Twitter kills bubble letter logotype, replaces it with new ‘Twitter bird’ logo(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
Twitter kills bubble letter logotype, replaces it with new ‘Twitter bird’ logo
http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/06/06/twitter-changes-its-logo-to-a-simplified-twitterbird-crafted-out-of-overlapping-circles/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=share%2Bbutton&utm_content=Twitter%20kills%20bubble%20letter%20logotype%2C%20replaces%20it%20with%20new%20%E2%80%98Twitter%20bird%E2%80%99%20logo&utm_campaign=social%2Bmedia
9 comments
Seems like a step in the right direction. The old logo was very "Web 2.0" and quite an eyesore, even though they have been moving away from it for a while now. The new logo looks great.
It's an interesting move, my concern would be that Twitter is talked about enough by name that people know the name but might not necessarily use the site and will no longer make a connection when they see Twitter online (outside of Twitter.com) because it's a logo that doesn't represent the name.
For example if someone watches CNN and they hear Twitter mentioned they might not think "that's something I should check out" but then if they're browsing their favourite bands website and see "Find us on Twitter!" they might think "I heard about this on TV and my favourite band uses it, I should check it out!". With the logo not representing the name they remove the possibility of this happening. Maybe it's an inconsequential amount of users but there are multiple products and brands I've heard about but not been compelled to check out until I saw them mentioned somewhere else.
For example if someone watches CNN and they hear Twitter mentioned they might not think "that's something I should check out" but then if they're browsing their favourite bands website and see "Find us on Twitter!" they might think "I heard about this on TV and my favourite band uses it, I should check it out!". With the logo not representing the name they remove the possibility of this happening. Maybe it's an inconsequential amount of users but there are multiple products and brands I've heard about but not been compelled to check out until I saw them mentioned somewhere else.
Two issues:
* No typeface is interesting, but, logo-only does not lend itself to "super-wide formats", such as 200x100 banners.
* The bill and wings are detailed at high-res, and become muddled at lower resolutions.
* No typeface is interesting, but, logo-only does not lend itself to "super-wide formats", such as 200x100 banners.
* The bill and wings are detailed at high-res, and become muddled at lower resolutions.
The twitter bird doesn't actually apear that much on the site, mobile app, etc. I barely even tie it to the brand, and it doesn't feel like twitter does either[1].
Compare that to Octocat and GitHub. Octocat is everywhere; I feel like the logo, dressing it up, referring to it is more a part of github than the doodle is part of Google.
[1] On the login screen the new bird is small and in the upper left hand corner. Once you log in, it's inset black on black and I actually had to look for it to find it.
Compare that to Octocat and GitHub. Octocat is everywhere; I feel like the logo, dressing it up, referring to it is more a part of github than the doodle is part of Google.
[1] On the login screen the new bird is small and in the upper left hand corner. Once you log in, it's inset black on black and I actually had to look for it to find it.
I thought it was interesting that it doesn't look the the favicon was updated.
I think it needs to be reworked for small sizes. It beak and wings look very fuzzy at "normal" desktop resolutions on my Macbook.
I think it needs to be reworked for small sizes. It beak and wings look very fuzzy at "normal" desktop resolutions on my Macbook.
Almost completely OT:
It's been a while since I did not enter twitter's landing page.
Why is there an ugly brown background, or the too-much-intense-that-hurts blue?
The pictures, I understand, they tell a story. But the background color has no excuse. There should exist a more pleasant tone.
Is it just me?
It's been a while since I did not enter twitter's landing page.
Why is there an ugly brown background, or the too-much-intense-that-hurts blue?
The pictures, I understand, they tell a story. But the background color has no excuse. There should exist a more pleasant tone.
Is it just me?
Keep arty and put a bird on it!
The new Twitter logo looks like a bird having an orgasm.
Really disappointed with this.