5 ms·

Also a ring == a circle, and organizations are looking to circular-philosophy holistic changes as a broad change since roughly the start of the century. Circle

Also a ring == a circle, and organizations are looking to circular-philosophy holistic changes as a broad change since roughly the start of the century. Circles are _the_ graphical element/symbol of holistic energy with few others coming close. Generally when I see a move to a circular logo in a new design brief it's a sign that the organization perceives that it must quickly heal from damage/protect itself from danger and put some aspects of the past behind. It is usually attempting to build capacity for a new direction as well. IMO this is usually not a fully conscious decision by the team. "This is the world we live in"

tablespoon 4y ago
That honestly all sounds like mumbo jumbo.
- bmacho 4y ago
  Not worse then the TFA. IMO the other side of the arguing is easier: instead of the merits of the new logo, we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go.
  - pbohun 4y ago
    What's TFA?
    - bmacho 4y ago
      The featured/fine/fantastic article. See for usages https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=TFA&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... (I believe it lost its original meaning, and now it refers to the article in a neutral style)
    - vehemenz 4y ago
      Explained here in more depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go. No we can't agree on that. What you say is nonsense.
    - bmacho 4y ago
      Yes, it is nonsense indeed. What about: if they want to signal modernness and inclusiveness (regardless whether they actually want to be modern and inclusive) they had to get rid of the logo?
- themodelplumber 4y ago
  That it sounds like mumbo jumbo is no surprise at all and kinda normal given the circumstances. First, tech communities are not exactly known for deep visual design-theory interest or background (for example, what's your personal experience level with logo design? This would inform both a tendency to radically re-summarize using the word "just", and a tendency to relate the description in nonsensical terms; it's a matter of education depth). Also, I used to lecture college students on this stuff at length, so it's kind of plain ol' design thinking to me, from theory/psychology to application. And then, a lot of people also call tech talk mumbo jumbo. For related reasons I don't really feel the need to justify or bring it down to earth any more than I'd try to do that with the Linux kernel in a random "kernel? sounds like mumbo jumbo" discussion. But as always, in the right context the theory-practice connection provides leverage that can't be had elsewhere. PS there are some absolutely great examples of this thinking if you are willing to empty the cup and explore the foundations. See the "In popular culture" section here as one possible point of departure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens%C5%8D

tablespoon 4y ago

That honestly all sounds like mumbo jumbo.

bmacho 4y ago
Not worse then the TFA. IMO the other side of the arguing is easier: instead of the merits of the new logo, we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go.
- pbohun 4y ago
  What's TFA?
  - bmacho 4y ago
    The featured/fine/fantastic article. See for usages https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=TFA&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... (I believe it lost its original meaning, and now it refers to the article in a neutral style)
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    Explained here in more depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go. No we can't agree on that. What you say is nonsense.
  - bmacho 4y ago
    Yes, it is nonsense indeed. What about: if they want to signal modernness and inclusiveness (regardless whether they actually want to be modern and inclusive) they had to get rid of the logo?
themodelplumber 4y ago
That it sounds like mumbo jumbo is no surprise at all and kinda normal given the circumstances. First, tech communities are not exactly known for deep visual design-theory interest or background (for example, what's your personal experience level with logo design? This would inform both a tendency to radically re-summarize using the word "just", and a tendency to relate the description in nonsensical terms; it's a matter of education depth). Also, I used to lecture college students on this stuff at length, so it's kind of plain ol' design thinking to me, from theory/psychology to application. And then, a lot of people also call tech talk mumbo jumbo. For related reasons I don't really feel the need to justify or bring it down to earth any more than I'd try to do that with the Linux kernel in a random "kernel? sounds like mumbo jumbo" discussion. But as always, in the right context the theory-practice connection provides leverage that can't be had elsewhere. PS there are some absolutely great examples of this thinking if you are willing to empty the cup and explore the foundations. See the "In popular culture" section here as one possible point of departure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens%C5%8D