Live data from Hacker News

Google’s look, evolved

googleblog.blogspot.com

301–310 of 447 posts

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#301
post #192
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, the blue g favicon is still there on the front page at https://www.google.com/favicon.ico (cache is off).

nope, just cached https://www.google.com/favicon.ico?cache

It must be cached somewhere within Google, since shift refresh doesn't update the old url and it's https.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#302
The logo they used from 1999 - 2010 [1] was the best. It was clear, distinctive, and pleasing to the eye. The one they used after that until 2013 was a step backwards, but not too much worse. Those two are better than the rest by a huge margin.

This latest logo is... I don't have the right words. Looks daycare copy. Welcome to Google. We're not useful, we're safe.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#303
ignoring all mandatory marketing gobbledygook, this change makes most sense to me in the light of google's recent involvement in the NSA scandal, and their general shift from being a search only service, to being a true conglomerate, especially spanning the futuristic fields of robotics and AI research. They don't want to be like the dystopian AI from the recent movie Ex Machina, they don't want to be seen as the omnipresent creepy spy company. Therefore this naive, happy and care free logo. Vulgar in my eyes. Most people in this thread seem to miss this?

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#304
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changes would you make to Google Maps, with a basic set of assumptions? (let's say, you can't dramatically increase the cost, you can't hurt Google revenue sources, and you have a team of ~20 engineers to work on the changes).

I'd change it back to the way it was prior to the redesigns. It used to work fine. The big problem with the current version is the almost complete absence of legible affordances. There are all kinds of buttons with logos on them that do stuff. But until you learn what they do, their functions are mysterious. Basic things like Traffic used to be obvious, one-click features. Now they're hidden in the burger menu, so at…

I agree. When they've updated their maps it was frustrating, it still is. Old version was much much better.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#305
post #49
post #6

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 like the attention they brought to the angle/attitude of the 'e'. Never appreciated before how it has a friendlier feel.

The 'e' thing was hamfisted and implies they're a "hey fellow kids" company.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? That seems smart to me. How often do you use the links in that drawer? Seems better to remove all that text up top and replace with a small icon for something that is rarely used.

Ugh, you definitely do not use more multiple google services if you think that. Even today, years afterwards, I was on the phone checking my calendar and I totally lost the train of the conversation as I was hunting in that dumbass thing for the calendar. The worst part is that, yes, the top was getting stuffed, but instead of letting you choose what you wanted in your menu, they added that navigation monstrosity ins…

I just leave calendar and gmail open all the time.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#307
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've offered a salary twice the median for our city, plus benefits, paid transportation, 401k matching and 3-year enrollment to our profit sharing plan. It's not a pay issue as best as I can tell.

Twice the median for "the city" overall? Including waitresses, garbage men, bank tellers, etc? If a skilled surgeon (or someone 5+ years into their career at Goldman, etc) makes 4 times the median of your city, what does the median have to do with what they're worth? Sorry, not trying to be rude, but whenever I hear people saying they "can't find anyone", they still counter that they're offering enough...and yet they…

Sure it can make sense, it was already said in the post you replied to; it's possible for there to be a lack of high-level professionals.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#308

I understand why Google needed to update their identity, but it feels like this logo has gone through endless committee after committee. It doesn't actually convey any brand to me, just a very safe interpretation of Material Design. That seems short-sighted to me, since an identity typically lasts much longer than a design language.

The animation on google.com even implies it was designed by committee, as apparently separate hands reach up to place each letter. I thought that was funny.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#309
post #299
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new one probably not populated to all their location yet, but adding a random query string does the trick. https://www.google.com/favicon.ico?newlogo (I'm seeing a four-colors capitalize G.)

why does adding "?" work at getting a different logo? not a web guy here

I'm not sure how it works at Google, but adding a random query string usually helps because of how proxy servers handle caching. Proxy servers usually treat an URL with different query string as different resource and cache them separately (e.g. /posts?page=2 is definitely not the same as /posts?page=1).

This is not only applies to caching by ISP, but also includes caching by the website itself as well (some websites put proxy in front of their server to cache rarely changed portion of the site, or even using CDN.).

Post reply on HN