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

Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

joukovsky.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 340 posts

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#241

Post by Godel_unicode »

systemicdanna wrote: post #186
Godel_unicode wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new logo is borderline painfully boring, this trend is going to end in there being one logo for everything, and that logo will be a single circle. Clean, minimal, elegant, and capable of instantly putting anyone who sees it to sleep. It’s pretty amusing that this is on the front page at the same time as the below. https://medium.com/knowable/why-everything-looks-the-same-ba...

That's were we started: all logos were coats of arms. And then all logos were something else. These are design trends.

That’s not true. While there have been fads in the past that some logos adhered to, the history of insignia is overflowing with what we would today call logos that were not coats of arms.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#242

Post by zabzonk »

blowski wrote: post #144
Paianni wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that have been in the early 90s when it was a polytechnic?

Yes, I can't remember if it was actually Portsmouth or one of the other polytechnics.

Middlesex Poly went through a similar, expensive process before becoming Middlesex University

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#243

Post by Maursault »

boppo1 wrote: post #154
Maursault wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author says nothing about why the new logo is bad and the old one good. Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not. A logo needs to be original, readily identifiable, and easily reproducible on any substrate. The old logo does not meet any of these standards, while the new logo does. The same can be said for the old Met logo. The newer M…

>Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not. Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture Science. My point is not that you're wrong, but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt.…

> Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid.

Your comment begins with a fallacious statement, which is an ad hominem.

> A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand

It's a 3D scroll stylized as an "O," which obviously stands for "Oxford." Help any?

> and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture [sic] Science.

The Aperture Science logo is a stylized flat aperture. The OUP logo is a 3D scroll. Hope that helps.

> My point is not that you're wrong,

That's wise, because I am not.

> but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion

On the contrary, graphic design is an academic discipline based on fundamental principles that ultimately are rooted in mathematics. Without any background or education, what you've done is assume you know things about design which you do not. Please consider Wittgenstein's advice: "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

> and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt.

You've closed your comment with a fallacious statement, which is a straw man.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#245

Post by murphyslab »

dredmorbius wrote: post #222
jfengel wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minimalism is also a tradition in logos. A logo needs to serve many purposes, one of which is being recognizable even under poor visibility. Many national flags are the height of minimal design, because one key goal for them was to be seen in battle so you knew where your side was. Modern technology has different reasons for a similar purpose. Resolution may be poor because of your screen or network rather than battl…

Flag design can be too minimalistic. Indonesia is Poland distressed (and vice versa). (See: https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-Hung-U... > for general concept.) There are near-identical flags as well, including Chad and Romania, Indonesia (again) and Morocco, New Zealand and Australia, Ireland and Cote d'Ivoire, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, Senegal and Mali, and clusters such as the Nordics (blu…

My undergrad university went with too much minimalism. It replaced an stylized crest (anachronistic for a university founded in 1965) with a "red brick". Note that The Concrete University has no bricks to which this might be a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#246

Post by thih9 »

jurip wrote: post #58
elijaht wrote: post #14

I found the Met's rebrand interesting to consider. I am on the younger side/moved to New York recently. Without knowing the history of the Met logo I have always found the (new) logo fairly iconic- the stickers visitors wear, and the various paraphernalia with the logo look good to me. I find it clean and sharp. I think I actually prefer it to the old logo (which I do not remember seeing before today)

I cringe every time I see the second E. That weirdly mangled serif just rubs me the wrong way. The old logo was honestly a bit messy, too, though.

Anecdotally, I don’t mind the Es, I like some sort of organic flow in them.

Lower serifs on the Ts though, those I dislike very much.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#247

Post by sangnoir »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #168
signatoremo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London has the Underground. Something that sounds generic actually is well known to the locals and is part of the culture, the identity, the attraction of a place. Same story here.

Everyone calls it the tube there but still.

As a non-local, when I hear "tube" I think toothpaste, swimming and repairing tire punctures. Mass transit may not even be in my top 5 - and that's fine.

Human language ambiguity and locals have their shibboleths - we don't have to optimize for tourists.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#249

Post by Minor49er »

pessimizer wrote: post #240
initself wrote: post #33

The removal of a hallmark symbol of tradition is anathema.

Icons should be smashed whenever they're noticed. The worship of images is blasphemous.

There is no difference between recognition and worship?

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#250

Post by Eleison23 »

bombcar wrote: post #26
cpcallen wrote: post #10

I am trying to to think of a single rebrand / new logo / new icon that I actually liked at the time—that didn't seem to signal a degradation in the integrity, quality or trustworthiness of the entity represented. (There are some cases where the new brand has grown on me, to the point that I have come to prefer it to the old one. The most recent examples I can think of are the 1999 rebrand of Northern Electric as Nort…

The original "Federal Express" logo wasn't bad, but FEDEX rocks it hard. Some of the old LEGO logos aren't great (this may partially be from years of consistency, however). But most of the "best rebrand" articles you find on google are just "logo in one font became similar logo in slightly different font".

My favorite part of the FedEx logo is the arrow.
Post reply on HN