> The latest Chrome Dev Channel release comes with a new Chrome logo that's more plain and boring [...] Chrome lost some of its magic by switching to a visual identity that's no longer vibrant and picturesque
Wow. My thoughts exactly when seeing the new logo, but I'm surprised Google would put it this way!
Well, plain is not necessarily boring. In most cases, including this one, I prefer the plain version. One example other than Chrome is Pepsi, the new plain logo looks so much better to me than the sort-of-3D old one. I guess it's very subjective.
Yes it is ;-) There was a post on HN some time ago showing how old logos were in many cases so much better than new ones, and Pepsi was amongst them.
But, Google being Google, maybe they tested it? The problem with tests, I think, is that it favors bland versions because they upset the least; this new logo kind of smells of "design by committee", no?
I subscribe to this blog rather than the official Google blogs for this reason. I get to hear about the interesting new features, but none of the marketing spin from Google themselves.
I feel this logo looks better when sized way down to "Windows quick launch bar" or "GNOME launcher" size, but for instance on a Mac dock it's completely out of place with it's 2D look & feel.
Or less chintzy and less like a VCR manufacturer's logo from 1979. It looks good! It seems typical to have a strong reaction to a new name (iPad, Wii, Vista) or a new logo but it passes. Everyone will be used to it within months :-)
I'm new to the notion of the silhouette test (had to google it) so forgive my ignorance, but how does this logo pass that test? Isn't its silhouette just a circle...?
If it were to be converted to a 1-bit image (Black/white) you could still make out what it is. That's basically the silhouette test.
This one doesn't quite work because there's no separation between the three colors that make up the circle. Not that it needs to, though. This one is better than the last for this test. In this case the silhouette would be the larger outer circle and the smaller inner circle.
It's really only used in print design, or at least that's how it started because logos needed to be versatile enough to work in many different color spaces, including being sent via fax. It is useful to keep in mind so that we create clean and uncluttered logos, though.
Word. You're right. I was over-hypey :D
It doesn't totally pass the silhouette test. It could with a thin edge of negative space in between each color block, OR... if we allowed a grey "cheat" in our silhouette test.
These kinda shape logos aren't just awesome for print, but in tiny places like web footers, twitter avatars, etc.
And for anybody in the thread rackin' their brain trying to figure out what we're talking about. Picture the Nike swoosh, or the Apple-missing-a-bite apple. With no gradients, colors, or shadows, their shape alone is recognizable.
This doesn't mean their every use + instance is this plain, but their logos survive such a deconstruction. It REALLY comes in handy.
Definitely. I think the 'Looking like physical items' thing is just a phase, and will soon look as dated as 'translucent glass beads' and 'embossed cursive font'.
To me it looks like something designed by Fisher Price. The original has a sci-fi feel to it, like a high tech machine that looks simple, but hides a lot of high tech inside. Even the subtle details on the side of the yellow portion lead you to think there's more than what the eyes can see. The new logo says 'toy'... and nothing else.
One reason might be that the change brings the logo more in line with the Google identity. Google usually doesn’t do shiny and photorealistic, the Chrome logo was always a strange aberration in that respect.
I like the new logo, but I didn't expect to see a logo change of the official Chrome that early. There are still a lot of advertisements showing the old logo around in my city.
Glossy embossed days are far behind. Subtle gradients, trying to achive 3d in 2d space with less cluttered effects.
I would say very in tune with Apple's next design iteration. http://www.usabilitypost.com/2011/03/01/simpler-ui-in-lion/
That's a very interesting article there. The thing that bothers me the most about OS X is how it looks so monochrome (and, by my definition, boring and less usable), like it's mentioned on the "Less color" section. I like to use color from icons to guide myself and by going monochrome I just can't do it. On the opposite side there's Google's sidebar which has so many colors mixed-up that it's as usable as Apple's monochromatic style.
One can easily argue that monochromatic UIs are less distracting though. But it does remind me of USSR architecture...
I have the same with glossy screens, which have so become the fashion in the past years. Instead of the pixels, I see a mirror image of myself. I was in a big electronics shop yesterday and all laptops had glossy screens!
