007: Change Rage

Why are websites keeping layout or usability changes nobody likes?

About a few weeks ago while I was on Facebook, I found out I had this:

Oh dear sweet mother of Thomas Edison just no.

This is Facebook's photo-viewing lightbox, implemented sometime last year. I abhorred it. I used Fancybox on my own website for this type of thing, but I had pages linked to non-lightbox versions of my gallery works for those who wanted to view it in a bigger size.  Unfortunately, there's no way I could turn this off and never see it again. I've looked on Gizmodo, Engadget, Google, and there appears to be no way of doing it simply on Facebook without some kind of browser extension or one or two clicks or keyboard commands. Call me lazy, but even that seems like too much effort for something I simply would like to turn off.

Is this the only time I've had this box? No, when it was first implemented I hatedx3 it and I ranted about it so much, it would make a Livejournal user proud. Eventually, it went away, and I could only imagine Facebook finally answered the outcry of majority dislike against it. Nope, Facebook just decided to spare me for awhile before it returned.

First off, I'm biased. I don't like change. If it completely changes how something I have become used to is done, I'm very against it. There were some changes I liked that websites have done over the years. I like how Youtube can let you change the titles of your videos now so you don't have to reupload them just for a new title. I like how Facebook decided to move names above statuses or posts instead of right next to them. I like how Google lets you turn off the automatic search if you don't want it to automatically search something random for you. I don't like how Facebook doesn't let you turn off this blasted lightbox, I don't like Youtube's latest front page layout, and for the love of all that is good, what did Gawker just do to their websites?!

Haters to the left - which is Gizmodo.com's old design before the new design, on the right.
Screenshot taken 02/18/11, click for full view.

WHAT. HAPPENED? If anything, this only proves to me I'm incredibly out of the loop since this looks like it's set on mobile compatibility and I lack a smartphone of any sort. But from first impressions, I see attempts at a sleek white style a la Apple, a professional tabloid-type feel like online newspapers and any free Wordpress/Blogspot preset, and Serif fonts.

Freaking. Serif. Fonts. As the main typeface on blogs about the latest in the geek industry.

There is a reason Apple doesn't use Apple Garamond anymore and that's because Myriad exists. Anybody who has been paying attention to the latest in the geek industry knows that clearly, Sans Serif is the way to go. As somebody said about this as well, these new Gawker layouts lose all personal touch - now I'm immediately looking to the left instead of the front page I may or may not be interested in, instead of just scrolling through the front page and easily picking out what I want to read based on what pops out.

I find that accepting major changes like this, or in general just dealing with it as life moves on, is either incredibly easy or incredibly hard during the transition. Transitions are difficult when it's a huge jump from the sun to the moon. Heck, sometimes you might not even be able to accept the change at all and just ragequit, something I'm probably not going to do until Facebook gets triumphed over. This applies to real life as well as anything beyond web structure and design. But, here's the thing - why should we have to accept that change?

My last blog post, Corporate Logo Rage, discussed how that new Gap logo was so terrible that they actually reverted back to the old one. Some people wondered why Gap would cave in, claiming it showed weakness in the strong business hold it was supposed to have as a corporation. Others said it was good that Gap reverted back, claiming it showed that the customers and public were held in the utmost importance to guarantee full satisfaction.

The majority didn't accept Gap's bold Helvetica gradient-square-in-the-corner change, because the majority didn't like it. And God help me, if that can happen, then why can't I at least turn off the Facebook lightbox if the majority didn't* like it either?

*By now I suspect people have gone through the getting-used-to-it phase if they've had it for awhile. I've only recently gotten this so my outcry is a little late. That isn't the main point though.

006.3: Corporate Logo Rage [Final]

Why are corporate logos becoming simpler?
PART 3

PART 3: Answering the Question 

In Part 1, we discussed and dissected the THQ logo. In Part 2, we discussed and dissected the Starbucks logo. This entry, Part 3, is where we will finally bring it all together and relate it with the above question - why are corporate logos becoming simpler?

