• Google updates their logo and starts rolling out new navigation menu
    145 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;42245121]Smartphones happened. [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] What I mean is, there's this thing in design where, if you're going to design something small or that might be seen small(like an icon, or a logo) make it so it has as few details as possible(because chances are the details won't be visible anyway) and make it so it's immediately recognizable in any scale, minimalism fits this and now that smartphones are picking up everywhere it's making minimalism spread in the electronic world too.[/QUOTE] I'd say specifically Windows Phone happened. Yeah, the Metro UI language already existed before in the Zune HD, but WP was the first semi-mainstream consumer product with it, and boy did it influence Android's and now iOS' design language.
I don't really mind. Its just a log, and after a couple of weeks we'll be used to it.
Not a big difference, but it makes it look a lot better to me.
I've hated pretty much every new minimalist-for-the-sake-of-it logo companies have brought out recently, but this Google one doesn't look half bad, i actually prefer it.
I don't really have a problem with minimalist art designs. Sure, it looks good, but it's kind of like blue and orange used in game cover arts. It gets old quick.
I love the removing of all those pointless effects, looks much more smooth and warm now. However, I hate it when companies overdo it and instead of just making it nicer they use some boring gray font and make it completely cold and boring, even a bit depressing. It seems like companies had a hard time finding a balance between the two, but looking at the UI of iOS, Android and W8, seems like they're getting better at it.
I love how Google's logo has barely changed over the years, it's stood the test of time pretty well. [QUOTE=MuffinZerg;42244685]I am sorry, but that's so much "white people problems".[/QUOTE] what does being white have to do with this
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;42251634]I love how Google's logo has barely changed over the years, it's stood the test of time pretty well. what does being white have to do with this[/QUOTE] facepunch is home to plenty of racists, move on. Can't really say I like the minimalist trend in logos and other graphics, I bet it'll be gone in a few years though.
Gradients and bevels are so 2010. Whilst I don't really think their old logo was anything of concern, I embrace the future of less rounded corners and flat design.
[QUOTE=The Un-Men;42250000]And I wouldn't have it any other way. All those glossy interfaces look like shit in comparsion. It's basic GUI design, you keep it clean. OSX still has a glossy shiny interface, and IMO it looks like shit.[/QUOTE] I'll bet you the next OSX will have an updated UI, they follow the same pathway iOS does now
So when will it change at googles website?
Who is trend setting these logo designs? At the time Win Vista appeared everything got glossy and every thing had to be 'round'. Now as Win8 is there everything is getting these flat icons with red, green, yellow and/or blue colors. If Win9 gets a black'n'white surface, will these icons be black'n'white too?
[QUOTE=Grocel;42253392]Who is trend setting these logo designs? At the time Win Vista appeared everything got glossy and every thing had to be 'round'. Now as Win8 is there everything is getting these flat icons with red, green, yellow and/or blue colors. If Win9 gets a black'n'white surface, will these icons be black'n'white too?[/QUOTE] They're just design trends, just like fashion trends. Influential companies adopt certain styles and then everyone else jumps on it. In a few years we should see a new trend arising.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;42245121]Smartphones happened. [editline]19th September 2013[/editline] What I mean is, there's this thing in design where, if you're going to design something small or that might be seen small(like an icon, or a logo) make it so it has as few details as possible(because chances are the details won't be visible anyway) and make it so it's immediately recognizable in any scale, minimalism fits this and now that smartphones are picking up everywhere it's making minimalism spread in the electronic world too.[/QUOTE] opposite actually, 3D icons and gloss was to make up for low screen resolution, hence why Apple made ios7 flat since all devices running it have super high pixel density
[QUOTE=The golden;42244682]Google really needs to stop changing things just for the sake of changing them.[/QUOTE] They have to have all those designers do [I]something[/I], you'd be bitching if they were all just laid off for no reason beyond "what we have now works fine!"
[QUOTE=tom1029;42244788]Its weird how everyone thought 3D-ish shiny logos looked good for a while and everyone used them, and now everyone is going for the flat matte looking logos. The same thing happened with Chrome (and a lot of other logos). [t]http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/03/08/Chrome-274px-high-logo.jpg[/t] to [t]http://asset0.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/03/16/Chrome-logo-2011-03-16.jpg[/t] I wonder if these new logos will look as tacky in a few years.[/QUOTE] I like the 3D design better, I refuse to like the flatter ugly simplistic look just because people say "it's better" for some odd reason. I mean how is 2D better than 3D?
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;42254157]I like the 3D design better, I refuse to like the flatter ugly simplistic look just because people say "it's better" for some odd reason. I mean how is 2D better than 3D?[/QUOTE] It's a logo, not a composition. It has to be simple by nature. All the glossy bits, shadows, greeble on the yellow bit, et cetera - that doesn't look as good when scaled down to a 16x16(or 32x32 for high density displays) image.
