Flat design is much better and more focused. 3d/gloss is "hey you look at my bling am I cool yet?"
eh seems fine
[QUOTE=Xron;48598806]The new logo is okay, like the old one more because it used a serif font unlike every other logo these days, but the new is fine as well.
Whats not fine is this:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xxFuyTj.png[/IMG]
It's horrible[/QUOTE]
I noticed that just a couple minutes ago and came here to complain but you beat me too it. I saw the favicons and it made be think I'd opened some shitty ad-ridden webpage a couple times.
My favourite was the pre-May 2010 logo, since I saw that almost all my life.
This new one doesn't sit well with me, but I appreciate the thought behind it and the modernisation of it. It would really suck if Google were stuck in the 90s with their design choices.
I don't usually dig these "minimalist name only" logos, but Google's was already super basic to begin with, so I really don't mind this.
Aaaand they applied the new icon to all three versions of Chrome. Fuck.
I actually like the new look... I guess I'm one of the few that do like it better than the old one.
It's not bad to me, I think it could use a soft gradient though.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48599004]I think it's funny that everyone's complaining about flat stuff being a trend. It's actually a return to form, the cheesy 3D stuff was actually a break for tradition.
I've already explained this in the other thread, but flat designs have been the default for the past century. The 3D stuff only showed up in the late 90s, and it's been the most short-lived of all design trends.
Personally, I don't mind the return to rational modernism. [B]It's worked for almost a century.[/B] It'll work now.[/QUOTE]
wut
not in computer GUI no
That's horrible.
Fantastic, google could honestly open their own type foundry.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48593498]Heineken should sue them for using the "smiling e"[/QUOTE]
Lolwat, should they sue every company that uses a humanist angle in their font anatomy?
[editline]3rd September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=woolio1;48599004]I think it's funny that everyone's complaining about flat stuff being a trend. It's actually a return to form, the cheesy 3D stuff was actually a break for tradition.
I've already explained this in the other thread, but flat designs have been the default for the past century. The 3D stuff only showed up in the late 90s, and it's been the most short-lived of all design trends.
Personally, I don't mind the return to rational modernism. It's worked for almost a century. It'll work now.[/QUOTE]
The only reason why the whole web 2.0 style was popular to begin with was because computers could finally handle fancy graphics, so it was suddenly a trend to have these incredibly saturated graphics. Now that any pc can render complex, glossy designs, its gotten toned down as people realized they aren't particularly good. I'm rather glad that the fundamentals of good design came back to digital interfaces.
the G reminds me far too much of the commonwealth games logo
[t]http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01904/SNA1249C---_1904912a.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=wewt!;48605987]Fantastic, google could honestly open their own type foundry.
Lolwat, should they sue every company that uses a humanist angle in their font anatomy?
[editline]3rd September 2015[/editline]
The only reason why the whole web 2.0 style was popular to begin with was because computers could finally handle fancy graphics, so it was suddenly a trend to have these incredibly saturated graphics. Now that any pc can render complex, glossy designs, its gotten toned down as people realized they aren't particularly good. I'm rather glad that the fundamentals of good design came back to digital interfaces.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, people don't realize that flat, minimalist design has been huge since the 50's.
Here's the evolution of the Volkswagen logo:
[t]http://static.neatorama.com/images/2008-02/car-logo-vw.jpg[/t]
The minimalist black and white super simplistic one was made in 1946 and wasn't given a glossy metal look until 2000. It's a new trend - the old style was flat and simple and minimalist and recognizable at a glance, which we're going back to. The most iconic logos have always been incredibly simplistic and flat and "boring," and most logos have only added chrome and shine and gloss in the last decade or so.
Look at Ford's 1927 logo compared to the logo now - it's the same, but flat without the gloss and chrome and shine. Xerox has been flat since 1961, and only got any kind of gloss in 2008. BMW had a flat logo since 1936, and only added gloss in the 2000s. Fiat had an iconic logo in the 1930s, and only added 3D effects and gloss in the late 90s-2000s. Mercedes-Benz had a flat simple icon since 1933, only made it glossy in 1989, and switched it back 20 years later. Chevrolet has had a pretty similar logo since 1965, adding gloss in 2000 and more gloss in 2004 and MORE gloss in 2011. ABC was flat black on white for decades until they added chrome and shine to it.
Siemens has had an iconic simple flat logo since 1899. Coca-Cola's logo has barely changed since the early 1900s. Canon's had the same flat simple text logo since 1956. Mitsubishi has had the exact same logo since 1964.
The only new "trend" that's happening with logos is that they're going largely sans-serif, but that's because sans-serif generally just looks better on screens. The gloss and chrome and shine is all going away, fucking finally, and it's really making things look better.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48607493]
The only new "trend" that's happening with logos is that they're going largely sans-serif, but that's because sans-serif generally just looks better on screens. The gloss and chrome and shine is all going away, fucking finally, and it's really making things look better.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no. Gloss was a very neat look to most logos.
Another thing that I miss is the old brushed metal look of the pre-Tiger Mac OS X Releases:
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/1/1b/Mac_OS_X_10.3_Panther.png[/t]
Frankly, the pseudo-3D style was very good as a whole and I hope it's further explored in the future. Even though you claim that we're "going back" to a flat design style, I would argue that today's design is much different than in the 90s. I mean, just compare two logos from the eras and you'll see what I mean.
