[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/gd/ - Graphic Design


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • There are 110 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Meta on /qa/ only.
All meta discussion of boards is to be redirected to /qa/.


File: google what the fuck.jpg (55 KB, 978x884)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
Shit that triggers you
>>
>I am not a designer: the dead giveaway
>>
>>320590
That logo is fucking beautiful and flawless you cuck
>>
Get off of 9gag anon
>>
ouch.
>>
>>320598
It's actually from https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/72cub9/googles_logo_design/
>>
>>320598
so you've been hanging out on 9gag...
>>
File: remake.jpg (31 KB, 1116x511)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
Let me show you why the actual logo is beautiful and why it doesn't work with perfect geometry.
>>
>>320658
original looks good and the remade looks like a chinese bootleg, i see what you mean anon
>>
>>320590

see
>>320658

and as for the google chrome thing:
>qypjg
>>
>>320658
The remake is actually better than the original, in this case. You could extend the red portion a bit more in the circle formation, but overall it looks classier, more modern, and more like a sleek electronics company, rather than some shitty coffee shop.

I know a lot of you are running under the rubbish "lol humans always prefer off-center garbage because perfectly aligned sequences are boring/look off", but that isn't standard.

>>320661
You only say that because you are used to the original being the official. Otherwise, it wouldn't be bootleg.
>>320593
Not an argument, and makes you sound like a faggoty Google shill
>>
>>320681
Remake it how you think it should be, we'll see which is better. (I'm honestly curious)
>>
>>320658
And you made the inside line of G thinner. You had one job
>>
>>320681
oh piss off you pseudointellectual teenage wank stain.

maybe google's goal wasn't to make it look 'classy, modern, sleek' (your positive spin on a subjective judgement), and much rather it looked more warm, friendly, human and familiar. in which case the design works fucking perfectly you dickhead

fuck off back to /g/, or /sci/, or /r9k/, or whatever other logic-loving shithole you camefrom
>>
balance through human visual perception you faggot. i bet you would set everything everywhere in Futura you perfect geometry cucksucking faggot.
>>
>>320681
>"lol humans always prefer off-center garbage because perfectly aligned sequences are boring/look off"

yes, that's called 'asymmetric composition' and is one of the fundamental driving forces in creating a visually engaging composition you're eyes follow. perfect symmetry is reserved for special cases.
>>
File: google-new-logo.png (151 KB, 1200x1260)
151 KB
151 KB PNG
Here's my attempt at it. I changed the thickness a little bit to make more visual "rhymes".
You want my opinion? The original looks pretty much the same to me. I don't notice such small things.
>>
Nobody cares about this, autist.
>>
>>320681
No, I'm saying this because Chinese knockoffs of things tend to be poorly made and have a very "robotic" feel to them. The "improved" version is still flawed in my eyes, and it isn't because I'm used to the original.

The red part of the logo looks terrible and looks more "cut off" than the original, the angle doesn't seem right. The geometry isn't supposed to be perfect. The original red portion is more tilted to give a sense of "swing" (not sure how to put it), where the shape of the logo changes more towards the top. Also, the blue part in the G isn't very thicc, whereas in the original it is
>>
File: file.png (220 KB, 1200x1260)
220 KB
220 KB PNG
>>320699
>>
>>320699
Original looks better
>>
>>320738
its keeping to the idea of making the logo align to a perfect circle
>>
This is one of the most retarded things I've seen in my day.

I will admit, there are some modern, sorta "blocky" typefaces that will trigger me to shit if they all don't have the same height on the top of capital glyphs or the capital O is not a perfect cricle (such as tex gyre adventor, which is guilty of both crimes), but the capital G was never meant to be a perfect circle in the first place.

Here let me make this easy for you, ctrl+mwheel up and take a look at the G below.

G

See? Perfectly acceptable but not a perfect circle.