In all honesty minimalism just sort of fits with Google's image of all of their services being easy to use and functional. It would be cool to see them fully embrace the older Swiss International design style: [quote]The International Typographic Style, also known as the Swiss Style, is a graphic design style developed in Switzerland in the 1950s that emphasizes cleanliness, readability and objectivity.[1] Hallmarks of the style are asymmetric layouts, use of a grid, sans-serif typefaces like Akzidenz Grotesk, and flush left, ragged right text. The style is also associated with a preference for photography in place of illustrations or drawings. Many of the early International Typographic Style works featured typography as a primary design element in addition to its use in text, and it is for this that the style is named.[2][/quote] [thumb]http://www.designishistory.com/images/brockmann/beethoven.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://machinatorium.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/blog_brockmann-arrows.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://www.attitudedesign.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/paulrand.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;42254176]It's a logo, not a composition. It has to be simple by nature. All the glossy bits, shadows, greeble on the yellow bit, et cetera - that doesn't look as good when scaled down to a 16x16(or 32x32 for high density displays) image.[/QUOTE]That's why we have higher res screens. The flat look was great in 1975, but it's time to move on.
[QUOTE=Period;42249145]Looks like I'm part of the Chrome rollout, personally I like it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/xlMigfM.png[/t] Nicer the the old New Tab window.[/QUOTE] I don't get it myself. Why have search box when you have the omnibox anyway. And I'd much prefer to have the bigger site thumbs again.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;42254212]That's why we have higher res screens. The flat look was great in 1975, but it's time to move on.[/QUOTE] The flat look was a technical limitation of early computers. Y'know, when video output was only what, 64 colors and stuff. "It's time to move on" is stupid justification for getting rid of a style that plenty of other people like. I would say the same about glossy 3D shit, but I'm not that conceited.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;42254292]The flat look was a technical limitation of early computers. Y'know, when video output was only what, 64 colors and stuff. "It's time to move on" is stupid justification for getting rid of a style that plenty of other people like. I would say the same about glossy 3D shit, but I'm not that conceited.[/QUOTE]Do people like it or do they just say they do because it's the "In" thing? And yes I do hate you Protocol7 , just making it clear.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;42254357]Do people like it or do they just say they do because it's the "In" thing? And yes I do hate you Protocol7 , just making it clear.[/QUOTE] What does it matter? People follow trends and some people have genuine like. It's not that difficult to understand that different people have different tastes. So what that some people are trend followers - that affects fuck all.
Stylistic changes that propogate through society happen. There will always be those that do not agree with them, and those that embrace them.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;42248821]Minimalism is in[/QUOTE] ~~SoMinimalisticDon'tEvenNeedSpaces~~
honestly as long as it's not pure white and/or bright pink with comic sans i could care less [editline]20th September 2013[/editline] i wouldn't even mind pure white so much if it didn't hurt my eyes in large quantities i don't understand why
Minimalism isn't really a trend at all. Simplistic logo design has been a thing since the 50s-60s. When the internet started getting big, poor logo design followed. The internet's such a huge part of our life now that it's starting to return to the minimalistic, simplistic logo designs of the past. Gloss and 3D effects were trends, and if you think otherwise you can look at any corporate logo design from the 50s-60s compared to those from minor internet startups in the 90s. Look at ABC. Solid black circle with white abc in bauhaus text made by one of the most prolific logo designers in history, paul rand. They recently added fucktons of gloss and 3D effects and shine to their logo to get in on the "modern" trend caused by the internet - before that, it was very simplistic, with two colors and a circle and nothing else. Let's look at IBM. Plain serif text with lines through it. That's it, nothing else. Again, Paul Rand, designed decades ago. How about UPS? A shield shape with "ups" in it. Again, Paul Rand. Nothing else. No gloss, no 3D, no bevels, no drop shadows, just really simple text that can be used in absolutely any medium. You really have to consider who people are marketing to. In the past, if you had a fancy logo in the internet, that was somewhat impressive. Bevels and drop shadows weren't super easy to design, like they are now, so it said something about the quality of your company. Now, though? It's a two-second step in Photoshop and makes your logo look cheap and badly-designed when compared with the simplistic and recognizable logos of the long-standing non-internet companies. Getting rid of this sort of stuff is just signaling the maturation of internet marketing. You're not buying Windows 8 for the same reason you're buying Oreos, so the logo design is different. Oreos is a fun food, so it will reflect that. Windows 8 is a professional product, so it will reflect that. Windows' previous design does not reflect "professional product for business use," it reflects "fun toy for solitaire and stuff!" UI Design has followed, if you look at the change from XP to Vista to Windows 7 to Windows 8. Seriously, minimalism and simplicity of logo design has been around for decades. It's not a trend. It's the baseline. Everything you guys are complaining about losing are the very trends that you're accusing simplicity of being - gloss, bevels, shadows, etc. Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo want to offer a professional product. When you have Google's old logo, it looks unprofessional and kid-friendly and incredibly fisher-price-esque. By ditching all these extra design features, they simplified the logo to a level where it looks professional rather than childish, while retaining the colors that define their product identity.
[QUOTE=CaptainObvious1;42245059]Facepunch logo should get 3D and fight the powah.[/QUOTE] Welcome to the next generation! Minimalistic 2D shit! [IMG]http://th03.deviantart.net/fs71/200H/i/2010/354/b/9/facepunch_logo___austria___hires_by_sekcobra-d359jb3.png[/IMG]
For some reason the new logo looks really uninviting. I wouldn't say it's gloomy, but at the same time I wouldn't say it's colorful. Somewhere in between.
[QUOTE=RockmanYoshi;42261475]For some reason the new logo looks really uninviting. I wouldn't say it's gloomy, but at the same time I wouldn't say it's colorful. Somewhere in between.[/QUOTE] But it's exactly the same logo, just without bevel and shadow.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.