151–160 of 447 posts
Here's a bit more info on the design process: https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-ident...
> including building a special variant of our full-color logo that is only 305 bytes, compared to our existing logo at ~14,000 bytes. That's huge for low-bandwidth users.
The solid colors seem too "loud" to me; they should probably be pastel. I think they are more noticeable now because the letters are so thick.
Also, the capital "G" looks wrong; I think the part that looks most strange is the upper curl, which doesn't seem to go far enough.
2008 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/S…
I've never understood that criticism. Business decisions should be data driven. You test new signup flows to see which one onboards users better. You test advertising changes to see which one converts better. Why should a logo design or a title bar color be any different? Without testing each iteration, how do you know which one has the best effect on whatever success metrics you're using? I can understand if you're…
BUT, when you're the size of Google, or Facebook, or Microsoft, Things look a bit different.
Most people are far more conservative than they realise, but also, perversely, adapt quite quickly to change if they experience it day-to-day. This means that if an interface has enough inertia, then a change that performs badly in user testing, can actually quite quickly be accepted by people. (PROVIDED it's actually better).
In the first example, every change to the Facebook UI is met by a barrage of criticism and hatred, but they seem to actually make good decisions, so the changes get absorbed by users, and things continue.
Having said that, Microsoft struggle, because they often make changes that are fundamentally bad decisions, and have to back-down. For example, the Office ribbon took a while to be accepted, but is /generally/ liked nowadays by people, because it was functionally a good change (yes, some people will disagree, but the majority wins on this front). Taking broad user testing results on the ribbon would probably have stopped microsoft from progressing with it. On the other hand, the 'Metro'/Tile UI in windows 8 was an actual usability disaster, and has forced them to revert to a more common pattern until someone can design new metaphors that actually improve usability in windows.
Finding test subjects that aren't used to, and comfortable with, the google font/design styles, to give objective feedback on a change, is really hard.
[ I didn't mention first time round, but I /really/ don't like the new logo, that lowercase g makes me cringe inside every time I see it. ]
I 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!
I don't like it. It seems more juvenile in the same way comic sans gets criticized for. The loss of character on the lower case g is especially unfortunate. Non est disputandum I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the attention they brought to the angle/attitude of the 'e'. Never appreciated before how it has a friendlier feel.
It is pioneered by Alfred Heineken in 1954 to cheer up the brand Heineken.
Catull³, the font on which the former Google wordmark was based (it's not exactly Catull — some details are simplified, like the serif edges being snapped to 45°), is actually closer to the script than to typical Venetian typefaces — which, once you've seen the whole thing, blows the idea of the old logo looking ‘more professional’ out of the water, unless your profession is ‘medieval scribe’.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox-ATypI_classification#Human...
Oddly, I prefer the "crayon-grained" version of it that appears at the end of their home page's scribbling animation just before it turns into solid colors. The solid colors seem too "loud" to me; they should probably be pastel. I think they are more noticeable now because the letters are so thick. Also, the capital "G" looks wrong; I think the part that looks most strange is the upper curl, which doesn't seem to go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> including building a special variant of our full-color logo that is only 305 bytes, compared to our existing logo at ~14,000 bytes. That's huge for low-bandwidth users.
Why? This is one of the most cacheable resources. Also, it's displayed reasonably often, so I'd expect it to be rarely evicted from the device-local cache.
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…
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…