detail and meaning

Martin Krautter: Let's start with a provocative question. There are already countless pictogram systems – why does unit-design keep on designing yet more new ones?

Peter Eckart: Pictogram systems have a context in terms of time and, in our work, often in terms of objects as well: a specific building or institution, for example. Standard pictograms are often too unwieldy for such applications.

Bernd Hilpert: Plus, we just enjoy coming up with pictograms. We're not even aiming for a general and definitive system – what we like are characteristic idiosyncrasies.

PE: We also try to incorporate our own design approach to all the abstraction inherent in pictograms. Our designs are supposed to be balanced and in proportion while functioning well in sequences and combinations. This is the kind of work that never ends.

MK: Could you compare it to typography and the diversity among typefaces?

BH: Within the bounds of basic symbolic shapes, there are plenty of possibilities for modulating quality of expression. That's why there are all kinds of pictogram systems, just as with typefaces. Depending on the context, you may want pictograms to be more straightforward – such as at airports, where safety and security are also important – or lighter and more humorous. That doesn't limit function or the ability to recognize the message.