Be nice. Or else.
San Francisco [timsilva.com] Designer @ Encide/Verizon Joined about 2 years ago
Lots of real website are on this. I got edison.com and tesla.com right off the bat; both are alive and well. There appears to be no more than ~30 on here, and no one is validating them. :/ Cool idea tho, just needs some real content.
I especially agree with your last statement. He grabbed an example that was more art than design, and attacked it for not being design.
His points about product design and usability are valid (albeit a bit obvious), but it seems a bit close-minded to reject anything that isn't strictly following industry principles. Is it not okay to have fun and make something visually interesting? Or is it just not okay that other people are celebrating and liking it when people publish this type of work?
Honestly, exploring concept art in UI design is often where great ideas come from. Every once in a while, exploratory visual eye-candy can be used in a practical, functional way.
While I'm personally still using Adobe CC and code above all else, I am so grateful for all of the competition in this space. Lots of innovative ideas here which all of the major players with eventually support in their own way sooner or later. :)
I agree! As annoying at these rants can be, it helps invite others to come along and point out all there areas where he is wrong or right. I think he has good intentions, but the path loaded with mistakes because of emotional reactiveness.
Lumping a group of individual people into "bros" isn't an argument. You are being more ignorant than the idea you have of the people you are attacking. There are multiple contributing factors to why there are less women than men in tech. Picking on a such an arguably small factor and using that as a weapon against random people is immature.
Mike, you are a white-male! Therefore you aren't qualified to have an opinion on these matters. :p (I hope my point isn't lost here.) Look, I used to work with an angsty SJW. At first, I was on her side 99% of the time, but she hated me no matter what I said or did because I am a "cysgen heteronormative straight white educated toxically masculine male" or something along those lines. I'm just a typical, friendly person. Even if I agreed with her on an issue, she would still add a reminder to me that she is more oppressed so I shouldn't add my thoughts to the conversation. It was a strange control issue. To reduce anyone's experiences and complex history to a list of their privileges shuts down communication.
I think Mike is someone who is so terrified of being attacked or criticized for being a white male, that he goes above and beyond to pander to the angriest of individuals in the PC/SJW community by saying "Hey look at me, I'm not like those other bad ones. I will help you marginalized people who need my help and if you ever revolt against the man, please spare me since I tried!" I get the intentions here, but I've walked down that path and I'd argue that it causes exponentially more harm than good. All it does is invite low-vibration energy people into your life. It's not good for your wellbeing to be a martyr for a cause that aims to change the definition of communication to one-way yelling at "the others."
My apologies for the slow reply. First, I should clarify that the bulk of my criticism is towards the logomark/symbol. I realize that a brand is SO much more than just the logo and just the symbol. Its maybe 10% of the system. However, I stand by my 6/10 rating because I would argue that the execution and the usage of the new "P" symbol is so awful, that it has a larger impact than the 10% weight it should carry.
I agree that the old rotated e was awkward. I much prefer the new workmark, I think it is clearer and much more professional. The icons, type, motion, and colors are all fine; attractive even.
As for the examples I mentioned, I didn't say they got them right the first time. But in many of those cases, they had the general visual concepts set early on relative to their entire history (95%+ of their history in most cases).
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I have critiqued the actual work. With that said, it would be dishonest of me to ignore the broader ideas within the industry that have clearly influenced this example. Here's my core critique, the symbol isn't unique, it barely represents a P (I looks like 1° [degree]), and it has no meaning or story behind it. Now, does that mean that it can't work? Obviously not. There are plenty of "bad" logos based on my criteria that represent effective brands that people love. I get that.
Side note: My friend matched the old symbol with the new workmark and it looked fantastic: https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T03TAKEK4-F5V7P4T8V/screen_shot_2017-06-16_at_3.36.16_pm.png
I know you don't mean it this way, but embracing change as a catch-all approach isn't always a wise approach. What if that change is build on bad ideas and poor values? In this case, I would consider this reband reactionary to bad ideas. Again, that is highly subjective. Just my 2 cents. ;)
Totally, the P is hardly there! Its almost as silly as Uber's rebrand where they could have kept it as a subtle U by rotating it 90 degrees clockwise.
Music to my ears Jon. :)
"reading tea leaves and horoscopes, and making shapes out of the clouds in the sky"
"Why change it? What was wrong with it?"
This is the right question! My best guess after 5+ years of following rebrands closely is that there is an addiction to the "new" and the belief that "new is better" from all perspectives even when it defies all logic.
Brand systems, when done right, can be timeless. I see this as a sign of wisdom when brands like Apple, Nike, CBS and PBS get it right either the first time, or as soon as they could afford to prioritize visual branding. They created something simple, dynamic, and memorable early on.
The only two scenarios where I think rebrands are justified are when (1) a brand experiences one or more bad PR phases and they need to separate themselves from their broken promises that are associated with their visual cues or when (2) they didn't create a thorough system the first time around and they had an incomplete system (a workmark-only logo when they actually needed a symbol + wordmark, for example).
Those are good reasons. I think most rebrands today are for the bad reason of believing that a logo with a more recent publish date is inherently better. To that I say that there are logos from 100+ years ago that put this rebrand to shame. Even the use of the Christian cross is a more effective symbol that represents an idea, and that has been used for at least 1800+ years.
There is a real craft in branding, but that craft is cheapened when many people in the industry think that they need to re-do it ever couple of years. Its especially painful in cases like this where they went from what I would describe as a 9/10 system to a 6/10 system. :/
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.