while it looks good, is all that gimmicks necessary? and will it be everlasting?I don't mind adding all those effects but to me a logo should be simple. Less is always More.
web 2.0 logo trend.
The new wave of logos coming out today have all those effects like shadow, reflection, gradient, gloss,...
&nsbp;
#1
entz
-
- Designer
- 95 posts
Apprentice Designer
Posted 05 December 2007 - 02:12 PM
The new wave of logos coming out today have all those effects like shadow, reflection, gradient, gloss, shine, etc... that's the modern trend of logos. Even the big corporation like apple are doing it. Now they have a glossy apple while it looks good, is all that gimmicks necessary? and will it be everlasting?
I don't mind adding all those effects but to me a logo should be simple. Less is always More.
while it looks good, is all that gimmicks necessary? and will it be everlasting?I don't mind adding all those effects but to me a logo should be simple. Less is always More.
#2
squarelogo
-
- Designer
- 24 posts
Apprentice Designer
Posted 20 December 2007 - 04:39 PM
The new wave of logos coming out today have all those effects like shadow, reflection, gradient, gloss, shine, etc... that's the modern trend of logos. Even the big corporation like apple are doing it. Now they have a glossy apple
I don't mind adding all those effects but to me a logo should be simple. Less is always More.
Hey entz, I agree, logos should be simple.
I don't mind adding all those gradients and effects as long as the logo also works well in a simple one color format, and the "web 2.0" version doesn't look completely different than the standard version.
What I have been finding frustrating is that most people aren't on the same page when they refer to design as "web 2.0". Personally, it drives me crazy when someone asks for a web 2.0 image without any other details. What does web 2.0 mean to you?
#3
Chung Dha
-
- Designer
- 1439 posts
Guru
Posted 21 December 2007 - 11:52 AM
Web2.0 is not bad but the companies that use it and don't have a flat version is bad.
There are plenty of companies that gone web2.0 but don't have the logo in a flat version, because when you change it flat it looks really bad or different. Sony Ericsson got a logo that is only web2.0 and not flat.
But Apple Macintosh logo can be used 2 ways flat and web2.0 wich is great and looks good in both way and better than the old rainbow colored apple version.
And some of the web2.0 are more about effects, making it look good while flat would look awefull.
There are plenty of companies that gone web2.0 but don't have the logo in a flat version, because when you change it flat it looks really bad or different. Sony Ericsson got a logo that is only web2.0 and not flat.
But Apple Macintosh logo can be used 2 ways flat and web2.0 wich is great and looks good in both way and better than the old rainbow colored apple version.
And some of the web2.0 are more about effects, making it look good while flat would look awefull.
#4
entz
-
- Designer
- 95 posts
Apprentice Designer
Posted 08 January 2008 - 10:44 PM
Hey squarelogo, i'm confused as well when it come to web 2.0 logos. To me, once i add a gradient or shadow, i consider it web 2.0 i mean those are just gimmicks. Usually when i start to design a logo, i do it in flat version, then i'll add in the effects. I couldn't agree more Chung Dha! i think those organisation that uses the web, i mean their main business is on the internet, a web 2.0 logo is more effective than a simple flat coloured one. That's why i think it's good to have both. But the main logo should always be the flat colour one because, i find, that it look more professional and show more credibility.
i mean those are just gimmicks. Usually when i start to design a logo, i do it in flat version, then i'll add in the effects. I couldn't agree more Chung Dha! i think those organisation that uses the web, i mean their main business is on the internet, a web 2.0 logo is more effective than a simple flat coloured one. That's why i think it's good to have both. But the main logo should always be the flat colour one because, i find, that it look more professional and show more credibility.
#5
andrendhiq
-
- Designer
- 28 posts
Apprentice Designer
Posted 09 January 2008 - 02:51 AM
Absolutely agree with you entz. Logo should have simple and unique shape first in flat color and then they can go for web 2.0 development variation.I found many of web 2.0 logo now just depend on the effects (glow, shading, gradients etc.) but loose it's power in flat colors. Also still many of designers just designed logo in web 2.0 style without considered that maybe their logo will produce in traditional/manual way, such as lettering.
#6
Uniment1
-
- Designer
- 381 posts
Apprentice Designer
Posted 09 January 2008 - 06:36 AM
Yep, I agree with you. There are many logos that become bland and tasteless when all color is removed, or you reduce it to a simple black version. I think a good underlying shape and form will lead to a much more solid design. Add the 2.0 later! After you have established a solid logo.
www.uniment1.com :: Design Services
#7
johnslmae
-
- Designer
- 13 posts
Apprentice Designer
Posted 19 May 2008 - 12:33 AM
Isn't the goal of a logo too look good in virtually any format? A client doesn't necessarily want the responsibility of having to spend extra time and money to find the appropriate format for their multi-dimensional logo that looks crappy when turned into a single color reproduction.
This is a sensitivity issue for designers that I feel we've recently failed to address.....
This is a sensitivity issue for designers that I feel we've recently failed to address.....
