Is this the worst logo redesign of all time? Only lasted 6 days before reverting to their previous logo.
>>455551looks like for a medical product
>>455551When the redesign happened there were theories that it was intentionally bad to get PR. I wouldn't rule it out.
>>455557Looks like picrel
>>455551you sayin in the usage of the old logo there was a short *gap*?
general shape of any logo in digital era has to function as a logomark legible and recognizable by a slightly vision-impaired viewer when filling a 16x16px resolution 0.5cm^2 square and circle shape with 1-2px padding with some pixel hinting, so basically in 14x14px square. to function well in any social media avatar or favicon ui element setting. (it also should guarantee that it will be fine even in bad print quality.)neither of those really do (the older one probably can be sort of pixel hinted poorly as it is in their website, but not the newer one).if the modern redesign doesn't account for that, then it's made by a big retard.
>>455574because everything every business entity including the company's shitty website is an "app" linked somewhere somewaylike who even cares about about a big wide ass horizontal orientation 1990s helvetica logotype on side of a truck or billboard on building of a physical store (lmao whats that even), like who even goes outside anymore
>>455551When Gap released this logo, they'd already been using it for 2-3 years on some physical clothing labels already. Pragmatically speaking, it's a much more visible and accessible logo. It's much easier to see from a distance. If they had stuck with it, the outrage would have died down. But the initial response to it was so negative and intense that the executives panicked.
>>455598legibility and icon/sign/regcognition are like opposite on a spectrum. the squinty hard to read seraph letters are very recognizable
