3 ms·

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 http://blogoscope

• pg 18y ago
  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?
  • aston 18y ago
    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.