#9
onesummer
-
- Designer
- 804 posts
Guru
Posted 21 May 2008 - 12:44 PM
Actually, it's a mis-association to refer to a logo as "web 2.0". There's nothing about logos that link to what "web 2.0" actually means. the affects and attributes of so named "web 2.0" logos are just happenstance elements that have gained popularity and seem to be commonly found on web 2.0 sites. In no way does a web 2.0 site have to have a logo that has the "web 2.0" design elements, nor is a non web 2.0 site not allowed to have a "web 2.0" logo.
to quote wiki: "It is a common misconception that "Web 2.0" refers to various visual design elements such as rounded corners or drop shadows. While such design elements have commonly been found on popular Web 2.0 sites, the truth is that the association is merely one of fashion, a designer preference which became popular around the same time that "Web 2.0" became a buzz word."
I'm sure "web 2.0" logos, as logos are just another form of design, would fall under the quote above.
I'm not trying to start a debate, nor will I expect people to stop calling such logos "web 2.0". I'm simply bringing up the truth of the matter. Thanks!
to quote wiki: "It is a common misconception that "Web 2.0" refers to various visual design elements such as rounded corners or drop shadows. While such design elements have commonly been found on popular Web 2.0 sites, the truth is that the association is merely one of fashion, a designer preference which became popular around the same time that "Web 2.0" became a buzz word."
I'm sure "web 2.0" logos, as logos are just another form of design, would fall under the quote above.
I'm not trying to start a debate, nor will I expect people to stop calling such logos "web 2.0". I'm simply bringing up the truth of the matter. Thanks!
- onesummer (paul)
visit my portfolio website at: www.pauljobson.com
visit my portfolio website at: www.pauljobson.com
#11
arcticsnpr
-
- Designer
- 80 posts
Member
Posted 25 May 2008 - 04:20 PM
onesummer, I absolutely agree with you one this one. Gradients, reflections, and rounded corners have become popular in a web-based system. With new innovations and software, this is really easy to do, and many times, it looks good if done right. I think one of the biggest reasons as to why we see this new trend is for visual appeal. Much of these effects give a 3D feeling, and somewhat more natural to the eye. Of course, this can be abused and used to produce messy results (ie. everything is a gradient and has a shadow). I also think that this style can leave out some creativity. It's easy to give all your work a little shine to make it look pretty, but the designer can completely miss the objective.
Take the UPS logo for example. It looks great without the gradient, but it does add something extra to it. However I highly doubt the re-designers (I believe the initial logo was done by Paul Rand) of that logo were trying to appeal to the "web 2.0 world".
So yes, I agree
Take the UPS logo for example. It looks great without the gradient, but it does add something extra to it. However I highly doubt the re-designers (I believe the initial logo was done by Paul Rand) of that logo were trying to appeal to the "web 2.0 world".
So yes, I agree
Personal Portofolio: http://portfolio.arc....us/nickmealey/
#12
robyn
-
- Banned
- 276 posts
Banned
#13
blazehd
-
- Designer
- 11 posts
Apprentice Designer
Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:18 AM
There are lots of Web 2.0 logos that actually are simple to make. For instance, look at the Youtube logo. Its simple and can be made in a few minutes. I'm sure in a few years a group of people will get together and call some web 3.0. The best thing to do when making a logo is make something that looks good on relatively all backgrounds. This allows makes branding much easier and as long as it looks good who cares if its web 2.0 or any other standard.
#14
robyn
-
- Banned
- 276 posts
Banned
Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:32 AM
Yes, I agree... as long as, it jives with the branding..it's excellent, and if your client go for it ... you got the job well done, whether its web*.* version. But hearing a new tag as "web2.0 logo", it's striken your idea that the client is requesting a liberated logo, not a traditional one, this is just my or maybe, other designers thoughts.
#15
Chung Dha
-
- Designer
- 1439 posts
Guru
Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:14 PM
Actually starting to dislike the word 2.0. Cause gradient isn't always the best option with all kind kind of effect. I can often desing logo with no gradient that are good but the company ask "WE WANT 2.0" I try gradient and 2.0 stuff but it doesn't really always work. Some of them really get cheesy looking.
#16
NancyCarter
-
- Designer
- 827 posts
Elite Designer
Posted 24 June 2008 - 02:22 PM
I came across this cool website: http://www.go2web20.net/
All those w2.0 logos next to each other! You can definitely get a feel for 'the style' just by browsing them. Notice that not all of the designs employ the reflection/glassy effects. There are other common characteristics between them - almost playful or cute?
While these effects or cutsie designs might be exactly a client is looking for, I still make sure to only present designs that will work in one color, no gradients.
All those w2.0 logos next to each other! You can definitely get a feel for 'the style' just by browsing them. Notice that not all of the designs employ the reflection/glassy effects. There are other common characteristics between them - almost playful or cute?
While these effects or cutsie designs might be exactly a client is looking for, I still make sure to only present designs that will work in one color, no gradients.
Blessings,
Nancy
www.NancyCarterDesign.com
Nancy
www.NancyCarterDesign.com
#19
NancyCarter
-
- Designer
- 827 posts
Elite Designer
Posted 25 June 2008 - 01:37 PM
Is that list on a loop or is it actually never-ending?
I know! there's so much there! The list actually does end. Craziness.
The site runs kinda slow for me, but I like the way it works.
Blessings,
Nancy
www.NancyCarterDesign.com
Nancy
www.NancyCarterDesign.com
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