(oh and if you haven't guessed by now that Google was trying to have a friendly and relatable logo, then you really should reconsider posting on this board at all)
>>
>>320738
>>320658
so far all we've proven is that there is very clearly a good reason they deviated from perfect symmetry/circle/thickness
>>
File: google-logo-geometric.png (19 KB, 630x630)
19 KB
19 KB PNG
>>320738
Here. I thought the circle looked slightly better and closer to original
>>
File: glyphs.png (30 KB, 996x400)
30 KB
30 KB PNG
>>320760
>>320727
>>320763
I kind of agree with what people said. Here's a comparison I made for a few "geometric fonts" I found. You can see that all the fonts deviate from perfect form a little bit. The last font looks surprisingly close to Google's 'G' actually. I think they picked a memey retro font that will look out of place 5 years later.
I agree that not doing any narrowing/widening makes a font look more like a figure, less like a letter that's supposed to be read.
But that said, also in this specific case, the crossing diagonal guides impose some annoying limitations. If you follow them strictly, the letter just comes out looking retarded. And aligning the edge of a line to them look pretty bad, like the bottom of a G is inflated.
>>
File: google geometric.png (17 KB, 630x630)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
Since I went full autism already, here's one more version to make lines 45º
>>
>>320774
>>320787
These look like a retarded version of the Google logo.
>>
>>320805
Yep. That's what I said. The bottom looks too big.
If you look at >>320783, then you can see all 3 fonts have the inside counter a bit below the center. And with Futura it's very evident it doesn't follow perfect circle as it might seem at first.
>>
>>320590
Must be awful having autism
>>
Honest question: do you guys really find the Google logo beautiful? I think is pretty lame
>>
>>320814
I have mixed feelings about it.
Initially I was very disappointed. To me it still looks like something made for a toy company. It's too generic, without especially unique/memorable features. And also, I liked how the old logo looked kinda respectable and serious, despite the admittedly lame color scheme. It always made me think how Google was a huge and powerful corporation.
But on the other hand, the new logo reflects what Google tries to be NOW. A 'friendly' company that pretends it's not a business at all but more like some sort of charity. With products that aim for maximum simplicity and accessibility. Being about future and technology, but also making it 'humane'. When I think if it this way, then perhaps the logo fits it 100%. It's almost spot-on perfect, in this sense.
Nevertheless, I still dislike its overly naive, informal look. But that's what Google's image is all about: naive and overly informal facade. We're talking about a search engine that constantly puts some doodle on its front page when you're trying to use it for serious tasks.
>>
>>320681
retarded person spotter.

this isn't because of some hipster off center bullshit, but because of the way how we percieve geometric shapes. imperfect shapes look better and more rounded than perfect geometric shapes.

for instance, look at some geometric fonts and pay attention to letters C, G, O etc
>>
>>320819
Good answer, thank you anon
>>
>>320814
It's beautiful in its simplicity, I suppose. Does what it needs to and fits with Google's design system.

If they tried to do a billion different things with negative space and combining letterforms and trying to make the Os look like someone surfing the web it would be pretty shitty.
>>
>>320760
>trl+mwheel up and take a look at the G below.
What fonts have an O that is a perfect circle? that's very unusual
>>
>>320900

Well like I was mentioning, Tex Gyre Adventor has an O that is soooo close to being a circle, but not. It doesn't affect the typeface either having the O as a perfect circle either, so I just don't know what the designer was thinking when he made that specific character. However, if I want to get anything at all BoC-ish going... kinda don't have a choice but to fuck with the O's unless if I wanna go through the hassle of assembling my own font.
>>
>>320738
I had this exact same reaction
>>
File: Perfect.png (122 KB, 2000x2000)
122 KB
122 KB PNG
>>320658
the red section originally cut off at 45 degrees, cutting it to match the yellow is ridiculous. In fact, the yellow section itself seems disgustingly disproportional to the other colors.

>>320787
I don't like how the curve becomes a straight line. I think the original logo gives a better sense of a circle, even though it may not be one, however I like the 45 degree colors.

I went ahead and made two versions with 45 degree colors, one that is actually a circle (which looks odd) and one more reminiscent of the original.
>>
File: Proper.png (122 KB, 2000x2000)
122 KB
122 KB PNG
>>321265
and here is the non-circular one
>>
>>321265
This looks better than >>321267

It's perfect.
>>
File: 1507058814411 copy.png (133 KB, 2000x2000)
133 KB
133 KB PNG
>>321265
>>
File: 32855841688427p.jpg (101 KB, 478x478)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>321265
>>321267
Good ones. It really gives off this Simon Says vibe now.

