The UK Government has refused to release any research or work-in-progress designs related to the recent brand refresh of GOV.UK.<\/p>\n
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has rejected a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from designer Matt Eason, who was curious to see how the new branding was developed.<\/p>\n
He asked to see audience and user research, initial concepts, in-progress designs, and, \u201cany documents, reports or presentations showing the progress of the rebrand, including the GOV.UK logo and wider design language.\u201d<\/p>\n
In March last year, the Government Digital Service (GDS) which oversees GOV.UK, awarded a \u00a3100,000 contract to user-experience firm Lnet<\/a>, to provide \u201cresearch and insight that will inform the development of a new brand identity for GOV.UK.\u201d<\/p>\n It then worked with ad agency M+C Saatchi<\/a> on the brand refresh, which was tasked with appealing to \u201cthe broadest possible audience\u201d across the website, the new GOV.UK app and social media channels.<\/p>\n The project was reported to cost \u00a3532,000 and the DSIT published new brand guidelines for GOV.UK in June<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201dAs we increase the number of places that people meet GOV.UK\u2026 we need our brand identity to do more,\u201d the new guidelines explain.<\/p>\n \u201cIt needs to be able to compete for attention in busy environments like social media, be equipped to come to life when used in formats including video, while remaining approachable and welcoming for all the people we serve.\u201d<\/p>\n As part of the new identity, the dot in the wordmark moved up off the baseline to make the name look less like a web address, and it was used more broadly as a graphic device across different channels, as a \u201cguiding hand.\u201d<\/p>\n The new guidelines also confirmed the use of primary blue and accent teal as the \u201ccore brand colours.\u201d<\/p>\n While the brand refresh \u2013 and its cost \u2013 received predictable mockery in the right-wing media, Eason\u2019s FOI request is about professional interest.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not meant to be a gotcha, I\u2019m genuinely curious,\u201d he explains.<\/p>\n Eason is head of design at Fivium, a software company that works with GOV.UK services, and he has implemented some of the new branding across various projects.<\/p>\n \u201cI am really interested to see what the process was from a user-sensitive design point of view,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat was the research that pointed to the existing brand not working well for some people? Why did they think that it had room for improvement? What were the different iterations and did they go a bit more wild and wacky with it, because obviously the new logo is fairly similar to the old logo?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIs it effective in solving the problems that it was designed to solve? That\u2019s why I want to see the research.\u201d<\/p>\n Eason says he thought it was \u201ca fairly uncontroversial request.\u201d But the DSIT disagreed.<\/p>\n In its reasons for withholding the information<\/a>, it cites the risks of \u201cpremature disclosure\u201d whereby people might, \u201cmisinterpret incomplete or preliminary information, leading to unnecessary speculation and concern.\u201d<\/p>\n It also said that, \u201cMinisters and officials require a safe space to discuss and consider strategies that may lead to formal policies without external pressure. Disclosure could inhibit free and frank discussions, leading to less effective policymaking.\u201d<\/p>\n Finally the ministry said some information was already in the public domain, referring to the brand guidelines.<\/p>\n Eason believes the refusal to share the documentation is a missed opportunity to understand how this ambitious government design project played out as a process.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a very unique brand because it\u2019s meant for almost everyone,\u201d Eason says. \u201cThere\u2019s obviously some research that shows it wasn\u2019t trusted enough amongst some areas of the population. It would be really interesting to see why that was, so it could feed into other areas.\u201d<\/p>\n And he thinks that showing \u201call the thought and care that went into it\u201d might blunt some of the criticism of the project.<\/p>\n But above all, he is frustrated that the decision goes against one of the GDS\u2019 Government Design Principles<\/a>, which states, \u201cMake things open: it makes things better.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe should share what we\u2019re doing whenever we can,\u201d the principles say. \u201cWith colleagues, with users, with the world. Share code, share designs, share ideas, share intentions, share failures.\u201d<\/p>\n This idea is re-iterated on the official Design in government blog<\/a>, whose boilerplate reads, \u201cWe believe working in the open makes things better.\u201d Its newsletter is called Open Notes.<\/p>\n Writing on LinkedIn<\/a>, strategist Adrie van der Luijt was one of several people who echoed Eason\u2019s dismay at the decision.<\/p>\n \u201cThe GDS has a long track record of publishing design decisions, user research, even rejected concepts,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThat openness has earned trust. It also clearly informs the work of anyone who contributes to GOV.UK and GOV.UK-inspired services.<\/p>\n \u201cIf there\u2019s research backing it, let\u2019s see it. If not, we deserve to ask why public money was spent on something so user-facing, with so little transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n The most in-depth context around the brand refresh<\/a> was published by a frontend developer on the GOV.UK Design System team, who blogs as beeps.<\/p>\n It explains that user research found that many younger people saw GOV.UK as \u201cmonolithic, unfriendly, and even intimidating\u201d and points out that the new logo was \u201cjust square one of a process that\u2019s going to continue for many more months.\u201d<\/p>\n The article also mounts a robust defence of the money spent on the project, in response to headlines like that in The Daily Mail<\/em>, which screamed, \u201cAbsolutely dotty! Government blows over half a million on \u2018vanity\u2019 makeover for website which involved moving a full stop.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis perspective only focuses on the logo, and completely ignores the other additions to the brand that are being introduced over time,\u201d beeps writes.<\/p>\n \u201cIt ignores that everything was tested, prototyped, refined, and tested again dozens of times with members of the public. It might not be obvious from a single side-by-side graphic, but a lot of time went into interrogating what we had and experimenting with what could be added.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was the full-time salaried efforts of dozens of design, development, and delivery specialists for more than a year. By that metric, it\u2019s actually quite cheap.\u201d<\/p>\n Eason plans to appeal the DSIT decision. He says he\u2019s got used to the new designs, although he doesn\u2019t actually think that\u2019s important.<\/p>\n \u201cPersonally I like the blue, but I\u2019m not keen on the dot,\u201d he says. \u201cBut overall, I don\u2019t really care what my personal feeling about it is. Is it effective in solving the problems that it was designed to solve? That\u2019s why I want to see the research.\u201d<\/p>\n The DSIT did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n