Google’s look, evolved
googleblog.blogspot.com
Google’s look, evolved
1–10 of 447 posts
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#2From the video: "Think about how far Google has evolved from the ten blue links."
I do, and it's not always a good thing.
Also, I don't think I'm a fan of that new typeface. The cutesiness with the rotated 'e' on the end is sort of teeth-grating to me: it breaks up the rhythm of the rest of the wordmark.
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#3I'm going to miss Catull.
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#4From the video: "Think about how far Google has evolved from the ten blue links." I do, and it's not always a good thing. Also, I don't think I'm a fan of that new typeface. The cutesiness with the rotated 'e' on the end is sort of teeth-grating to me: it breaks up the rhythm of the rest of the wordmark.
The slanted e is a callback to the previous Google logo, which also had a slanted e.
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#5Many tech companies seem to be rolling out new designs at an increasing rate rate.
A bit of a side note, but I've recently been pondering for how long material design will stay with us. I'd guess when the developer for that last Jelly Beanish app in my phone has finally made the switch, Google releases their new design guidelines and the process begins again...
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#6I love it. Quite often logo redesign processes gets completely out of hand, but this was a significant improvement over the older version: Cleaner, more modern and beautiful in all its simplicity. Bravo!
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#7From the video: "Think about how far Google has evolved from the ten blue links." I do, and it's not always a good thing. Also, I don't think I'm a fan of that new typeface. The cutesiness with the rotated 'e' on the end is sort of teeth-grating to me: it breaks up the rhythm of the rest of the wordmark.
The slanted e is a callback to the previous Google logo, which also had a slanted e.
The O's were slightly tilted too, no?
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#8So how far can Google take the "kid friendly" aesthetic?
Anyone remember Colorforms? http://www.liveandlearn.com/shop/images/Original_Colorforms....
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#92008 HN discussion from when the outgoing "little blue g" favicon was introduced:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211518
In it, Dustin Curtis criticizes Google (rather rightly, in my hindsight-enhanced opinion) for a Marissa-Mayeresque design process of "Make 300 logo variants with pseudorandom permutations, and then pick your favorite." Looking at those permutations now (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/SEnK37orPGI/AAAAAAAAAp...) it's obvious (again, with the benefit of hindsight) that they were all very inside-the-box. Apparently nobody even considered trying a different font.
This pg comment from that thread turned out to be particularly insightful, given today's news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211649
Re: Google’s look, evolved
#10Just when I thought we might be starting to pivot away from flat design - does anyone know of a different design paradigm that is being used by smaller/fringe designers who are tired of flat/minimal UX/UI?