if i'm reading this evolution chart correctly, the new logo is legs.
Yes, the new logo immediately reminded me of the Chinese character/ word for person:
And/ or - dueling tubes of electro-shock blue lipstick.
A reminder to never skip leg day :D
Sorry Charlie, the first rule of being bold, don't call yourself "bold"
Does that mean they'll redesign that piece of shit Jira?
I don't understand the hate that Jira gets, could you explain?
It is one of the most cumbersome and unintuitive applications you can find today. It is almost as if no designer ever touched it and they just crammed every feature on the same page forcing users to go through awkward and unintuitive processes to achieve the simplest tasks. Jira is incredibly powerful and it can do a lot, but because of how poorly it is designed, it also takes a lot of effort and patience to make use of it and I think this greatly devalues it.
To me, using Jira is kind of like trying to dig your garden with a 1920s excavator. Sure the excavator can do a lot but you also have to put up with a lot of shit to make use of its power.
Can you share an example of an unintuitive process?
This thing is the epitome of lazy design. Never-used controls sit at the same level as extremely important things, like progressing the issue forward through the Agile process. Also, did anyone ask if pill controls are the correct display for buttons that let you move the issue through to the next stage of agile? Shouldn't they be separate buttons? Pill buttons look like nav, but those are not nav controls.
Those controls are at the same horizontal level because they are the main actions you can do with a story.
The pill control is used because 2 actions are "tied" together. What I mean with this and based on your screenshot, one of the main action s for this story is to "Assign" but there are more options related with Assign (that's why More is next to it). The other example is related with other main action: the complete phase which can be "Ready for Grooming" or "Close issue". Again, they are related, that's why it has a "pill control"
One thing is certain: JIRA is made for the type of user who wants to get stuff done, regardless of its interface. It has a lots of options and customization and users have to search around the screen for the correct option but as long it works, it's fine.
I understand why they're in the same level vertically. I don't understand why the Main Actions for a story are visually the same as every other less important action.
I also understand that those actions are "tied" together. But honestly, they do almost the opposite thing at most stages of the story. Why isn't the primary "move the story forward" more visually prominent? Why isn't there some kind of color clue to tell the user "Hey, this is what you should click on to progress the story." No, the developers only created 1 button style and they used it for everything. Lazy and bad.
I'm not saying that tool design and "pretty" app style design like you see on Dribbble are the same thing. Certainly a hugely work-focused tool like JIRA is going to not look super nice, thats ok. However, the sheer laziness in UI kills me and it makes the product a lot harder to use than it should be.
"Users have to search around the screen for the correct option"
"JIRA is made for the type of user who wants to get stuff done"
Doesn't that strike you as a fundamental flaw in the tool? I can be much more productive setting up a Kanban board in Trello because I don't have to expend mental energy figuring out the JIRA interface.
"JIRA is made for the type of user who wants to get stuff done" LOL. This is totally BS! I have to spend tremendous amount of time to manage freaking jira, sometime more then task itself, this is totally one of the most unfriendly apps I have ever used.
I don't think so, the piece of shi.. is still the same, this is only minus of my job, that I have to use jira daily! lol :)
I feel you. I found ways to make it more manageable - since I was the only designer at my last company, I could have it only show my issues and I was only responsible for moving them from backlog (my own backlog not the whole team's, since everything else was development related), to in progress and then to in QA, after which the PM would take over.
I can't remember where it is but you can customise the 'new issue' screen to have less than a million options.
Thanks for that tip Cristian, will look at this. Hopefully the "bold new brand" will affect the current product as well ;) so we'll suffer less.
While the new "A" mark is a nice graphic, it is generic. Any company could use a graphic A. Using the Greek God Atlas provided something a bit more concrete, something that Atlassian could "own".
The Atlas mark reminds me of those gym and supplement logos I see everywhere.
To follow the company brand direction, all of their product logos have been changed to a generic ones too.
While the Apple is a nice graphic, it is generic. Any company could use an Apple. Using Newton sitting under a tree provided something more concrete, something that Apple could "own".
I think it's a matter of how much money/work you can invest in your brand. If you are coca cola you can own the color red in soft drinks. If you are a small company maybe you can own burgundy red within cider drinks or something. So sure Atlasian could try to own the letter A, but it's gonna be hell of a lot more work.
Atlassian have a market cap of 7.86 Billion at the time I'm writing this comment.
But that's not even the point - I don't think Atlassian are trying to own the letter A.
Like us, you may notice important symbolism around teams in the new Atlassian logo – two people high-fiving, a mountain ready for teams to scale, or even the letter A formed from two pillars reinforcing each other.
