I really don’t like these logos that are boxes with text in the lower right. The post cites a “common design language” with other tech but this has to be the most low effort language imaginable.
replies(17):
Which visual impairment exactly will find it easier to parse the previous logos (which are a mess of design scarcely related to the actual technology name) than the current ones, which contain thick bold text indicating exactly what the technology is called?
Also people actually use them, a while back every CS student inexplicably had these stickers on their laptop. I can't see these new logos being ever used as stickers because they're just... nothing.
> Do not rely on color alone to denote information
> Use additional cues or information to convey content
The old icons were certainly ugly. But they had a unique shape (cue) and didn't rely on color. The new logo has text which helps, but this is where visual impairment becomes an issue (lack of focus to read said text).
I have no intent to take away from the meaningful choices made in this logo's design. But even just picking a unique shape for each component would go a long way.
Don't let the warts of the real implementation get you down, it's a delight how everything I want to do is just part of the vanilla stack now, one way or another.
Comparison, in monochrome at small size: https://i.imgur.com/3UvKKtg.png
