web 2.0 logo trend.
#1
Posted 05 December 2007 - 02:12 PM
I don't mind adding all those effects but to me a logo should be simple. Less is always More.
#2
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 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.
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
Posted 21 December 2007 - 11:52 AM
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
Posted 08 January 2008 - 10:44 PM
#5
Posted 09 January 2008 - 02:51 AM
#6
Posted 09 January 2008 - 06:36 AM
#7
Posted 19 May 2008 - 12:33 AM
This is a sensitivity issue for designers that I feel we've recently failed to address.....
#9
Posted 21 May 2008 - 12:44 PM
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!
visit my portfolio website at: www.pauljobson.com
#11
Posted 25 May 2008 - 04:20 PM
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
#13
Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:18 AM
#14
Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:32 AM
my works
#15
Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:14 PM
#16
Posted 24 June 2008 - 02:22 PM
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.
Nancy
www.NancyCarterDesign.com
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users