Slashdot Log In
New Google Favicon Deja Vu All Over Again?
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Jan 11, 2009 07:52 PM
from the matters-of-deep-significance dept.
from the matters-of-deep-significance dept.
theodp writes "Last June, Google rolled out a new favicon, the small branding icon that graces your URL bar when you visit Google. Which, as it turned out, bore a striking similarity to Garth Brooks' Circle-G logo. Well, Google went back to the drawing board and has come back with a new favicon, which it says was inspired by — not copied from, mind you — its users' submitted ideas. Some are also seeing inspiration elsewhere for the new favicon, which consists of white 'g' on a background of four color swatches. Take the AVG antivirus icon, for instance. Or everybody's favorite memory toy, Simon. Or — in perhaps the unkindest cut of all — the four-color Microsoft Windows logo, shown here with a superimposed white '7'. Anything else come to mind?" What comes to mind for me is just how obsessed many people are with the Google favicon.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Really, timothy? (Score:5, Insightful)
What comes to mind for me is just how obsessed many people are with the Google favicon.
You mean like the Slashdot editors who think it's important enough to put on the front page?
Re:Really, timothy? (Score:5, Funny)
News for NERDS. Yes, we (the nerds) care about such things. Pedantic is our middle name.
Parent
Re:Really, timothy? (Score:5, Funny)
My middle name is Clive, you insensitive clod!
Parent
Re:Really, timothy? (Score:5, Funny)
My middle name is Clive, you insensitive clod!
Anonymous Clive Coward? :P
Your parents didn't like you very much, did they?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
News just in (Score:5, Funny)
... the "S" in Slashdot looks similar to the "S" in MicroSoft!
Parent
Unpossible (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Unpossible (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly! And judging by the way the editors are posting this crap purely to get pagehits, it's safe to call it $la$hdot.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What comes to mind for me is just how obsessed many people are with the Google favicon.
You mean like the Slashdot editors who think it's important enough to put on the front page?
Well, I noticed it first thing this morning when I started my workstation.
Personally I think it's damn ugly -- which surprised me for Google.
Maybe I'll put a custom one in my userChrome.css.
Re:Really, timothy? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Really, timothy? (Score:5, Insightful)
why does it surprise you? have you never been to google.com or seen the official Google logo?
from the very start Google's used clashing primary colors with a homely serif font for their official logo [onewebday.org]. at first i thought it looked tacky & unprofessional (and it was), but over time it's grown on me. it's kinda refreshing to have a major IT company whose site doesn't have the stereotypical cold/sterile corporate look. sure, Google's logo comes off as very candid and a little bit childish, but it also elicits a warm & cheerful feelings.
something that's very sleek & glossy or highly-stylized just wouldn't fit with Google's familiar spartan (and slightly offbeat) image. i mean, if you look at Google's web services like Gmail, Google Calendar, Docs, etc., they all have fairly plain and simple layouts. their designs are functional and modest. this is in stark contrast with the flashy, and often cluttered, web pages of companies like Yahoo!, Microsoft, and the popular early search portals.
it's a little ironic as Google is primarily an advertising company, but they don't have that 'multi-million-dollar marketing budget' look. this probably contributes to their popularity as Google's web services aren't as intimidating to non-geeks and computer novices who may be turned off by the slick interfaces and flashy layouts other sites strive for.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, the user submitted one looks much better than this offset g.
Re:Really, timothy? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, why are RGBY Google's colors?
I have absolutely no idea. [google.com]
Parent
I'm not really seeing the similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
The Garth Brooks one is particularly ridiculous---the only similarity appears to be that both have, at various times, used a lowercase 'g' in an entirely unremarkable font as a logo. Yes, congratulations, two instances of a lowercase 'g' can look similar!
The rest aren't much more convincing. Google uses some simple arrangements of primary colors, and, amazingly enough, so do some other companies, even some other tech companies. But they don't even look particularly similar (especially the Windows one).
Re:I'm not really seeing the similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
Google uses some simple arrangements of primary colors, and, amazingly enough, so do some other companies, even some other tech companies. But they don't even look particularly similar (especially the Windows one).
Not to you, slashdotter, who sees these logos all the time. To the casually stroller-by, who sees tech logos once per fortnight, they will easily be confused. What is red, green, and blue and deals with computers? If today it is AVG / Google / MS and tomorrow it is something else then there _will_ be confusion and brand dilution.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to you, slashdotter, who sees these logos all the time. To the casually stroller-by, who sees tech logos once per fortnight, they will easily be confused. What is red, green, and blue and deals with computers? If today it is AVG / Google / MS and tomorrow it is something else then there _will_ be confusion and brand dilution.