>>321279
oh yeah, I thought of this too but it looks very wrong
>>
>>320591
> i am a compromising, arbitrary, "gut feel" bohemian, fuck geometric logic and order
>>
>>321677
>he doesn’t understand that visual symmetries are geometric phenomena
>muh logic
>>>/pol/
>>>/g/
>>>/r9k/
>>
>>320590
Learn the difference between visual and mechanical, fuckwit. I bet you hate overhanging punctuation too.
>>
>>321734
He’s triggered by the person criticising the logo for not being geometric, idiot.
>>
>>321738
Are you sure? You seem to be the first that thinks that. No need for the insult by the way, you could always go back to /b/ for that.
>>
>>320681
>I know a lot of you are running under the rubbish "lol humans always prefer off-center garbage because perfectly aligned sequences are boring/look off", but that isn't standard.
Yes, it actually is standard fucktard
>>
>>321771
Yes, I am.
>>
It's called graphic design, not symmetry
>>
>>321853
Then perhaps it is you who is the idiot?
>>
>>321879
No, it's you.
>>
File: 1468875732981.png (193 KB, 1000x2000)
193 KB
193 KB PNG
>>
>>322325
I actually like this for some of the logos. But mostly those that aged or were simply shit from the start: Coca-Cola, Samsung, Yahoo, maybe Ikea and divided on Visa. More than anything, Yahoo. They should've claimed Futura long ago.
Actually was worse for: Canon, Sony, Starbucks. Disney's logo aged, but Futura does them no justice, it's too generic, serious and modern
>>
>>322325
Yahoo and Visa seem decent since they still have some character.

Canon and Sony are completely lifeless though, way too generic.
>>
YOU ALL MOTHERFUCKER ARE MISSING THE BIGGER PICTURE, WHY DID THEY REPLACE THIS?
>>
>>322338
Serifs and unnecessary for display type, and dropshadows are some disgustingly dated Web 1.0 shit
>>
>>322338
Because it was the wrong typeface to set for that logo. It's a lot better now. I was surprised it took them so long to change it.

