Comments on: Google Changes Favicon, Challenges You To Do Better

By: racefly

racefly — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:16:52 +0000

actually I really like the lower case g as well it to me is not as formal as the upper case. Plus they are google and they can do anything the want right?

By: Diego

Diego — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:02:45 +0000

I don’t know I think a little change is always good

Diego

By: http://www.Isquaretechnologies.com

http://www.Isquaretechnologies.com — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:20:39 +0000

I don’t like to lower case ‘g’. Upper case ‘G’ is better

By: omnicity

omnicity — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:28:29 +0000

I’m not sure that this disproves your point about lowercase letters being more legible than uppercase, but in this case I have great difficulty in seeing as a letter at all, never mind associating it with Google. I’m sure that brands like Boots or Ford would love to have a ‘modern’ logo, but they have enough sense not to confuse their users by breaking their existing identity.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:03:43 +0000

Why don’t they make the first “G” on their home page lowercase also?

By: jtresidder

jtresidder — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:54:29 +0000

I prefer the new look (less stuffy), but I think they’re mad to make the change. Not only have they discarded the recognition they’ve built for the old style (reason enough in itself), but they’ve also shot themselves in the foot with regards to their recent trademark kerfuffle. They’ve been asking people to capitalise the word when using Google as a verb in order to protect their trademark – it’s hardly a good idea then, to teach people to associate a lower-case g with their page.

By: Chris_lu

Chris_lu — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:57:25 +0000

In my opinion, the uppercase “G” was much easier to understand. When I see the “g” letter, I think at first abouth the FIRT uppercase “G” of google, and then I think, why the hell is it now lowercase ?
Hard to change habits

By: AlexW

AlexW — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:38:30 +0000

Baby -> throw -> bathwater

Essentially they’ve taken a company asset with a measurable dollar value and pulped it. They may be able to build another asset over time with a similar value but it’s highly unlikely the new asset will be more valuable than the old one.

So the result is they spend the next 6-12 months without their asset for no net gain. Silly IMO.

There are at least 5 or 6 designs above that still riff on the established ‘G’ but that give it a different spin with color or placement.

By: Jim Neath

Jim Neath — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:19:57 +0000

I really dislike it. It throws me off all the time.

If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

By: cranial-bore

cranial-bore — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:24:13 +0000

The new ‘g’ is really bad, mostly because it is different.
As you mentioned Google has a very identifiable brand, and some people would see that little icons hundreds of times a day. When Google messes with that, and makes arbitrary changes they bugger up the familiarity, comfort and usability of their site.
It’s one of those cases where change needs to be very subtle and ‘evolutionary’ or not happen at all.

If Google are NOT changing their logo, I can’t see how “forking” the favicon could possibly be helpful.