3 ms·

> That iconic beauty and excellence was the province of rich white dudes—and can only be expanded by lowering our standards. And what a load of horseshit that i

by taeric 4y ago

> That iconic beauty and excellence was the province of rich white dudes—and can only be expanded by lowering our standards. And what a load of horseshit that is. This feels like a stretch. And almost breaks what little interest I have here. :( Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to logo/label than makes sense? I can get the desire to want to change. That is natural. The idea that all changes matter is silly, though. Especially to the degree this one will be talked about. Probably less vitriol and energy is put into the literal buildings of the institute.

KMag 4y ago
> Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to logo/label than makes sense? I'm not sure we can imply importance from the volume of communication; perhaps the opposite. After colors and names, logos/icons are probably the third easiest thing to bikeshed.
- taeric 4y ago
  Fair. I just also view it as one of the easiest things to just accept and move on from. Especially since it would be relatively easy to just change again later. In fact, I would fully support any organization I'm in having a change most every year. I do appreciate the connection to the past and something old that many get from it. That said, it is easy to metaphorically make that connection by acknowledging what came before. The control and autonomy that you give to the next generations feels way more important.
prox 4y ago
If you are a dev, than you probably miss the extend of in which branding can have an effect. Sure, from some practical viewpoint nothing changes. But consider a logo part of a language, a culture, a visual statement. In design, it’s what we do In this case Oxford Press changed an iconic statement with a stupid generic say-nothing that could be a tire or a bagel company. Think of it like a banner of an army. You don’t want stand behind a banner that says “I am with stupid” It’s hard to convey to non design folk, but design does have an impact, even if it doesn’t bring world peace, it’s culturally significant.
- taeric 4y ago
  I mean, I get it. In that you can tell me and I can feel a little swayed by your argument. What I don't get, is the odd idea that there is a universal iconography that every should agree with. For one, I don't find this rebranding that much worse than the old one. I actually assumed both icons on the first tweet were the new thing, as I easily think both are kind of bleh. Finally, though, some nitpicks. Military banners are incredibly silly looking. Flags? The same. Usually with much simpler aesthetics that rely more on overall color than they do any iconography. And saying it "could be a tire or a bagel company" is also idiotically offensive. What is wrong with tire and bagel companies? This betrays a sense of class belief that is hilarious when juxtaposed with many of the criticisms given. (Specifically, the old class having the better icon.)
  - prox 4y ago
    I get while you think it’s offensive, but that’s not intentional. It’s more that if you hold your hand on the words and you see only the circle logo you get different ideas of what this brand might be. Pretty sure a lot of people would answer “tyre company” or “gear manufacturer” or something. So it does not communicate well. About the banner nitpick, banners needed to be seen from afar, during chaotic scenes, so were often quite easy to distinguish from afar :)
    - taeric 4y ago
      I challenge this assertion. For one, I bet most folks have no clue what standard tire branding looks like. Indeed, https://www.carlogos.org/tire-brands/ https://www.carlogos.org/tire-brands/ shows that most of them do /not/ have circles on them. For bagels, I think you have a slightly better argument, but even then, https://99designs.com/inspiration/logos/bagel https://99designs.com/inspiration/logos/bagel doesn't really look like what is on display here. My nitpick on the banners was more that the iconography of them was not at all key in folks building an identity with them. I should have expanded and said it wasn't the banner that builds the identity. Rather, it is more likely the shared identity that builds the love of the banner.
- 4y ago

by taeric 4y ago

KMag 4y ago

> Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to logo/label than makes sense? I'm not sure we can imply importance from the volume of communication; perhaps the opposite. After colors and names, logos/icons are probably the third easiest thing to bikeshed.

taeric 4y ago
Fair. I just also view it as one of the easiest things to just accept and move on from. Especially since it would be relatively easy to just change again later. In fact, I would fully support any organization I'm in having a change most every year. I do appreciate the connection to the past and something old that many get from it. That said, it is easy to metaphorically make that connection by acknowledging what came before. The control and autonomy that you give to the next generations feels way more important.

prox 4y ago

If you are a dev, than you probably miss the extend of in which branding can have an effect. Sure, from some practical viewpoint nothing changes. But consider a logo part of a language, a culture, a visual statement. In design, it’s what we do In this case Oxford Press changed an iconic statement with a stupid generic say-nothing that could be a tire or a bagel company. Think of it like a banner of an army. You don’t want stand behind a banner that says “I am with stupid” It’s hard to convey to non design folk, but design does have an impact, even if it doesn’t bring world peace, it’s culturally significant.

taeric 4y ago
I mean, I get it. In that you can tell me and I can feel a little swayed by your argument. What I don't get, is the odd idea that there is a universal iconography that every should agree with. For one, I don't find this rebranding that much worse than the old one. I actually assumed both icons on the first tweet were the new thing, as I easily think both are kind of bleh. Finally, though, some nitpicks. Military banners are incredibly silly looking. Flags? The same. Usually with much simpler aesthetics that rely more on overall color than they do any iconography. And saying it "could be a tire or a bagel company" is also idiotically offensive. What is wrong with tire and bagel companies? This betrays a sense of class belief that is hilarious when juxtaposed with many of the criticisms given. (Specifically, the old class having the better icon.)
- prox 4y ago
  I get while you think it’s offensive, but that’s not intentional. It’s more that if you hold your hand on the words and you see only the circle logo you get different ideas of what this brand might be. Pretty sure a lot of people would answer “tyre company” or “gear manufacturer” or something. So it does not communicate well. About the banner nitpick, banners needed to be seen from afar, during chaotic scenes, so were often quite easy to distinguish from afar :)
  - taeric 4y ago
    I challenge this assertion. For one, I bet most folks have no clue what standard tire branding looks like. Indeed, https://www.carlogos.org/tire-brands/ https://www.carlogos.org/tire-brands/ shows that most of them do /not/ have circles on them. For bagels, I think you have a slightly better argument, but even then, https://99designs.com/inspiration/logos/bagel https://99designs.com/inspiration/logos/bagel doesn't really look like what is on display here. My nitpick on the banners was more that the iconography of them was not at all key in folks building an identity with them. I should have expanded and said it wasn't the banner that builds the identity. Rather, it is more likely the shared identity that builds the love of the banner.
4y ago