Brand Visual Language

Brand Visual Language

Visual shape communicates personality. A rounded corner says something different to the user than a sharp one — and that message arrives before they read a single word. The shapes in typography, border-radius, and iconography should tell a consistent story.

Shape Language

Every component — cards, inputs, modals, badges — should follow the same radius logic.

Radius for Large Surfaces

The perceived "roundedness" of an element changes with its scale. A radius that looks soft on a button may look sharp on a large container.

• Large Cards & Modals: Typically use a larger radius than buttons (e.g., if buttons are 4px, large cards might be 8px or 12px) to maintain a consistent visual tone.
• Wells and Background Sections: For large background areas or "wells," a smaller radius (2px–8px) is often used to provide structure and define the region without making it feel like a "floating" component. This keeps the focus on the content within, rather than the container itself.

Reading Shape from an Existing Brand

Before choosing a radius, look at the brand's existing materials:

• Logo: Is it rounded, geometric, or angular? The logo's shapes are intentional brand decisions.
• Product photography or illustration style: Rounded, bubbly illustrations signal a different personality than sharp, technical diagrams.
• Typography: A geometric sans-serif (Circular, Futura) reads differently than a humanist sans (Inter, Söhne) or a sharp editorial serif.
• Competitor landscape: Sometimes being the slightly softer option in a sharp market, or the more structured option in a playful market, is the differentiator.

Read the real shape language, don't infer it (dembrandt engine, optional). For a brand that already ships a product, extract its actual radius, type, and tone from the live site rather than guessing from the logo: get_brand_identity and get_design_tokens return computed values off the DOM. See `extract-design`.

Typography and Shape

Typeface shapes carry the same tonal signals:

The typeface and the border-radius should not contradict each other. A rounded, friendly typeface paired with sharp 0px corners creates visual dissonance.

Extending Brand Typography

Brand books often specify a display or heading font but leave body text underdefined — a single weight, no reading size, no fallback. This is common with luxury, fashion, or legacy brands where the brand identity was built for print, not screen.

When the brand book is insufficient for UI purposes, extend it deliberately:

When extension is justified:

• Brand font has poor legibility at small sizes (display fonts, decorative typefaces)
• Brand font lacks the weights needed for UI hierarchy (no regular, no medium)
• Brand font has no body or reading variant defined
• Brand font loads poorly (performance, licensing, web rendering)

How to extend:

• Keep the brand font for headings and display — this is where brand identity lives
• Add a secondary typeface for body text that is complementary in tone, not competing
• Match shape language: a geometric brand font pairs with a geometric body font; a humanist display pairs with a humanist body

Brand heading font (display, h1–h3): maintains identity
↓
Secondary body font (body, labels, UI copy): legibility and completeness

Pairing principles:

• Contrast in role, not in personality — the two fonts should feel like they belong to the same product
• Avoid two display fonts or two highly characterful fonts together
• A neutral, high-quality sans (Inter, DM Sans, Söhne) pairs safely with most brand fonts
• If the brand font is a serif, a clean sans body is the natural complement — and vice versa

Do this sparingly. Two typefaces is a deliberate extension. Three typefaces is almost always too many. Document the decision and the rationale so future designers do not add a third.

Iconography

Icon style must match the brand's shape language. Mixing icon styles — some thin, some bold, some filled, some outlined — breaks visual cohesion even when individual icons are correct.

Rule: Use one icon library and one weight throughout. If mixing is unavoidable (e.g. a specialised icon not available in the chosen library), match stroke width and corner style manually.

Use the standard icon; never invent one for a solved concept

Gear = settings, person = profile, magnifier = search, house = home, trash = delete, bell = notifications. Inventing an alternative here costs decoding for zero benefit. Search "icon [concept]" to check the convention before committing. Save design freedom for concepts with no established icon.

Icons let the eye skip the word — but only unambiguous ones, and only where scanning pays off (nav, status, row types). A vague or decorative icon adds work instead of saving it; an icon on every label is noise. Right icon, relevant place. See [[ui-density]] on reading as time.

Consistency Across Elements

All shape-bearing elements should follow the same visual logic:

Read the Guide's Scope Before Enforcing It

Find the guide's own scope statement before you enforce a single value from it. A manual written for print optimises for ink on paper, where a pale grey is legible and a licensed typeface is embedded once into a PDF. Neither survives a screen: the same grey can land near 2:1 against white, and the same typeface often cannot be served through a webfont pipeline at all.

Where the guide's medium and the work's medium differ, the guide is evidence, not law. Enforcing it literally produces an inaccessible product that is nonetheless on brand, and it discredits the guide with the engineers who then have to ignore it, which costs their compliance on everything else too.