Not just the next iteration: Apple has been toning down the Aqua look in every version of OS X. The original Aqua was very much an offspring of the 1990's iMac aesthetic with candy colors and pinstripes everywhere. The pinstripes were the first to go, and each update has switched some glossy element to a more flat look.
The new logo does not appear to have been designed with smaller icons in mind - the white circle around the blue center is too small (or shouldn't be there at all). In its present form, it looks pretty bad on my dock.
The colors need a bit less saturation to really become subtle, they're a bit too bright and overly-chromatic. I like the concept, but the execution is poor.
Yeah, but that was hardly my point, if the reason for the change was visibility in small size, they would have been better off just modifying the icon. I definitely agree that it does have higher visibility in small size than the old one.
I love the flatter aesthetic, but man does that strong white ring make me want to push the center blue "button". It actually brings that feature so far to the foreground that I ignore the rest of the logo. I would seriously prefer a thinner white circle.
Just a curious question that has nothing to do with the Chrome logo.
Your link has the rlz string that is presumably for your Chrome/Chromium browser. Can that be personally identifiable information for anyone other than Google?
So, they took a logo with depth (3Dish) and flattened it, plus did something kinda weird with the color. It doesn't look quite right with all the other icons on my dock.
75 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadWow. My thoughts exactly when seeing the new logo, but I'm surprised Google would put it this way!
> An unofficial blog...
Ah, that makes sense.
Yes it is ;-) There was a post on HN some time ago showing how old logos were in many cases so much better than new ones, and Pepsi was amongst them.
But, Google being Google, maybe they tested it? The problem with tests, I think, is that it favors bland versions because they upset the least; this new logo kind of smells of "design by committee", no?
I subscribe to this blog rather than the official Google blogs for this reason. I get to hear about the interesting new features, but none of the marketing spin from Google themselves.
Or less chintzy and less like a VCR manufacturer's logo from 1979. It looks good! It seems typical to have a strong reaction to a new name (iPad, Wii, Vista) or a new logo but it passes. Everyone will be used to it within months :-)
Subjective retro-ness aside, the new logo is more of a logo (less textures, passes the silhouette test, etc).
This one doesn't quite work because there's no separation between the three colors that make up the circle. Not that it needs to, though. This one is better than the last for this test. In this case the silhouette would be the larger outer circle and the smaller inner circle.
It's really only used in print design, or at least that's how it started because logos needed to be versatile enough to work in many different color spaces, including being sent via fax. It is useful to keep in mind so that we create clean and uncluttered logos, though.
These kinda shape logos aren't just awesome for print, but in tiny places like web footers, twitter avatars, etc.
And for anybody in the thread rackin' their brain trying to figure out what we're talking about. Picture the Nike swoosh, or the Apple-missing-a-bite apple. With no gradients, colors, or shadows, their shape alone is recognizable.
This doesn't mean their every use + instance is this plain, but their logos survive such a deconstruction. It REALLY comes in handy.
'Flat, simple iconography' is the future, man.
Perhaps I read too much into logos, but I'm convinced this change is for the better.
http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2008/12/square-is-new-round...
In the case of the simplified logo, "square is the new round" would seem to apply again.
Sums up every UI change reaction ever.
Something in between this new logo and the previous would probably be appropriate IMHO.
Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it.
One can easily argue that monochromatic UIs are less distracting though. But it does remind me of USSR architecture...
Could this really be happening? Could the universe be so kind?
Glossy might look good for five seconds, but when you spend eight hours staring at shiny windows flying across your screen you tend to get sick.
For instance: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ikoka/3660963620/
The new icon looks more at home among the other Google products. (http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/options/)
Whether there's any significance to this, I don't know.
As on Windows and on the gnome desktop.
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs22/f/2008/005/e/3/Blue_GLaDOS_B...
These have eyes.
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS397US397&q=...
Your link has the rlz string that is presumably for your Chrome/Chromium browser. Can that be personally identifiable information for anyone other than Google?