←back to thread

877 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.249s | source
Show context
WD-42 ◴[] No.42162230[source]
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): >>42162280 #>>42162299 #>>42162332 #>>42162421 #>>42162434 #>>42162913 #>>42163054 #>>42163131 #>>42164021 #>>42164025 #>>42164152 #>>42164458 #>>42165634 #>>42166052 #>>42166909 #>>42167023 #>>42170503 #
fenomas ◴[] No.42164025[source]
I once saw an interview with an apparently well-known logo designer, who said something to the effect of: "When somebody sees my work and says 'that's nothing, anybody could make that', that means they instantly got the logo, understood its structure, with no distraction. That's what it's meant to do, so to me it's a compliment."

Whether that applies here is naturally subjective, but hearing that changed how I look at logo designs a bit.

replies(4): >>42164135 #>>42164388 #>>42164457 #>>42175178 #
latexr ◴[] No.42164135[source]
There’s a limit to that. By that token, every logo in existence could be a white square with black text on it. Clearly they are not, because people understand the need for some differentiation. Even in this case, the logos benefit from having colour.

And they’re not even consistent. Three of them are squares, two of them are different shapes, and despite the simplicity even something as trivial as the font size and spacing isn’t uniform.

replies(2): >>42164353 #>>42169287 #
1. ◴[] No.42164353[source]