
You Could Almost Do Anything Pt. III - rbinv
http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/4/27/do-anything-iii
======
trashtoss
This whole series misses the trees for the forest.

Design for logos and branding doesn't happen in the platonic realm and isn't
focus grouped against brand-unaware Martians; such designs are engineered to
serve a real role in the real world, in the minds of real people.

When you propose a super simple abstract logo -- a dot, a circle, a slash --
it works or not depending on if the organization in question is already well
known or not.

Thus, proposing such a logo to a client is a form of flattery -- you, yes you,
are already so well known you, yes you, can get away with simply having a
slash for your identifier! -- and that is all there is to it.

Like all things this can be cargo culted, and smaller clients often want to
look bigger than they are, so sure a lot of un savvy operations wind up with
fashionably vague and functionally inferior designs, but it's always been that
way.

Lastly, it also matters that logos appear all over the place today -- print,
web, tv, mobiles, tablets, etc -- and simpler, cleaner logos are easier to
make work across all physical scales.

This isn't a problem vector assets solves, either; at smaller sizes you need
to change proportions around and generally cheat the spacing -- in short,
smaller physical representations look better if deformed into charicatures --
and it is hard to get external parties to respect your rules about which
variant to use at which sizes.

Much easier to make something that looks reasonable at all sizes and scales
and use it consistently.

~~~
maldusiecle
It's also worth noting that he has essentially no aesthetic sensibility--the
genuinely hideous logo at the top of each page being only the most obvious
example of that. Time after time he praises ugly, inelegant logos over designs
that are striking and memorable.

------
supercoder
This guy is good at baiting the clicks, but I'm not sure why his opinion holds
weight. He's got a pretty average looking website & logo, and isn't really
know for his work in any design circles..

~~~
lachiephilipson
I don't understand this sentiment; one mustn't have mastery over a field to be
critic of it.

~~~
tvanantwerp
But it would help.

The web is full of critics who themselves couldn't hope to achieve what they
call out as mediocre. All I've learned from this series of blogs is that
forward slashes are bad. Criticism without showing a better alternative is so
pervasive and so draining.

Teddy Roosevelt put it well:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong
man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The
credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred
by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short
again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but
who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the
great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails,
at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with
those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

~~~
coldtea
> _But it would help._

Not necessarily -- it actually could hurt.

A lot of masters are too self absorbed in their own work and own preferences
to have a wider appreciation of the field -- and especially to appreciate a
valid style that's nonetheless against their own aesthetics. That's what a
critic is supposedly above.

Plus, for them there are always potential issues of rivalry and personal
interests at play (since they compete for the same gigs with people they
criticize).

------
iQuercus
Eli Schiff, whilst pointing out potentially valid concerns about minimalist
designs, is also himself with his articles a symptom of a much larger Soviet-
style centralist attitude that seems to pervade the modern design community.

Right now, the Soviet Design System (SDS) has decreed that we must all have
minimalist everything. Eventually folks like Eli will get us back to something
with more flair and embellishment. And then that will be the correct way, and
everyone must do that.

But the question is, when will we start designing for context and people
rather than some arbitrary, centrally decided (by the fewest people) paradigm
of correct design?

~~~
dgant
Part of the challenge is that design isn't viewed in isolation. A design
leaves an impression on the viewer partly based on how it contrasts with other
designs.

A minimalist logo in a sea of embellished logos says "We are smarter and
easier to use". A minimalist logo in a sea of minimalist logos says "We are
safe and normal."

So following a design trend can be one of the tools you use to design for an
audience.

------
joshvm
I always thought that the 'Flag' was a window, perhaps because of the name
association. It certainly has panes. If you look at the history, it evolved
from Windows 3.1 which was assuredly a window. I don't see a flag in the most
recent logo either, it just looks like a typical move to flat branding (and I
think it works, it looks great on the back of a tablet).

>What I see in front of me is a rectangle with a green stroke. Perhaps Gomez-
Palicio and I are looking at something different. Either way, ostensibly
Whitman had fully justified the HP mark, so why did Gomez-Palicio feel
compelled to invent metaphors where there were none? This compensatory
narrative about server rooms shouldn't be necessary.

Yet this is exactly the rationale behind the 'Slate' thing which had some
weird allusions to a corporate tower block and random space pictures. Why did
everyone start gushing over it?

------
cocoflunchy
Snarky and a fun read, just as part 1 and 2, but ultimately not very
constructive... I'd be more interested in reading about what he thinks are
great logos and why they work well.

~~~
ethanbond
Well, don't hold your breath. I've _literally_ never seen a positive word on
this guy's blog. He posts over on Designernews quite a lot and it's
predictably vitriolic every single time.

They're certainly fun to read, but does he actually think this is a remarkable
insight into anything? You can pick any shape you want and then point out how
logos are _all trending towards that shape._ Obviously by just selecting the
logotypes that fit your argument.

It's a weak argument (what is it, anyways?) presented in an unhelpful way
(criticizing a kid's school project?). Not that I buy into the idea that you
have to be an artist to be a critic, but I do think your overall output to a
community should be positive. You can either contribute critically by making
good commentary or you can contribute productively by making good work. Eli
does neither, and by the 3rd or 4th post you read by him it becomes painfully
obvious.

Entertaining nonetheless, I suppose.

~~~
jalfresi
I had the same experience; signed up to the mailing list because the articles
looked like there was real depth (at last!) really digging deep in the aspects
of design. I was also excited by the fact that he appeared to be arguing from
a non-modernist design perspective, and as an ardent believer in modernist
design, I was excited to have my beliefs challenged.

Unfortunately I found there wasn't much there. Whilst some (most?) of the
articles seem to dig into some depth, it's all over shadowed by a negativity
that has nothing to back it up, just empty criticism. It's telling that I
can't even determining if he's arguing from a pre or post-modernist
perspective, or even from a different perspective completely.

I found it all a bit disappointing really. I _think_ he has a point to be made
in there somewhere, he certainly begins his arguments from a position that
seems tenable, but for the life of me I couldn't prune it from all the dead-
wood of negativity.

I really hope the author does dig in and argue a point, because like I said,
it certainly feels like he's arguing from a position.

I just hope that after all that, his point isn't "design is art" because he
can GTFO :)

------
jaybosamiya
Links to part 1 and 2:

[http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/4/12/do-almost-
anything](http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/4/12/do-almost-anything)

[http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/4/20/do-almost-
anything-i...](http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/4/20/do-almost-anything-ii)

------
bluedino
I never 'got' the Windows 8 logo. Something about the shape put me off.
Something about that cyan color draws me back in time, it's just so abrasive
to the eyes, and it's almost a match for the non-enterprise HP blue.

The color choices for the UI in Windows 8 were just so odd as a whole. It's as
if Microsoft was so criticized for being too 'cartoony' with XP that they just
completely went off the wall.

~~~
kevindeasis
The windows logo makes much more sense to me now.

It literally looks like a window receiving light from the outside.

The windows logo before 8 did not make any sense at all to me. If I show it to
the younger generation they will ask me what is that logo.

Just like when they ask what is the floppy disk icon and why is it used as a
save

------
cylinder
I have always liked Windows logos. I have fond memories of eagerly upgrading
to Win98 or installing Windows on new PC builds and seeing the logo for the
first time during setup. I also like the new Microsoft and Windows logos as
well as the Store design. Surface looks great too. I don't know why Msft gets
so much slack on the design front.

------
bitwize
Says the guy whose logo looks like a candidate for a Big Hero 6 emblem.

