015

Dear Designer

Thank you for participating in the New Zealand Flag Consideration Project by suggesting an alternative flag design to the Panel. We were thrilled to receive more than 10,000 designs and greatly appreciate the effort people put into these.

Each design was assessed by all Panel members on the basis of flag design principles and what New Zealanders have said they are looking for in a design for our national flag.

Unfortunately, your design has not been selected for the long-list of alternative flag designs.

Many of the designs suggested were outstanding. However, the Panel has had to select a limited number of designs for active consideration during the next stages of its process. Legal due diligence is now being conducted on those designs as the Panel works towards its recommendation to Cabinet of four alternative flags for the public to vote on in the first referendum later this year.

The Panel’s decision on the long-list is final and it has released this list publicly. Thank you again for your contribution to this nationally significant process.

Yours sincerely
John Burrows (Chair)

I was rather surprised that the Flag Consideration Panel and their “advisors” had not already undertaken any “legal due diligence” before announcing these flags for consideration. That seems like something that would have been worthwhile before presenting this list. The use of the Tourism New Zealand logo one of the obvious legal issues to explore.

The other point to note is the comment that “each design was assessed by all Panel members on the basis of flag design principles…”. Based on 10,000+ submissions I find that increasingly hard to believe that all were reviewed with the same rigour. Especially as many of the forty flags are variations of the same idea or theme and in some cases arguably don’t adhere to the “common principles” and design guidelines previously published.

I’ll write something separately about my opinions on the “long-list” as I find the Flag Consideration Panel’s selection at first glance generally underwhelming and rather disappointing. As many pointed out on Twitter the makeup of the forty flags lacked variation:

‘Red Peak’ & ‘Wā kāinga’ are only two designs that don’t feature either koru/fern or stars.

— Chris McDowall (@fogonwater) August 10, 2015

Somewhat un-related, I decided against using this site to promote my designs (other than the two early parody submissions “Beautiful Beige” and “Our Southern Swanny”), so for posterity here’s a list of the forty designs that I submitted.

The irony was not lost on me that the number of submissions selected for the long-list is also forty! Even more ironic was the timing of the announcement yesterday as it coincided with the Designers Institute of New Zealand (DINZ) Best Awards finalists being published. I was fortunately more successful in that competition with work I did with the team at Xero making this years awards.

Interview: Dave Clark

In an ongoing series of interviews relating to the New Zealand flag process, I recently asked Dave Clark some questions about the design of the All Blacks silver fern and his thoughts on the New Zealand flag.

With his name on the door, Dave is the Principle of Dave Clark Design. From the studio site:

Dave has been practising as a designer in New Zealand and Australia for over 30 years. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, an Honored Associate of Auckland University of Technology, and several-times-President of the NZ Designers Institute. Dave recently received the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Designers Institute of New Zealand for his work in furthering New Zealand’s design culture.

The All Blacks have long worn the silver fern as a symbol of New Zealand, and thus in this rather sporting mad country it has become one of our most recognisable icons. Multiple sports-teams, our military, businesses and organisations have taken the humble cyathea dealbata and created fern logos to embroider on shirts, adorn trucks, stationery, government departments and now there’s a flag process underway with many submissions touting the merits of a silver fern.

With a significant number of ferns appearing on flags I thought it would be interesting to find out from Dave, the designer of the current All Black logo, the history of the mark and his thoughts on the flag process.

Q&As

Dan (DN): Can you provide some background on the process you took to design the All Blacks silver fern?

Dave (DC): I used to play rugby for Ponsonby with well-known All Black Andy Haden, and he had talked to the NZRFU about being able to register their famous symbol, to make it registrable and able to be trademarked. He asked me to design the symbol that would enable them to do this in 1986.

DN: How long / how many iterations did it take? What was the approval process like? How many people were involved in the design process?

DC: I was the only one designing the mark. Nobody else was involved. I spent a long time researching it, getting a naturalist at Auckland Zoo to show me the correct plant, I also researched the historical usages, the way it had been used in the history of the country. After I had got a good idea of the background, I started designing. It took about three months to work through hundreds of iterations. I found it very hard to come up with something that looked different enough from the many other designs that existed. In the end I woke up in the middle of the night with an idea. This was to use the elongated triangle idea of the overall shape as the internal shape of the fronds, to make it more of geometric shape than a representation. I had done some earlier experimentation when I was at Art School along these lines. I rushed to my drawing board and within about an hour I had sketched out the whole thing, which I’ve still got.

DN: Why do you think the silver fern has such an important place in New Zealand’s history and subsequent usage in our graphic design language?

DC: Ferns aren’t unique to NZ, and were used a lot in British folk art in early Victorian times. However, they’re so much of the natural landscape here that it’s almost inevitable they’d be used.

DN: Can you share some of what you know about the history of the silver fern and it’s usage?

DC: The NZRFU Silver Fern seems to have become a national symbol when Kiwis want to quickly express their nationality. I must have seen it tattooed on at least ten or fifteen people.

DN: Are there any other comments about the experience designing the All Blacks silver fern you would like to share?

DC: I’m a bit surprised about other people using it or claiming it. The NZ Cricket team logo appeared in a very similar format shortly after the NZRFU Fern appeared. Another design company entered my design as their own several years ago in ‘The Best Awards’ and got a ‘Bronze’ for it. They still have it on their website.

DN: What do you think about the use of the silver fern as an option for our flag? Does it link us to the origins of the ferns usage with our military and our sporting history? Is this a good or bad connection to make?

DC: Makes sense. Inevitably strong symbols like this accrue negative links as well as positive.

DN: What do you think about the number of submissions using the Southern Cross? Is this a symbol that is unique enough to New Zealand? (It is in use on six flags including NZ).

DC: No, I don’t think its unique enough.

Thanks again to Dave for taking time to answer these questions. Hopefully they provide an interesting view on the background of the design of the All Blacks silver fern.

If you’re after more information about the silver fern, like it’s first usage as a symbol in New Zealand and other related trivia, the following links provide some in-depth research and history.

History Geek: The Silver Fern

NZ Design History: Designs On Flags

Wikipedia: Cyathea Dealbata (The Silver Fern)

Te Ara: Ferns In New Zealand Culture

Te Ara: New Zealand Identity