I feel as if you have a bias against the 3D look because you might have used interfaces like this:
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aPfXAl7yZ5M/UFIo5f9fdMI/AAAAAAAAA2s/HPa8-hXYshU/s1600/Nero-burning-ROM-11-menu.jpg[/IMG]
A bit too much, which I agree was a bad side effect of that design style.
I keep seeing the new favicon and thinking i've opened up some shitty adware search engine.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48617066]Uh, no. Gloss was a very neat look to most logos.
Another thing that I miss is the old brushed metal look of the pre-Tiger Mac OS X Releases:
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/1/1b/Mac_OS_X_10.3_Panther.png[/t]
Frankly, the pseudo-3D style was very good as a whole and I hope it's further explored in the future. Even though you claim that we're "going back" to a flat design style, I would argue that today's design is much different than in the 90s. I mean, just compare two logos from the eras and you'll see what I mean.
I feel as if you have a bias against the 3D look because you might have used interfaces like this:
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aPfXAl7yZ5M/UFIo5f9fdMI/AAAAAAAAA2s/HPa8-hXYshU/s1600/Nero-burning-ROM-11-menu.jpg[/IMG]
A bit too much, which I agree was a bad side effect of that design style.[/QUOTE]
You could separate those two styles you posted. The first is skeumorph, and looks cool because it's emulated materials characterize what the application is meant to do. The first thing that comes to mind is the Notes app on the iPhone.
Flat design is great because it makes it easy for developers to abide by a standard while also look stylized enough. The concept of material design also lightly incorporates or compensates for aspects of what made Skeuomorph neat.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48617066][t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/1/1b/Mac_OS_X_10.3_Panther.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Thank you for reminding me how absolutely atrocious this looked.
I honestly forgot how bad it really was.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;48618642]Thank you for reminding me how absolutely atrocious this looked.
I honestly forgot how bad it really was.[/QUOTE]
I think the brushed metal looked better when it was redesigned to be more subtle.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;48606034]the G reminds me far too much of the commonwealth games logo
[t]http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01904/SNA1249C---_1904912a.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Fuck the colors match up too. That logo looks like something they'd use for an unannounced product.
The new logo keeps confusing me when I look at the icon on tabs.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48593289]That looks pretty boring.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I think of that too.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;48618655]I think the brushed metal looked better when it was redesigned to be more subtle.[/QUOTE]
But when it was "redesigned" to be more sublte it wasn't even there.
The old brush is the best and I wish I could bring it back :c
Also, skeumorphism isn't really applicable in that particular case, but I do see what you mean in apps like Stickies and Garage Band.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/pbXswLB.png[/img]
[QUOTE=littlefoot;48623775][img]http://i.imgur.com/pbXswLB.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Forgot the Gizoogle
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48595362]One thing I hate to this day is how they changed the Chrome logo.
[IMG]http://agbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-google-chrome-logo-old-google-chrome-logo-before-and-after.jpg[/IMG]
I just like the 3D shiny aesthetic so much better. It was like, something inspired by the mid-y2k shiny-curved-objects-in-UI craze, but at the same time different.
[editline]1st September 2015[/editline]
And it's one of the few things I would like to have as a paperweight.[/QUOTE]
I like how each of the icons basically represents the opposite of what the browser was at their respective times.
The old icon looks big and heavy, bloated if you will. When that icon was around though, Chrome was known to be light and fast, especially compared to Firefox.
The current logo looks much lighter, but the browser has been rather bloated and slow for quite some time now.
And obviously, I say this as a Chrome user.
That all being said, I was never really a fan of the old icon. It just seemed clunky to me, and more like an icon that someone would use for a sketchy malware application than a legit web browser.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;48618631]You could separate those two styles you posted. The first is skeumorph, and looks cool because it's emulated materials characterize what the application is meant to do. The first thing that comes to mind is the Notes app on the iPhone.
Flat design is great because it makes it easy for developers to abide by a standard while also look stylized enough. The concept of material design also lightly incorporates or compensates for aspects of what made Skeuomorph neat.[/QUOTE]
They're technically both skeumorphic, the bottom one makes the buttons look like they're real. It already counts. All skeumorphism really is, is a method of visual design that implies something physical and real in order to give the user assiociation amd context, which makes it more intuitive. The two images are just two examples of different levels of application and quality of implementation. OSX and iOS both started very skeumorphic, now they have balanced it with "flat" design extremely well.
I like simple logos in general, but I hate the trend to make everything more simple
[QUOTE=_demolisher_;48625445][img]http://cs622230.vk.me/v622230491/46124/FalqNGeFLso.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I really dig that logitech logo - specifically that "g" and how it kind of emulates the original crest around the sun. Lenovo's logo is crap and bland. Google uses color variation to it's power.
[QUOTE=_demolisher_;48625445][img]http://cs622230.vk.me/v622230491/46124/FalqNGeFLso.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Don't forget Verizon too:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZFWxWUO.png[/IMG]
2015: Year of the boring minimalist sans-serif text logos.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