Starbucks and THQ both expressed changes with their logo that were very minimalist, simple, and not complicated. From three colours they dropped down to one or two, and for detail they dropped down to little. Some agreed it was a good improvement, and some like myself agreed it was unnecessary to just outright bad. But, the changes have happened, and the changes are here to stay, as most changes do.
Enter our third star: the Gap logo. 

If you haven't heard the story about the Gap logo, there's plenty of articles out there on your search engine should you search up for this. But in a nutshell, Gap changed their logo awhile back and there was so much controversy over changing the old-fashioned all-caps serifs font in a box to this 100% black Helvetica thing with a gradient square in the very corner, that this controversy could make the oceans overflow. There is even a Twitter account and a person who made a Gap logo generator because of this.

It was so bad Gap has recently announced they would keep their old logo. I am not making this up. I would discuss why but the last time I did, a Part 3 had to be made. So to make sure we don't go off-topic again, allow me to link you to this video from CNN that showcases a few good examples of important and interesting logo changes. Watch that first if you haven't already, I promise you it will be worth it. Also, read these lists from Under Consideration of The Best and the Worst Logos of 2010. 

Now, let's list off a few trends spotted in a majority of these as well as in general. Here's the major few I have spotted from the recent trend of recent logos:

• less is more, like a lot less
• add a pun, preferably to the type
• incorporate your logo into the type
• do the above but make it smaller
• use lowercases, a lot
• use sans serifs, a lot
• use lowercases and san serifs together, a lot
• ditch capitals and just use lowercases period
• if it ain't broke, fix it anyway

But how could this go possibly wrong? Surely, Gap has followed all the steps to making a logo that will fit in with today's standards, especially when most of these logos are headed in such a Web 2.0 direction! They used a sans-serif font, they used lowercases instead of all-caps...how did this happen?

Quite frankly, it's because the new Gap logo looks like garbage. I'm not going to go into technical detail about it because I just look at the new Gap logo and I don't like it at all. Everyone else has spoken for me. 

Now, there's a few other logos I don't like that have followed the latest minimalist trend. On the Best list of Under Consideration's website, MySpace and Comedy Central are on there. I completely disagree with this. I hate Comedy Central's because I find it boring and dull regardless of the pun, yet I don't spend as much time being angrily confused by it as THQ's since have no idea if it would fit the mood of any of their programming since I don't watch it. It looks more like a parody logo than anything. I dislike MySpace's for the same reason - although when I went on its site awhile ago with a friend and he placed his cursor over the logo, the space started turning into an animated bag filling up and it was sort of cool for an Easter Egg, but that's it.

As I look at more logo changes happening recently, the majority of them seem to be shooting for at least one or more of the trends listed above. I used to think this was simply for internet and the lingering, spreading trend that Web 2.0 has brought upon us. But clearly this has expanded to the outside of the web as social media and technology becomes more prevalent in society and things are becoming more simplistic for the future. This has been happening since the concept of modern furniture was created and the first iMac and iPod were spawned from Steve Jobs' genius. Heck, even before then, this concept - that everything is developed with the goals of being simple and intuitive so everyone can use them or relate to them - has been what has revolutionized technology and business today.

I believe the primary reason this is happening is bandwagon riding. All these logos are attempting to follow the trend bullet points that exist today, just like teenagers who want to fit in in their high school days and be popular. Heck, if Wingdings became something used often for logos, I'm pretty sure that would become a trend too. The difference being is that if you don't ride this bandwagon, that means you are not up-to-standard. Nobody cares if you're up-to-standard in high school, but in the real world, it's kind of a big deal to be in tune with what's hip and happening. This does not have to be a bad thing in the business world - it is to make sure not to get lost behind and not meet the standards, in this case with the design channel.

But is this really a good trend to follow? 

These are, respectively, the Walmart and Best Buy logos. On the left are the old ones, and on the right are the new ones. The new ones follow the lowercases, the friendly-looking sans-serifs, and the minimalist approaches. Noted by quite a few, however, is that the old ones stood out more and look far more dynamic to the arguably generic and too simple revisions.

