4 ms·
I think this guess from /r/typography/ is worthy to consider: "My educated guess is that it most likely scales in Webkit better. I can only imagine this change
by r721 12y ago
I think this guess from /r/typography/ is worthy to consider:
"My educated guess is that it most likely scales in Webkit better. I can only imagine this change was the result of a dozen round table discussions and half a year of a/b testing.
EDIT: Yup! Here's both logos at 50%, scaling done by Chrome. Notice how the letter l changes [1]
[1]: http://i.imgur.com/x6K1yVe.png http://i.imgur.com/x6K1yVe.png "
http://www.reddit.com/r/typography/comments/26fgq6/google_updated_their_logo_they_moved_the/chqk2a7 http://www.reddit.com/r/typography/comments/26fgq6/google_up...
- dvirsky 12y ago> I can only imagine this change was the result of a dozen round table discussions and half a year of a/b testing I really hope not...
- thomasahle 12y agoIt's not a bad theory, but then again the `G` doesn't visually change, the `l` looks better horizontally, but worse vertically. Seems like a tie, at least at this resolution.
- panarky 12y agoAssume google.com serves 300 trillion impressions a year and clicking an ad generates $0.20 in revenue. The new logo would need to improve CTRs by 0.0000017% to generate a million dollars per year in new revenue.
- nilsimsa 12y agoA company is making too much money if they can waste half a year in discussing and testing something like this.
- untog 12y agoNot really. It takes very few resources to run an A/B test for six months. Set it up, check back for results six months later. Not that they necessarily did that here, but still.
- fallinghawks 12y agoMore likely they've been working on the scaling algorithm in Chrome, and the logo just happened to look bad (or shall we say less than optimal).