21–30 of 238 posts
I’m all for more explicit disclosure of Facebook’s involvement in Instagram and WhatsApp, but aesthetically…I’m not sure I like it. What was wrong with the original logo and the “Facebook blue”?
Red is better.
I’m all for more explicit disclosure of Facebook’s involvement in Instagram and WhatsApp, but aesthetically…I’m not sure I like it. What was wrong with the original logo and the “Facebook blue”?
Blue is generally poor choice for logos, it is hard on the eyes. Red is better.
The "A" and the "K" are fascinating. Almost imperceptibly bent, they round and soften what would otherwise be quite an authoritative logo. The "B" also has a belly. The whole thing is definitely meant to look a little friendly and approachable.
What's interesting to me is why anyone would bother with tweaks like that. The logo looks like a generic san-serif block letter logo, and I only noticed those details after they were explicitly pointed out. Even after looking at it several times, the bent lines register as defects to me rather than as an aesthetic design choice.
Could there be some legal basis to those tweaks, like to make the logo trademarkable?
[deleted]
Although a post about updated branding may seem benign, this is, I believe, a response to critics who believe the company should be broken up. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/facebook-antitrus... https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-explains-why-facebook-bro... https://www.cnet.com/news/can-facebook-be-broken-up-what-you... Facebook is hoping that by differentiating its company brand from its fl…
After all modern ads and cookies on every site, they just keep finding new ways to make my browser experience even bore abhorrent.
The "A" and the "K" are fascinating. Almost imperceptibly bent, they round and soften what would otherwise be quite an authoritative logo. The "B" also has a belly. The whole thing is definitely meant to look a little friendly and approachable.
One is going for authoritative, while the other is going for nonsensical.
I agree that it's strange to go for friendly-authoritative with the company logo since most conglomerates typically go for innocuous, but it may make more sense in the other app UIs.
Although a post about updated branding may seem benign, this is, I believe, a response to critics who believe the company should be broken up. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/facebook-antitrus... https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-explains-why-facebook-bro... https://www.cnet.com/news/can-facebook-be-broken-up-what-you... Facebook is hoping that by differentiating its company brand from its fl…
Why is the government itching to break up tech companies? I feel like it's a bad idea for them to get involved at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: https://facebook.design/companybrand > Instead of the company owning a single color, we designed the brand to be responsive to its context and environment. This system allows the wordmark to take on the color of our individual brands, creating a clearer relationship between the company and the products we build.
Isn't this against most brand consistency standards? I've seen so many branding guidelines be very strict about changing colors/backgrounds.
Having freedom of colors helps a lot I think.