Visual Identity System

Proof required

Submit: (1) competitor audit (visual documentation of three competitors with your analysis of each), (2) brand strategy document (400–600 words).

What gets checked

• Three competitor identities are documented with visual evidence — not described from memory
• Competitor analysis identifies specific differentiation opportunities, not just describes existing identities
• Brand strategy defines a specific design direction — not 'clean and modern'

Common mistakes

• Brief is too vague — 'design an identity for a café' without specific client context, audience, and values
• Competitor audit is descriptive rather than strategic — identifying what exists without analysing where differentiation is possible
• Brand strategy stays generic — design direction that could apply to any brand

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check competitor audit includes visual evidence, not written descriptions
• Verify brand strategy defines a specific design direction — challenge student: 'what visual decision does this strategy exclude?'
• Ask student: why would a client choose your brand over a competitor's? If they can't answer, the strategy hasn't been developed

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your identity development as a PDF: three initial directions (with rationale), refined primary mark with lockup and favicon variant, colour system (hex codes + rationale), typography (typefaces, weights, usage rationale).

What gets checked

• Three directions are genuinely distinct — not the same concept with different typefaces
• Colour rationale connects explicitly to brand strategy — not 'blue feels trustworthy' generically
• Typography selection names specific typefaces with licensing noted (free vs paid)

Common mistakes

• Logo development produces variations of one concept instead of distinct directions — limiting the exploration space
• Colour system selected for personal preference rather than strategic rationale
• Typography selected for aesthetics without considering legibility at small sizes or digital/print context

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify three directions are genuinely distinct — ask student to describe the formal logic difference between them
• Check colour rationale connects to brand strategy — 'it looks nice' is not strategic rationale
• Ask student: how would this identity look at 16px (favicon)? If they haven't tested it, mark and monogram haven't been properly considered

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) brand guidelines PDF (minimum 12 pages), (2) critique session record (date, reviewer, specific feedback on identity effectiveness and guidelines clarity — minimum half page).

What gets checked

• Brand guidelines include do/don't examples — not only positive usage
• At least two application examples are shown in context, not on white background only
• Critique record documents specific feedback on both identity effectiveness and guidelines usability

Common mistakes

• Guidelines document is a style guide, not a usage guide — rules are not explained, just shown
• Application examples are mocked up on white background — not in realistic context
• Critique session focuses on personal preference rather than strategic effectiveness

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check guidelines include do/don't usage examples — do-only guidelines don't prevent misuse
• Verify application examples are shown in realistic context — white background mockups don't test the identity
• Ask student: if a junior designer had to apply this identity without asking questions, what would be most likely to go wrong? If they can't name anything, the guidelines haven't been stress-tested

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.