JetBrains redesigned their website and logos
jetbrains.com
jetbrains.com
My take: The site is not really appropriate given that their supposed target demographic is developers who are quick to cut through marketing BS and skip to the details. All the flash and distraction leads me to...
My guess: They will be selling the company in the next year or so and are adding (perceived) value for the prospective buyers. Just from my past experience.
Although developers are their end users, they don't make up the entirety of the site's target audience. From my other comment in this thread:
As ridiculous as it sounds, the design of a software company's marketing site affects the impression a buyer will have of that company. A site that looks like it hasn't been updated in years can make someone think the software itself is outdated, or the company is slow-moving, or the company isn't growing anymore. If you're the CEO, CMO, or head of sales at JetBrains (or any other software co), that is NOT what you want people to think of you.
Between Kotlin and the IntelliJ team, this could benefit a lot to the Android ecosystem.
I'll play devil's advocate:
_You_, the engineer, may think design is useless and the old one worked just fine. But _you_ are not the only one JetBrains sells to: They're also selling to the managers and executives who make buying decisions at "big" companies -- ie, the kind of companies where a six-figure software deal must go through countless evaluations.
As ridiculous as it sounds, the design of a software company's marketing site affects the impression a buyer will have of that company. A site that looks like it hasn't been updated in years can make someone think the software itself is outdated, or the company is slow-moving, or the company isn't growing anymore. If you're the CEO, CMO, or head of sales at JetBrains (or any other software co), that is NOT what you want people to think of you.
See also http://splunk.com, http://newrelic.com, http://appdynamics.com, etc. They're not so stupid to be spending money on redesigns if it didn't help with sales and growth.
[0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Zune_log...
The usability on the old site was too high, developers loved it but management were confused by the directness and lack of bullshit.
So they redesigned it for sales, and away from their core demographic.
PS - Google should really penalise sites that operate intros.
>
> ~ root$
Really gives the site an "over-engineered just for funsies" look and feel. Why not just a link and be done with it? While cool the first time, it's just clutter that adds nothing of value to the site.
For a company that focuses on products that "just work, and work well" this website is giving off the wrong impression.
One interesting thing I've noticed is that my comments like this often get downvoted to -1 or -2, then go back up. It happened for this one. I wonder why that is. Are grumpy people more likely to get in early?
I mean, I know it's the current design fad, but I wish it would stop.
Sorry, your browser is not fully supported
There may be some issues with pages layout in your
current browser.
Please use an alternate browser until we resolve the issues.
Thank you.
and no way to skip - it's fullscreen, I see no website.Have we really reached the point where JavaScript is required to display a logo on a website?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JavaScript_libraries#W...
> "The rest of the internet has been there for a while now."
This is not my experience at all. Most of the sites I use, especially text/image content-driven websites, load fine without JS and it saves me from having to deal with a lot of annoying UX issues.
In fact, in this case I was able to avoid having to suffer through the intro JetBrains decided to show visitors on this website, until just out of curiosity I decided to enable JS to see if their logo would render.
I am well aware that some web applications use JavaScript frameworks but even then it's possible to render content for SEO and other purposes where JS might not be enabled. Certainly the logo can and should be rendered without JS even in these cases.
I would imagine that web applications implemented in a JavaScript framework are a minority as should be the case. The vast majority of websites simply display text and images and there is no sane reason to require JS just to view text and image content.
Especially for a logo.
Coupled with the intro video, it feels like we're back in the early 2000's where flash intros to every site ruled the web.
Neither informs nor amuses the user. It's just (beautiful) clutter.
This has nothing to do with supporting mobile resolutions. The site just doesn't do responsive... at all.
They do need to work on the responsiveness of that site.
Did Jetbrains not consider Gestalt rules when designing this? Their design completely messes with this in my head and I hypothesise that's why I can't order information.
That said, the new branding is...troubling. Aesthetics is a matter of taste, over-engineering and fuss are not. KISS never goes out of style.
It is troubling, because it may hint at suits taking over. I hope I am wrong.
But ...
Last company I worked for I also used IntelliJ IDEA. And it's pretty obvious that IDEA is their main-focused project, which is superior than the others. For example WebStorm still doesn't have nice TypeScript support ( 1.7 is not supported and overall typescript seems to be buggy ).
Also they should've probably spend more time and "rebrand" their UI ... I'm sick of dracula and default themes. Atom is a masterpiece on design nowadays.
There's still a perception in some communities that IDEs are clunky things for old-timers. The new branding helps to lift that image. I think it will appeal to those who've never considered an IDE.
It's also a welcome refresh for any PhpStorm users like me who've always felt a little short-changed with the old logo – it used to feel awkward in the dock, particularly compared with the other JetBrains IDEs.
I think the splash page is a strange choice though, and I don't see why they wouldn't have a static svg fallback of the logo.
Pay annually? No thanks.
But is it really 100$ so expensive for an average developer? Consider how much money you're making because you have these tools.