Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2012 22:42 UTC
Windows Microsoft has officially unveiled the new Windows logo, and unlike the several previous Windows logos it's no longer a flag, but actually a window. Which is weird, since Metro doesn't have windows. Love this bit: "It does not try to emulate faux-industrial design characteristics such as materiality (glass, wood, plastic, etc.)." A well-deserved jab at Apple's inexplicable obsession with skeuomorphic My First Operating System-esque interfaces.
Permalink for comment 507691
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Is this a joke?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 18th Feb 2012 05:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Is this a joke?"
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Are you being serious with this? Do you want more gradients, rounded corners, gloss, striped backgrounds, colors and curves? Personally I'm glad those days are over (in the web design world). But I can not wrap my head around your assumption that better computing/graphics technology must yield fancier logos, and that a logo's fanciness has actually something to do with its quality.

That's not necessarily what I meant, although it's pretty hard to explain and I *knew* people would respond taking what I meant, and understanding it the exact opposite. Hell, even if I read it and--assuming I didn't even know what I was talking about--I would probably think the same. It's just one of those balancing acts that you just can't get right; my point is, too much complexity *or*, in this case, too much simplicity are both bad.

Take four light sky-blue sheets of construction paper and lay them down sideways, side-by-side and in two columns on a white surface--a desktop, floor, whatever. There you have it... that's it... the Windows 8 "logo". Maybe tape the sheets to the surface and hold one side up for the "angle" effect. The classic Windows logo is not a whole lot more in-your-face and complex than that (not too many curves, colors, gradiants, etc.), but with it there's no mistaking the brand and it looks nice; it was a lot more effective.

I'm not saying add all the fancy shit you can--just that this logo is so damn bland, it's pathetic (and laughable). What they had worked; why ruin it? Ironically, even the first Windows logo pictured in the article, I'd argue, is better; it had rounded corners and the white lines were not just slapped right through the center (for the most part).

Edited 2012-02-18 05:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4