In this statement above, you can see that the letter A is almost relegated to an afterthought in what they want their logo to represent. Yes - the letter A is a part of what makes their logo - but it is not the definition of it.
It is true that it's a little bit generic looking but also it's very stylish and minimalistic and works well when being very small for favicons and whats not. And being so thick it works very well being a mask for images and illustrations.
All product logos are now very consistent (same thickness and gradient) which is a nice touch. Congrats to the designers at Atlassian for pulling this off. Atlassian had all these talented designers for a while but was very conservatively not changing anything. And now all those product pages, illustrations, and logos appear. Good Job!
BTW, I love the crucible logo the most (don't know what crucible is but I dig it :D )
I don't mind it :)
Their awesome products and story are what make me love them, regardless. If anything, their efforts in ramping up design and uniform branding is apparent and appreciated.
The change seems to have a backbone of unification, rather than 'boldness'. Changing all the product logos to exist under a design system similar to that of the logo solidifies the brand identity. It can be seen in practice with Google's products. In more of a visual sense, I agree that the logo feels a bit safe and generic. I think this is fine, since the main Atlassian logo should be something more iconic and symbolic, but the product logos could have used a bit more creativity. They are significantly differentiable now, but not necessarily notable enough to tell apart without the logotype. It's interesting to note that the Trello logo hasn't changed at all, and their decision to keep its logo despite owning the product.
Since a visual identity change usually comes as nauseating to its users, it's frustrating to see them reveal this new logo, and back up the identity with an unclear description of their values ('open work'). From the user's perspective, it would be less jarring if we understood Atlassian's new teamwork strategy, open work, and then were revealed this new logo and identity that supports it.
Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see if there will be any changes to the user interfaces in their products to support this new identity and its values, or if the change is just visual.
I kind of liked the people branding—but hey, now I can tell the difference between JIRA and Confluence in my Chrome tabs.
This feels like a good move. It's much more polished and more in line with their enterprise direction.
I think it's a neat evolution of their brand (and what I personally thought was an out-of-date logo previously).
As silly as the dynamic logos at the bottom were — pizza, Sydney Opera House, etc. — they did a great job having a unique illustration style that made the new logo come to life.
As a Jira/Trello user, I'm a fan. No, it's not bold in being drastically different (is anything?) but it is bold in that it's a comprehensive visual refresh for a large brand, which always risks some kickback. The look is appropriate, clean, and modern, and stuff like the Jira nav is now a little clearer. I'm a fan, anyway. :)
They are easily distinguishable. They are all very clearly part of the parent brand now as well. Do you have an example of what you think they should have done?
G suite (sheets, slides, docs). They feel like the same family; yet distinguishable at the size of favicons on browser tabs.
If I would be a first timer, I would say that's a campaing tent
I think any logo or icon can work well, when done right. We saw that in the Google rebrand. It's not incredible or crazy, but the brand works so well across their products and at all sizes, so it became incredible instead of just "ok."
But when I look at this rebrand, I feel like it's in the same boat: A decent logo, but unlike Google this feels like it lacks execution and attention to detail. That "A" completely falls apart at small sizes. If they adjusted the gradient and spacing for smaller versions, it could be nice.
I also don't know how "brandable" that A feels with the illustrated versions. Feels like Airbnb's logo was in their initial brand inspiration bucket and they thought "We should do some fun illustrated logos, too!" As it stands this just feels mediocre.
Other than Google, have you got some examples for who you feel does not lack execution and attention to detail in their brand?
It would be interesting to get a better gauge on what you consider is a good brand.
Yep! The Mastercard Rebrand, the Graphcore rebrand, the Polaris system by Shopify. https://polaris.shopify.com/
Not really an improvement on the old brand, but I guess someone felt this needed precedence over the rest of the experience.
Here's their blog post explaining the logo redesign: https://www.atlassian.com/blog/archives/behind-the-scenes-of-the-atlassian-logo-redesign
I also find the "A" generic. I'm a huge fan of their previous "Atlas" logo. I love the boldness, yet simplicity. And I love the consistency across (some) of their products, with the presence of Atlas tying each back to their brand.
A question I ponder. Yes, the product logos are now consistent with the brand, across the entire line. But I argue that each, looked at individually, is not memorable; each lacks individuality and will likely result in poor consumer recognition. When you take away their names, it becomes difficult to tell which one each represents (with a few exceptions, e.g. Trello and Hipchat whose logos changed the least). Is this acceptable for a B2B product where consumer recognition isn't as important?
The associated icons seem like an afterthought. That Bamboo icon in particular is pretty bad.
Was that internal job or they hired some agency? :)