The design process behind the new Google icon | Hacker News Reader

The design process behind the new Google icon

googleblog.blogspot.com

10 pointstimr11 comments

This just goes to show how lost Google is regarding design.

They had no idea what kind of favicon to create, so they created 300 different ones (some of them absolutely hideous) and chose an ugly lowercase G that doesn't match Google's brand at all.

And blue? With a gradient? Why?

The lowercase g is a direct rip from their current logo. They actually did very little restyling of it, at least for the purpose of the favicon.

It's kind of a clever variation on the "make your favicon just a piece of your real logo" trend. Using the second G instead of the first is, in some respects, pretty playful. Sucks that it's hard to recognize.

I noticed the new Google favicon a few days ago, and already hate it. Why use a lower-case 'g'? That would make sense---if they changed their name to 'gooGle'.

i think uppercase is too "strong" for the sort of relaxed company Google is seen as, and uppercase letters in general are rigid/disjointed -> ugly. also, the uppercase G in their font isn't as recognizable/signaturable as the lowercase (in general, i think uppercase letters have less tractable variation than lowercase)

though i think that particular lowercase g may be too complex (too curvy)

The source of the trouble is that the uppercase G of their logo font is too lightweight to look good by itself. The Yahoo Y looks pretty good, but the Google G is all empty space. And it's probably not a font where you could get away with cranking up the weight very much.

Basically, they've been hosed by bad design choices they made early on, and which they now (rightly or wrongly) consider to be part of the company's identity.

The selection of that particular font was made by Ruth Kedar, who's no design lightweight.

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-01-14-n16.html

What do you mean, "no design lightweight?" Presumably you're not basing that statement on the fact that she designed Google's logo, since then it would be a tautology. Are you basing it on other work of hers that you know and admire? Or do you mean that she must be a good designer because she taught at Stanford?

The point is that the logo font face was very intentionally chosen. It was not created by happenstance and eventually adopted as good just because it was old. If it's getting them into trouble now, it's not because it was a poorly designed logo, just that it was poorly designed for the purpose of being a favicon.

I won't speak to whether or not Ruth Kedar would qualify as a great designer in everyone's eyes, but I would say being anything other than a Google engineer with a passing interest in logo design would be enough to support my point.

The main problem with the old favicon was the box around it. It looks bad in the address bars of Firefox 2 and Internet Explorer. It also looks bad when the browser doesn't do a good job of aligning the favicon with the text next to it. I have exactly the same problem with my favicon and it isn't easy to work around without going with a whole new design.

Anyway, did they do end-user tests on this design? I would be very surprised if the results of a marketing/usability test support this change.

Poor graphic design is part of Google's charm.

I don't think they're so calculating that they do it deliberately though. I think the powerful people there just have no design sense.

That's useful for startups to know. Any startup where design is a critical ingredient will be at least to that extent protected from Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com