←back to thread

877 points thunderbong | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.77s | source
1. NBJack ◴[] No.42162561[source]
They are certainly more colorblind and vision impairment friendly to be honest.
replies(1): >>42162964 #
2. HL33tibCe7 ◴[] No.42162964[source]
What is color blind unfriendly about the new logos precisely? Which variant of color blindness will not be able to read them?

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?

replies(1): >>42165152 #
3. NBJack ◴[] No.42165152[source]
Here's a good starting point: https://www.sfgov.org/designing-visually-impaired

> 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.

replies(1): >>42171751 #
4. Ukv ◴[] No.42171751{3}[source]
The old CSS and HTML logos had identical shape aside from the text. The new CSS and HTML logos have different shape (albeit subtle), larger text, and a greater difference in lightness.

Comparison, in monochrome at small size: https://i.imgur.com/3UvKKtg.png