←back to thread

885 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.216s | 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 #
1. echelon ◴[] No.42164457[source]
> that means they instantly got the logo, understood its structure, with no distraction.

We didn't get that it was supposed to be a logo or a brand though.

Labels like this look like placeholders. They leave you feeling empty and convey a sense of amateurishness.

These do provoke a visceral response. It's not an "Oh!", nor even an "oh?", but rather an "oh..."

The "brand guidelines" will be broadly disrespected since the mental threshold for brand awareness is higher than the entropy of a square.