>>321909
He was right. You're as thick as shit.
>>
>>322326
Ok, but there is no future in that pic
>>
>>322343
Funny because serifs are becoming cool in tech again. Look at Slack using Tiempos.
>>
File: elis--tom-534fd353d83a9.jpg (476 KB, 1000x1000)
476 KB
476 KB JPG
>>322437
>Slack
First, it's not for the logo—it's for the headlines on their site.
Second, it's not unique in any way to tech, it's a generally returning trend of '60s–'70s cool fat fonts
>>
>>322338
>>322393
It looks kinda weird, and the color scheme is really cancer, but remember it was made in 1999, back when Google was small, in an era that produced a lot of atrocious design and quite a few dotcom flops. Few probably expected that Google would go on to be the #1 search—let alone that it would far ourgrow being just search.
That said, I liked the old logo in a way… The font had a personality that I'd describe as kind, knowledgeable, and reliable. And as for serifs—Apple used Garamond, so why the heck not?
It wasn't that bad, it just became too unfashionable for a company that tries to be very progressive, both tech and politics-vise.
>>
>>320590
oh god damn it
op
>>
File: modern design.png (134 KB, 1055x900)
134 KB
134 KB PNG
>>322325
Reminds me of this thing I found a while ago on some /g/ website
>>
>>322575
My initial reaction to this was that it was too bland and a meme, but The more I look at it, the more I like it. Maybe not as actual logos, but the ideas are quite fun.
For Samsung this is actually an improvement (I hate their oval logo with passion).
I think Sony and Nintendo already use these fonts as some of their secondary fonts. But even though they're generic and unexpressive as fuck, I actually wouldn't mind these, only not for the logos Maybe for some of their lines.
For Coke, the thin letters make a very cool contrast from the ol' chunky script, making a nice metaphor to convince you sugar doesn't make you fat. Also, it updates the old logo to something modern yet timeless. Sure, it's nowhere near as iconic or memorable as the old logo, and it's too late to change anything anyway, but I wouldn't mind it if they tried it for Coke Light for example.
McDonalds logo becomes less busy, maybe add caps but I like it anyway. The golden arches symbol is already as recognizable as it gets, and the rest is here for what? "Red excites you and brings the appetite", does anyone still care about this shit? Just like their other branding, it needlessly reminds you that it's indeed McDonaldsmultiple times in a row, as if you still weren't quite sure.
Rolex and ThinkPad ones aren't too good though. But ThinkPad is so shit that literally anything is better than this
>>
>>322575
literally none on those on the right are worse than their left version
>>
it's made that way because if it wasn't it would look weird, try fixing it and look at both at the same time, the original will look way better
>>
>>320590
These threads
>>
>>322575
I really fucking dig the nintendo one on the right - I just wish the stroke on the characters was the same weight as that of the oval
>>
just watch it will explain logo think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV8hOLOC_Hk
>>
>>322666
>severe multi post linking
Are you enjoying your life anon?
>>
File: google logo layout.png (108 KB, 1000x1000)
108 KB
108 KB PNG
I tried to analyze the logo, and I think I got an idea of a layout they used. Basically, everything snaps to other things, but not what you'd expect. Including the square frame around it.
This is often seen in fonts. It's a good thing, because by these subtle relations they make the shapes seem more interconnected. This is what 'pure' geometry lacks, this feel of a wholesome shape.
>>
>>322575
1950s Pepsi is the best logo ever made.
>>
>>322721
this. don't expect novice autists to 'get' it in terms of type design and such. anon attempts to mechanically 'fix' on supposed premise that google designers are complete idiots it in this thread are kind of cringe.
>>
>>322721
the point with 4 lines crossing in bottom left is absolutely arbitrary, you could make the two tangents of the circle anywhere as well as the other two lines that connect the tips of the logo, the only nonarbitrary thing about it is the fact that the bottom tangent is horizontally aligned, so you could drag the remaining three line crossing anywhere alongside it
>>
File: circles.png (24 KB, 640x400)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
>>322985
>the only nonarbitrary thing about it is the fact that the bottom tangent is horizontally aligned, so you could drag the remaining three line crossing anywhere alongside it
Excuse me, but how? First off, the upper tangent goes exactly to the middle of the upper border. Given these 2 tangents, you could fit many different circles between them, but only 1 in the center (see pic).
Second, the other 2 lines are not arbitrary, as each one crosses some key points and angles. And the fact that 4 of them all cross at 1 point on the border is enough by itself.
>>
File: CJkr8iqUEAASE4u.png (24 KB, 300x296)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
Eh, fuck it. Close enough.