The letter g might be confused with the letter g? Say it aint so!
Re:I'm not really seeing the similarity (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I'm not really seeing the similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm not really seeing the similarity (Score:5, Informative)
It is my opinion that the favicons for a site are very important for recognition (e.g. for completion in the URL bar) for the average user.
Favicons are not necessarily tiny actually. Konqueror has the feature (that I like very much) to set the favicon as the application icon. That has the nice effect that in your pager (the virtual desktop manager in the ) the window area is filled with the favicon. Very nice for switching desktops to the right browser window.
Thirdly, I use http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/27548 [userscripts.org]
It helped me to completely block out that google changed their favicon to an ugly one I can't associate with their website and I can live in my tiny world where they didn't.
Parent
Re:I'm not really seeing the similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. When you get down to minimalist, iconic designs, at favicon resolution, there is only so much parameter space. One of those links claims:
Give me a break! Newsflash: any icon can be conceptually transformed into any other icon in a finite number of image-manipulation steps. Like: "Slashdot favicon + Convert to B&W + Duplicate the slash 3 times + flip two of the slashes -> Wikipedia's favicon" ... OMG! Wikipedia is stealing ideas from Slashdot!
The summary is so patently ridiculous that I really have to wonder if it was submitted as a joke or is an attempt to troll Slashdot. Google's new favicon has a "g" and 4 primary colors. It bears some resemblance to other 4-primary-color emblems (of which there are thousands). Get over it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lowercase 'g' in two entirely different, unremarkable fonts.
Re:I'm not really seeing the similarity (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I agree that this whole thing seems a little nit-picky. It's pretty hard to design a good logo. Ask a designer, and many will say that they find it to be one of the hardest things to design, since they should usually be extremely simple designs, immediately identifiable, and wrap up a lot of meaning into a single impression.
It's even harder to create an logo that doesn't resemble any other logo. You can't really do it. Art in general takes from prior works, even if only stylistically, and nothing is entirely original. People are usually inspired by something, or draw an idea from someone else's work. Besides that, like I said, logos should usually be pretty simple, and if you make a million designs, all of them extremely simple, then every design will resemble at least a couple of the others.
Knowing all that, consider the form of the favicon. They're 16px by 16px, and IIRC some browsers only support 8-bit graphics (256 colors, no alpha channel). That's going to narrow your options a bit.
Also, using multiple primary colors are popular in logos. They stand out, and can be used to convey a childish simplicity (fun) or an elemental nature of the product. Using a single letter or only a couple letters is popular in logos-- I don't think I need to explain why. When you put this all together, it would be amazing if lots of favicons didn't resemble each other in various ways.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't care who Google stole the icon from. I'm concerned with how much carbon Google is using transmitting that favico! [slashdot.org] (Historical context for future viewers, or for humor-impaired mods from the present: there is currently one story between that story and this one on the slashdot main page.)
Hardcore Slashdotters won't notice... (Score:5, Funny)
...because lynx does not support favicons, you insensitive clod!
Re:Hardcore Slashdotters won't notice... (Score:5, Funny)
...because lynx does not support favicons, you insensitive clod!
Lynx!?
Real hackers just stick the UTP on their tongue and decipher the signals with their taste buds. SIDE NOTE: I once discovered the hard way that a telephone ring signal is 90vac.
On a related note, I have been storing all of my favorites on the bookmark bar (or whatever it is called). As more sites are using the "favicon", it has been helpful to just edit the bookmark and remove the title altogether (leaving just the icon). You can fit a lot of favorites in the toolbar in this manner.
Parent
Re:Hardcore Slashdotters won't notice... (Score:5, Informative)
There is also a firefox addon which lets you pick your own favicons. I've got my whole bar filled with every site i'll ever need that way. :D
Parent
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fishing for emotional validation. (Score:5, Insightful)
What comes to mind for me is just how obsessed many people are with the Google favicon.
Maybe editors are so hard up for pageviews that they'll post whatever inconsequential slop comes to mind, and internet users are just so hard up for interesting news that they'll comment on whatever garbage the editors feed them.
If the tech sites puked out story after story about motherfucking lolcats apparently Timothy would take the comments to indicate mass obsession with them, which, shit... bad example.
But seriously, who is actually obsessed with Google's favicon and who is just bored?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No no ... really I came here hoping there would be something about this.
One of the reasons is dont like to use icons.... (Score:2, Interesting)
is that all the idiotic designers think GUIs are a playground. From 1988 to 1995 Icons changed only marginally with time, but since the web-culture has spoiled the idea of consistent, clean UIs, i prefer to turn on the icon name whereever possible.