And in the end, what works, and what doesn't? In a world, mainly North America, where it is important to please the majority to make good money, and where being creative and being generic have become fine lines to easily stumble over, what do you do, and will lowercase sans-serif fonts save the day?

006.1: Corporate Logo Rage [THQ]

Why are corporate logos becoming simpler?
PART 1

This was supposed to be published around January, but I wasn't sure exactly how to tackle this entry on during that period of time. There was a vast variety of logos I could tackle and lump together, but I wanted to focus on a select one as well as expand on that without drawing it out too long. Now, I think I can.

PART 1: THQ's Logo

To the left is the old THQ® logo, to the right the new one.

A couple of weeks or so ago (somewhere during that period of time), the THQ logo changed. Now, the only reason I care about this is for two reasons. The first reason is as a graphic designer, I feel obligated to follow along with the trend of logos and see what works and what doesn't. The second reason is because no matter how much I open my mind I just absolutely cannot bring myself to even one bit like this thing.

I just...I cannot see the appeal in this. I've been reading blogs and forums on their opinions with this but I just can't. I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but from the looks of it there's a huge majority approval for the new THQ logo. Now, bringing up a music analogy again, following the mainstream isn't the way to go but it is what popular and therefore it is what sells. Majority approval can be argued as equivalent to conformity, but that's another type of debate and topic.

I've never been part of the mainstream though or clued in with what's hip and rad* nowadays, and I'm 18. I actually liked the old THQ logo. To be honest, I didn't care about the logo at all, and to be second honest, I don't even think I played a THQ game. But it always stood out to me as something very bold and daring, cool, and - dare I say this and go under fire for breaking gender political correctness - manly. Well, maybe macho is a better word for it. I'm scrolling through a list of games this company has produced and I see a handful of these are pretty macho games - not all of them, no, but a handful. Obviously there are exceptions (particularly with Bratz and All Star Cheer Squad), but I perceive the old THQ logo as macho and cool.

May I also add on that I have seen this logo get effects slapped onto it more than the first time I learned how to use Photoshop and its filters. In my opinion, this step was for the better. In my mind, the THQ logo has a metallic gloss and emboss as well as possibly some shine. Almost never do I invision it as some flatly coloured object because when I see this logo, I always see it will metallic gloss and emboss in a really cool animation against black.

Now I look at the new THQ logo and I'm just...why? Why is there no more black? Why is the H lowercase and flipped around or cut off? That Q doesn't look like a freaking Q, at least the old logo was legible. And why does the Q pop out more than the dull grey of the T and the H? I don't see this as creative and innovative at all. Nothing pops out and shows itself off, it looks boring and dull, this won't look good on a black background, and I'm not sure how this would look animated, especially with that blasted Q. It looks like a red carpet unfurling.

Earlier I was talking with a friend, also studying graphics at an tech college and more keen on logos than I, about how this could work - not work as in good job it's better now, but work as in it gets the job done. If we go with the red carpet example and it wipes out or flies out or however it transitions, it shouldn't start from the bottom near that Registered Trademark symbol. Rather, it should start from that indicated green line starting point, so that it makes it clear that this is a Q and not some kind of strange question mark. For the record, why is the Q's tail going beyond the T and H's bottoms?

I just don't like it. I really don't. I don't think it's modern, stylish, and professional, I think it's incredibly boring, dull, and illegible. Maybe it needs a gradient. Maybe it needs a video. Probably the animated video, I'm looking forward to that. But, that isn't making it simpler. 

Which brings us to the original question: what is with the trend of simplicity with recent logos?

I'm hoping the program I'm taking at college will teach me something about this because somewhere along the line I would like to learn what makes this a good logo at all. The majority agrees, and that's all that matters when it comes down to the business, the marketing, and the positive feedback customers will give. 

Heck, Gap changed their very recently changed logo back to their old when people didn't like it. But that will be covered in Part 2 of Corporate Logo Rage, coming this Thursday when we further discuss why corporate logos are becoming simpler.

*hip and rad = not the terms I use for whatever is hip and rad today. last i heard it was dope or ill or sick or diseased or some crazy drug-related terminology.