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

291–300 of 340 posts

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

#291

Post by Retric »

systemicdanna wrote: post #274
Retric wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing objective in picking some specific subset of logos for comparison vs all possible logos You created a subjective measurement.

Variation does not equal distinction. You can have millions of gradients around white letters which will not be perceived by anyone as distinctive. On the other hand you can have black letters arranged in a million ways that will look distinctive. It's all a subjective selection. There is an infinite number of ways to design a black logo. There is an infinite number of ways to design a blue logo. So which infinity ha…

Not all infinites are the same size, but that’s irrelevant as there are only a finite number of perceivably distinct logos.

Anyway, for any distinct set of black logos you can map them to a larger set of blue gradient labels therefore the number of distinct blue logos with gradients is larger.

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

#292

Post by ratg13 »

frakt0x90 wrote: post #4

Who cares? It says Oxford University Press which is the important part. The little image above it is just fluff and literally doesn't matter. I certainly wouldn't call it 'unfathomably bad' considering it's not a child's drawing or a some obscene gesture.

It doesn't seem you fully grasp the concept of brand recognition.

Spend some time researching the subject and it will make more sense.

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

#293

Post by cpcallen »

bearmode wrote: post #65
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…

>Am I just a stick in the mud? Yes. But it's normal. People who weren't involved in the project, or don't know design, very commonly have strong negative reactions to a company they know rebranding. I don't know why. Come next year you'll have either completely forgotten about this, or have no opinion at all.

> Come next year you'll have either completely forgotten about this, or have no opinion at all.

I doubt it. There are still so many rebrands / logo changes that I get angry thinking about. Off the top of my head (in addition to the ones mentioned in my replies to other comments in this thread):

- Meta. It just confirmed what I already knew but had been desperately denying: Facebook is dead.

- The new, nearly indistinguishable multi-coloured Google Apps icons. (Were _no_ UX researchers involved in this decision?)

- Apple imposing the squirkle on macOS icons. (My laptop is not a tablet!)

- Google imposing the white circle on Android app icons. (Phone icons were already small enough before they were shrunk so as to fit into the stupid circles!)

- The new Slack logo.

- Instagram ditching their original camera logo/icon for that god-awful squirkly gradient monstrosity. (The day I saw that was the day I knew I would _never_ install their app on my phone.)

- American Airlines dropping their previous Vignelli-designed logo (and Helvetica).

- The London 2012 Olympics logo (the pink monstrosity described as "Lisa Simpson giving Bart a blow job") that replacing the London 2012 bid logo (with ribbons in the Olympics colours forming the shape of the river Thames).

That goes back at least 15 years. I have a long memory and hold grudges, at least when it comes to awful rebrandings.

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

#294

Post by [deleted] »

jonathanyc wrote: post #54
kabdib wrote: post #49

I remember when SGI (Silicon Graphics) paid a bunch of money to rebrand to . . . drumroll . . . SGI! The consultants must have been high-fiving each other after that one landed, it's like trading in your car only to find that the saleswoman has sold you your own car back, at a profit. (SGI later collapsed due to "Corporate Campus Syndrome", and other companies, including Google, now occupy the wacky buildings they sp…

TIL Google occupies SGI's former headquarters. A college professor mentioned working for SGI, so I knew they existed and had importance, but I didn't realize their business had collapsed.

[deleted]

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

#295

Post by deanmen »

kahirsch wrote: post #239
heurisko wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's lost history. The Latin text on the old logo connects the present with the past. There would have been thousands of instances where people would have thought "what does that mean" and have a browse through history. Airbrushed and homogenised in favour of a tire.

What does "DOMI NUSILLU MINA TIOMEA" mean?

DOMINUS ILLUMINATIO MEA = The Lord is my light

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

#296

Post by themodelplumber »

tablespoon wrote: post #21
themodelplumber wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a ring == a circle, and organizations are looking to circular-philosophy holistic changes as a broad change since roughly the start of the century. Circles are _the_ graphical element/symbol of holistic energy with few others coming close. Generally when I see a move to a circular logo in a new design brief it's a sign that the organization perceives that it must quickly heal from damage/protect itself from dang…

That honestly all sounds like mumbo jumbo.

That it sounds like mumbo jumbo is no surprise at all and kinda normal given the circumstances.

First, tech communities are not exactly known for deep visual design-theory interest or background (for example, what's your personal experience level with logo design? This would inform both a tendency to radically re-summarize using the word "just", and a tendency to relate the description in nonsensical terms; it's a matter of education depth).

Also, I used to lecture college students on this stuff at length, so it's kind of plain ol' design thinking to me, from theory/psychology to application.

And then, a lot of people also call tech talk mumbo jumbo. For related reasons I don't really feel the need to justify or bring it down to earth any more than I'd try to do that with the Linux kernel in a random "kernel? sounds like mumbo jumbo" discussion.

But as always, in the right context the theory-practice connection provides leverage that can't be had elsewhere.

PS there are some absolutely great examples of this thinking if you are willing to empty the cup and explore the foundations. See the "In popular culture" section here as one possible point of departure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens%C5%8D

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

#297

Post by OJFord »

dfxm12 wrote: post #163
collegeburner wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask anyone outside of Britain what "The Met" is and you'll hear about the museum. I don't think one very small country should be the primary blocker to their branding decisions.

Even in Britain, the context will clear it up straight away. Humans are, theoretically at least, very good at dealing with ambiguity. I'm hard pressed to think of a conversation where context clues wouldn't either make it abundantly clear, or prompt further questions about, which "Met" one is talking about, between a world famous art gallery and the police head quarters probably more famously known by another name. W…

The met put out a press release

I'm applying for a job at/in (the only tiny difference) the met

Nevermind all the sentences you could come up with where the context is revealed only later, so yes you immediately realise you had it wrong, but you had it wrong.

It's not really about 'people will be confused' anyway, I just mean it's bad brand awareness, it weakens the identity.

The only example I can think of with a strong brand for a generic name is Apple.

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

#298

Post by munificent »

OJFord wrote: post #288
munificent wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

England has about 2% of the area of the US, so from a US perspective, it's quite small.

Double the population of Canada though. I agree we're small, much smaller than the USA by any metric, but surely we're talking about population rather than land mass here.

That's true, population matters more. As does wealth and cultural influence, both of which are hugely outsized in England's case.

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

#300

Post by cafard »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #56

I find it so fascinating using that people actually care about shit like this. Like when I saw the logo I had literally 0 thoughts about it. Whatever. It's a logo. Who cares. But then here's a guy who feels compelled to write a whole article about it and a thread full of people discussing it. Blows my mind. Not to demean anyone like it's cool that this matters to people I just cannot even remotely understand it.

If I am in a bookstore, the chances are that NYRB Classics volumes will catch my eye (if the store has them). The series has brought back into print a number of worthwhile books that were hard to find, it has come up with some excellent items that weren't previously out there (that I know--I'm thinking of The Jeffersonian Transformation). The logo is a small part of the "trade dress" (if I have the term right), but the trade dress of a good publisher is an asset.
Post reply on HN