Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s look, evolved

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 447 posts

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#71

Post by hodwik »

roymurdock wrote: post #10

Just 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?

Flat design is easy to accomplish for designers who never learned how to draw, or do computer modeling.

Unfortunately, most design programs don't actually teach these foundational skills. That means there are a lot of designers out there who are forced to work in an oversimplified print-design style to hide their incompetence.

As someone who hires for this stuff, finding skilled designers is unimaginably hard.

I hear designers constantly complaining about the lack of jobs. They're full of it. The problem is the lack of skilled applicants. Design has become filled with lazy people, while being arguably one of the hardest fields to be good at. I've had ads out in a major US city for months for a very good paying design job, and have yet to see a portfolio that looked even moderately professional.

That's really where this all comes from, flat design hides designer incompetence.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#72

Post by ocdtrekkie »

roymurdock wrote: post #10

Just 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?

I would be cool if everything was done with SVGs and styles that could be efficiently accomplished with SVGs. But I do kinda miss the more... Windows XP-style design.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#74

Post by dekhn »

raldi wrote: post #31
mahouse wrote: post #20

I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.

We've been using the new logo internally for a week. Give it a day, and then go back and look at the old logo, and then tell me how dated it looks.

nah, i still prefer the old one. I've been looking at the new one for a week and I don't see it as better or worse. Just different.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#75

Post by cbr »

amelius wrote: post #37

Hmm... the spacing between the letters in "Goo" seems optically wider than the spacing between "gle". But it might be just me.

That's really a problem with the word "Google", which has round open shapes in the first half, and then a tighter second half. Perhaps "Googol" would have been better?

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#76

Post by raldi »

ilovecomputers wrote: post #67
raldi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been using the new logo internally for a week. Give it a day, and then go back and look at the old logo, and then tell me how dated it looks.

My series of responses within the span of 30 minutes: * "It looks like fridge magnets for kids! I don't like it; the iconic lower case g is gone cause of designers obsession of san-serif == modern." * "Glad that they continue to embrace their playful culture tho." * "You know what, it's growing on me." * "Haha, they tilted the e, how cute. Oh god what is happening to me!?" * "Geeze, how old is Google books? They have…

Nailed it.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#77

Post by [deleted] »

artursapek wrote: post #25

The favicon still hasn't changed: https://www.google.com/favicon.ico I can't imagine the nightmare it must updating the logo for a company like Google. There must be so many forgotten places that will be missed.

[deleted]

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#78

Post by hodwik »

normloman wrote: post #42
roymurdock wrote: post #10

Just 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?

Why do we need another paradigm? Stop designing websites to be identical.

Object-Oriented? Functional? Why do we need more programming paradigms? Stop writing programs to be identical.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#79

Post by dingaling »

cbr wrote: post #75
amelius wrote: post #37

Hmm... the spacing between the letters in "Goo" seems optically wider than the spacing between "gle". But it might be just me.

That's really a problem with the word "Google", which has round open shapes in the first half, and then a tighter second half. Perhaps "Googol" would have been better?

Or perhaps G∞gle...
Post reply on HN