- Spotify
>>
>>320590
It's correct. When you see the G next to the OOG it makes the eyes run together. This is an offshoot that keeps the entire logo from running together. It's not supposed to be perfectly symmetrical.
>>
File: state_borders.png (75 KB, 740x534)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
>>320590
This pic reminds me of this recent masterwork of Randall Munroe autism.
>>
>>323028
This is correct, they broke the rules. There is nothing wrong with this. Fucking noobs.
>>
>>323202
>gibs to canada
More like lets annex canada and deport all the frenchos.
>>
File: Capture.png (117 KB, 737x1002)
117 KB
117 KB PNG
>>320590
it's called optical adjustment you dumb nigger
http://designwithfontforge.com/en-US/Trusting_Your_Eyes.html
>>
>>320814
It could be worse, but I find it (and especially the favicon in browser tabs) leaving a lot to be desired. It doesn't really "stick", mentally. (For what it's worth, I'm a board tourist, not a designer.)
>>
>>323407
The right X looks worse to me
>>
>>323407
>>323421
Agreed
>>
>>320658
why not make the yellow side bigger to make it match and stuck with the perfect circle
>>
>>323500
See >>321265
>>
>>323407
>/gd/ justifies money spent on designers
>/gd/ fails
>>
>>322325
So what they all basically did was destroy all creativity.
>>
>>322326
>Calling the coke logo dated
>>
>>323407
X on the right looks autistic as fuck.
>>
>>322666
I fucking love how a graphic design discussion can turn into a 4chan shit show... fact is, the logo is beautiful, life goes on, go fuck yourself.
>>
>>323656
I'm not saying that the image is perceived this way by people. When you have seen it so many times, you just don't get any feelings from it anymore. Moreover, I'm not even saying Coke should change it. Luckily for them, they have hammered this symbol into minds of people with decades of advertisements.
But as an image of Coke, the logo actually is ancient and you can't escape it.
First, this lettering style looks like vintage today. Do you see anything anywhere close to this in design anymore, in daily life? Maybe in baseball, but only because it relies on this vintage aesthetic. So it's pretty narrow, wouldn't you say? Now the question: is "vintage" really the main message/quality of Coke? It's not just throwback to the old times, right. You want something like it—go buy a vintage cream soda or something.
Second, the overall design of the logo is obviously from a century ago. It's far too excessive. It's beautiful as far as vintage lettering goes, but it communicates in the language of the XIXth century. The shapes mostly don't mean anything except "look how it loops, cool". The only exception
is that the tails kind of resemble flow of liquid, but that's not too big of an achievement. Without them, it says almost nothing and could be a logo for almost anything in XIX century.
>>
>>320590
>>
>>321279
oh my god D=, funny tho
>>
>>320590
>>
>>320658
exactly
>>
>>323421
>>323451
>>323658
Retards. Why are you even here.
>>
>>323784
>—this is optical adjustment this is how your eyes see things
>—umm actually I think it looks wrong
>—NO THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD SEE IT OK
Memes aside, I do realize this is one of the key typographic principles, and probably the best typographers of the past centuries didn't fool around when they formulated it. But what if I actually like absolute geometric alignment, in some cases? Not for text, but for logos—why not. Especially when it's a single letter in a geometric font, you know.
>>
>>323407
Warping type like this was relevant when ink would slightly bleed out across the paper. Now it's just absurdly disgusting to look at.
>>
>>323837
It's not optimised for ink bleed, it's to make it optically correct. You probably think a square and a circle of the (actual) same size look the (optical) same size to our eyes.
>>
File: GoogleSeries.png (30 KB, 654x646)
30 KB
30 KB PNG
>>320699
Why not going for something like this then ? the way you cut the upper part is really bothering me
>>
>>323886
Already been done >>321267
>>
>>320590
dude i hope this ia bait or you fucking need to take some optical correction classes
for me it s like 50% of the logo design most of the times
bauhaus ended ages ago you know?
>>
>>322582
The coke brand can't change their logo that easily, lot of countries call it Coca, so they or have to change the brand for every country or try to change the idea. Also the calligraphy font makes easy to recognize without being shit
>>
>>324069
Yeah I know. As I said, don't fix what isn't broken. There's gonna be more trouble than good if they change anything.
>>
People who are triggered by that shit never took a course on typography and don't know how we are decieved by our eyes.

Look sometimes how letters are drawn, they aren't all the same height, apex of "A" has actual function and isn't only some decorative whatever even though it goes above the line.
>>
File: 1382643967340.jpg (56 KB, 627x479)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>the logo is obviously good, the people at google are not idiots!!
Yes, retards, it's a good logo
But it has bad design. There are things other than graphic design when it comes to making a logo.
I won't go into details but only giants like google can afford doing such stuff. They are trying to make the logo as incorrect as possible without it looking too incorrect for the current day, I won't go into details why, I don't want to aid my competition.

But mark my words, this is a slow process, but they see that the correct move is trying to shift the design overton window towards the bad design part, in 50 years time the logos would look like kid drawings, it can't be done now because the logos would look too "edgy", the stuff that we have today is the worst they can do with the current logo overton window.
>>
>>324027
>shitting on bauhaus
>shiggydiggy
>>
>>324343
You mean to attract the masses, whose average IQ is that of an old toaster?