Re: (Score:2)
a small additional note:
it is especially annoying that nowadays there are a lot of "circular icons, where some kind of arrow or direction indicator hides a letter or a circular sign which carries a letter". These take a lot of space, and force you to remember the color which is which if you wan to click fast.
Almost Identical to Printing Company in Austin (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If by a direct copy, you mean both have the letter g, then yes. yes you are right.
Re:Almost Identical to Printing Company in Austin (Score:5, Funny)
Damn! You caught me!
You see, I'm Google's brand designer. I was totally stumped when they told me they wanted a new logo, but then I thought: hey! There's that printing company in Austin!
I didn't think anybody would see the connection! *sob*
Parent
Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Obssession. (Score:2)
What comes to mind for me is just how obsessed many people are with the Google favicon.
I'm always amazed at the sheer number of people that are obssessed, period. It seems to be a mark of distinction nowadays if you're just completely gaga about some particular product or brand (Apple owners come to mind, for some reason.) Well, unreason seems to be a defining characteristic of modern civilization, so I guess this should come as no surprise. Too bad psychiatrists are so expensive: there are a lot of folks that could use a little therapy.
Looks Like a Paw. Brings to mind Pet Supplies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like a blotch of random colors. I had no idea there was a lowercase "g" in it until I read the article here.
IMHO, the old favicon was much better - knew right away what it was. A bunch of random colors brings to mind websites about photoshopping, psychology (think blotch tests), or even a pet supply site, since it looks kinda like a paw print.
Ron
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even after reading the article it took me a long time to see the 'g' in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Looks Like a Paw. Brings to mind Pet Supplies. (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. For the first few days I kept noticing the new favicon for google and wondering in my head "Why is google putting up a jumble of random shapes for their favicon?" I had assumed it was like the anniversary of some grand puzzle maker or something. Only yesterday did it suddenly hit me "OH that's a g!"
Terrible logo. In the middle it's at least legible.
Parent
Re:Looks Like a Paw. Brings to mind Pet Supplies. (Score:4, Interesting)
The original (the old old) logo was way better. And the favicon they did is worse than the one they got the inspiration from.
I don't get it, why do they keep changing it? I thought forming a brand meant keeping the same recognizable logo as long as you could, not arbitrarly changing it every 6 months!
Parent
Bring back old logo (Score:5, Insightful)
The original (the old old) logo was way better.
Amen to that. I thought I was the only one that thought the original blue G on white background was great. It was simple, clean and unmistakable. Now it is getting worse and worse with each iteration.
-Em
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What I have learned (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, as far as I knew that is what it is called.
What I have learned so far from this article is:
What falls in the what else is new category:
PK
I can't stand it (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't stand it, the g that is entirely reprasentative of the company doesn't stand out anywhere near clearly enough, the entire thing is just a blob and it makes tracking Google tabs in firefox a nightmare.
The user submitted favicons FTFA by by Hadi Onur Demirsoy, Lucian E. Marin and Yusuf Sevgen are all considerably better.
Andre Resende (Score:4, Informative)
UGLY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right on! You tell them! Clearly the lack of keen insights such as yours into the nature of critical elements such as a favicon is what is holding Google back from becoming a hugely successful juggernaut of a company...
Oh wait, they are a hugely successful juggernaut of a company... so much for your keen insight. Maybe you should stick to lecturing the indecisive hippies in your class.
Re:Typical Engineers (Score:4, Informative)
s/insights/experience
>hugely successful juggernaut of a company
Uhh, yeah. You mean a very rich, successful company. And a company that is going to have one jacked up corporate culture in 15-20 years. We're still waiting to see how that part's going to develop. These companies get so big so fast, full of so much hot air, that we end up paying a creativity tax years down the road as they raise service fees to pay for all the middle managers who got in while the getting was good.
Sure, right now they're a big successful company with a lot of engineering divas and XKCD readers who think that they can literally do anything they want in life, and every door is open to them.
From my experience, immature corporate policy just feeds this crap. Individual personalities will differ; I'm sure there are some fantastic people there. But I'm talking not about money, or about individuals. I'm talking about the company's personality. How deluded it is. How many people are going to get cut once the hubris levels come down a bit. How long they can do no evil when they can't even publish guidelines for duplicating a graphic logo (that I've been able to find...)
>Maybe you should stick to lecturing the indecisive hippies in your class.
Yeah, sure. And you stick to heckling the lecturers of said hippies.~
Parent