Kinda like how Trump only uses words from the 4th grade vocabulary in his speeches?
>>
>>324424
lol omg yah like people outside of my favorite anonymous image board are like so... stupid. like really dumb fucking.. just ignorant assholes. OMG RIGHT!!! stupid trump 2! You are so clever. We r clever! I know its like just use a real word you idiot and stop being such a ignorant male. I once heard hes not even rich its fake thing also! like the stupid words! Get a dictionary idiot!!! bigguy how do i get my name on here 2!?!?!?!
>>
>>324416
not shittying or acting edgy faggots i obviously love Bauhaus but if someone start doing idk Cubism rn it would be kinda pointless
plus bauhaus had a problem with wanting fonts with perfect geometry and that s why the only bauhaus like font famous and used is Futura which HAVE optical correction and it s not 100% perfect geometry like the others (in fact if i remember right it was made by a student who went to another school before and then remodelled by a professor)
History is one thing, design is another
>>
>>324429
Guess what, brainlet? You are one of the retards that I was talking about, you didn't even understand my point. Trump is an excellent orator and strategist, and the fact that the simplified his language to reach all audiences is part of why he won.
You are mocking me for being a SJW type and I even have a MAGA hat right here, dumbass.
>>
File: 375dj.jpg (178 KB, 600x646)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>>324433
I kinda feel bad at this point. I think you may actually be retarded
>>
>>324432
>ut if someone start doing idk Cubism rn it would be kinda pointless
Material design and current year trends (see the said Google logo and art deco fonts) come pretty close to this.
>geometry and that s why the only bauhaus like font famous and used is Futura
I'm not that good in design history, but I thought this wasn't mainly because of optical correction. I assumed it was because, first and foremost, their fonts had low readability and were too strictly geometric for their own good.
>>
A fhink a fhink It's the geometrya yea

Cool dindu byebye
>>
>>324461
exactly because their geometric fonts didn t recive optical correction treataments because in that case they ll stop being perfectly geometric

and obviously i was talking about cubism in art like bahaus in design, you re kinda slow man
>>
>>324686
you can't do much with Univers to make it readable, optical correction won't magically fix it
I'm not sure who's being slow here
>>
File: 1509191525577.png (26 KB, 603x222)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
>>324688
ok this must be bait
univers is made by A.Frutiger not by Bauhaus and it was on one of his book that o first learned about optical corrections.
All A.Frutiger fonts have beautiful optical corrections because he was THE MAN and you must die for wasting my time and shaming his name
For god sake i'm taking the bait so hard but omg if you're real you really don t understand shit die die die go to a fucking design school, read a fucking book or at least some fucking wikipedia page before even taking one more step in the design world because if you re real and oh god i really hope you re bait you re the reason we didn t get enough respect and money
i'm leaving this thread forever at full speed
die faggot
>>
>>322575
On the left you can clearly define country/age/market

On the left it looks like a fuckton of companies that try to sell me insurances
>>
>>322575
The thin font meme needs to die, it only appealing to teenagers and for everyone else only makes it harder to read.
>>
>>324536
underrated post
>>
>>325335
a thin / skinny font also is a lot harder to scale down onto a business card or a letterhead without being unreadably small or autistically large
>>
Not gonna read this thread but instead have faith that most of you know what optical balancing is.
>>
>>325311
>calling out both as left
Whoopsy-daisy!
>>
>>324433
You're one of the shittiest tripfags I've ever seen

t. Tripfag
>>
>>322582
Samsung looks far too similar to Konica Minolta's logo.
>>
>>322338
that shit used too much bandwidth. the new logo can be rendered with vectors and millions of people call the google site per day.
>>
>>325605
Except it's still an image, not a vector
But great idea anyway, should also make it BW to save that sweet bandwidth
>>
>>322325
did coca cola really change their logo to that
>>
File: 1510785220640.png (730 KB, 1300x4800)
730 KB
730 KB PNG
>>325631
It's making fun of pic related, since everyone is using geometric sans typefaces these days. All of the logos in that picture were made with the same font, FF Mark. I would know, I made both these pictures.
>>
>>323202
I really like long Oklahoma
>>
>>322582
Why do you hate the oval?
>>
>>326534
Not that guy, but dude, ovals and ellipses fucking suck.
>>
File: googol.png (63 KB, 1754x1594)
63 KB
63 KB PNG
>>320590
C-can I try too?
>>
>>326534
It's hard to explain, but it's simply irritating to look at for me. I feel it doesn't follow some common sense Western design conventions. You just don't do random size oval at random size angle like that. And slanted oval stands for… For what? I don't know if oval has any meaning—abstract, pictorial, metaphorical of whatever. The closest thing I can think of looking at it is garish space age design.
>>
>>326544
GooglexMacintosh
I kinda like it tho. there is a retro vibe in it
>>
>this thread is the literal proof why autists will never make it
>>
>>326544
that circle looks like the fag flag
>>
>>326553
That's the idea. We are talking of Google, after all.
>>
>>326544
>>326546
Agreed - it isn't terrible. I would just want to tweak the colors to be more 70s tones and probably pick a different font for the wordmark. Surprisingly interesting idea.
>>
>>322575
>Rolex still using serifs
Fucking disgusting get off my /gd/
>>
how's Firefox's newest logo?
>>
>>322325
the nu-font
>>
File: 1366_2000.jpg (113 KB, 1000x1000)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>326586
Honestly 2013 logo was my favorite. I think the tail did need to be simplified a bit, but otherwise it was good. It gently simplified the old logo without flattening it or going crazy on minimalism. The change was overdue—the old logos were simply overloaded with detail.
The new logo is mostly the same as 2013 one except for the tail. It looks a bit weird now because the tail protrudes from the circle. The spikes are gone and it's kinda confusing—I associated them with Firefox since its inception. By the way, you can see fox's head still has small hairs and complex shapes and it looks weird. Like a halfway done redesign made by different people.
Anyway, this new gradient swirl tail is passable, but it reminds me way too much of every bland current year logo. Why they made the tip of the tail protrude though? To make it look like flame? This barely looks like it.
The stripped down globe is honestly a welcome change though. If only they made the style more cohesive.
>>
>>326586
I like the high colour contrast
>>
File: NISNET.png (62 KB, 2371x1967)
62 KB
62 KB PNG
>>326565
>>326546
I can only dream of the future of Google.
>>
>>322343
For a brief time towards the end of that incarnation they removed the dropshadow and it looked great.
>>
>>326586
Kinda looks like a fork of Chrome now
>>
>>322326
>calling the Disney logo dated
You new age designers only want to use fucking normal font for everything

>Disney
Here Disney this is what I came up with, give me money

Fuck you! That's Walt Disney's signature and he is /pol/ approved.
>>
>>322996
problem is, it all depends on the border which you set yourself and isnt part of theofficial design, look at the manual for spacing around the G

ofc you would set the border to fit the tangents, but the border itself is shit and too small for the scale to be usable in anyway

nice analysis still, there is something to learn from it, it just doesnt really fit the G logo
>>
>>327133
>it all depends on the border which you set yourself and isnt part of theofficial design, look at the manual for spacing around the G
I was referring to the grid/layout that the letter was built on though.
This was several weeks ago so I don't remember every detail. But I went to https://design.google/library/evolving-google-identity/ and saw picrelated in the section "Google G construction". The box is exactly the same one that I posted, you can overlay the two pictures to see this.
As for spacing, this is another story. Maybe there's a layout in there too. Will have to look at it later, quite busy atm
>>
>>326601
That logo screams "evil AI that will take over the world"
>>
>>327349
That's the idea. Skynet in real life.
>>
File: nobj.gif (1007 KB, 500x250)
1007 KB
1007 KB GIF
>>327353
>mfw logos becomes self-aware and nukes the world
>>
>>320814
because its fucking google
>>
>>322325
Gas yourself, this is literal trash, not a reinvention.
>>
>>322338
Because it's shit garbage that someone paid far too much money for. So is the new one but not as bad as this.
>>
>>327517
That's the point.
>>
>>320590
G's are oval's you dumb cuck
>>
>>327521
I get it now. missed the explanation later down the thread
>>
File: GOOGLE GEOMETRY.jpg (82 KB, 1200x891)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
but it actually has perfect geometry! you just have to look further. lol
>>
>>327577
can't argue with dubs
>>
>>322325
>all those same fonts
Trash. Wtf
Ikea is trashed the most. l and I does not work in capital. Moron.
>Samsung canon sony all the same
This is really low tier of alterations.
>>
It's optically correct
>>
>>327947
That's the point of the image, retard
>>
>>322325
It looks like they opened the logo on a new computer that didn't have the fonts.
>>
>>323407
any other good websites I can look at that go into detail about small aspects of design like this?

I'm almost finished with my 4 years of design school and I still feel like I know nothing.
>>
>>321722
>autistically linking to random boards that make you sperg out with no connection to the rest of the thread




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.