Microsoft Office, Version Bland.0

It’s no secret that I do not — repeat, do not — enjoy the design stylings of Microsoft. But that’s like a 5-year-old saying he or she does not like broccoli, except for the fact that not even with age does the Microsoft taste become acquired. Part of these raging feelings against Microsoft are fostered by their applications that defy user-interface standards of comfort and friendliness. Granted, this is mostly for us, designers, for whom the mere sight of an Excel, Word or PowerPoint file can bring us to our knees, as we struggle to find something as natural as the letter-spacing option. Regardless of what most outsiders see as diva-like apprehension towards these applications, and no matter how much chutzpah Apple or Google bring to their own productivity tools, Microsoft Office — the Trojan Horse bundle of “productivity” suites that includes the aforementioned, plus Outlook, plus nightmares like Publisher — makes the world turn, twenty years after its v1.0 debut. This past December, Microsoft released a Beta version of Microsoft Office 2010, which will replace Office 2007 for PCs and Office 2008 for Macs.

With Office 2010 we’ve unveiled a new Office brand system. The logo has evolved, moving from the original four colors that signified Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook to a mark that fully embraces the Office orange brand. The logo also completes the evolution from the puzzle pieces last seen in Office XP to a mark that conveys energy, impact, and connection.
Office 2010: Visuals and Branding by the Microsoft Office 2010 Engineering blog

There isn’t much to say about the updated Microsoft Office logo, except that it’s not that bad. Or better yet: It could have been worse. The yellow to orange gradient is fairly nice, the typography remains uninspired and the counter space of the logo is well considered. The shading is pretty rudimentary, but it reduces remarkably well. All in all, if they had stopped there, the update would have passed without much harm. But then we come to the application icons…

A sampling of Microsoft Office 2007 (PC) 2008 (Mac) application icons.

And Microsoft Office 2007 (PC) application icons.

The Office 2008 icons were weird, but at least they tried to introduce a groovy, alien-like visual language, and in their application for Mac OS X in Office 2004 they were surprisingly smooth. And the Office 2007 for PC weren’t as offensive. The new icon set, on the other hand is a mess.

Microsoft Office 2010 (PC and, gulp, Mac?) application icons.

The new icon designs respond to research that informs us that users can more easily associate icons by letter and color than by abstract design. We’ve adopted an alphabet system to bring a more uniform approach to the wide variety of Office family products.
Office 2010: Visuals and Branding

None of the letters align. The slab serifs are inconsistent and, yes, ugly. And if users can’t easily associate “abstract design” how will they differentiate between the three different “P” applications with undecipherable illustrations? Granted, the Big Four (Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook) are easily discernible but that’s just by luck at this point. From the way all these quoted descriptions make the user interface sound you would think the Microsoft Office designers have really (really) never looked at Apple or Adobe software, or anything with remotely decent taste in visual execution. One of these days, I want to write a positive review on design by Microsoft. Clearly, today’s is not that day.

It’s not just a pretty picture
Designing and implementing the visuals for Microsoft Office goes beyond the icons and the age old desire simply to “make it look pretty”. It’s about bridging the gap between the familiar and the unknown, conveying and building on a brand, and helping users complete their daily tasks without getting in the way. Hopefully this quick overview has given you a better understanding of the visual refresh you’ll see in Microsoft Office 2010.
Office 2010: Visuals and Branding

Thanks to Tim Smith for the tip.

david’s comment is:

Was the “research” that “informed” them that “users can more easily associate icons by letter and color” taking one look at Adobe’s CS icons?

On Jan.19.2010 at 06:38 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

Those icons look very much like a design by committee job.

On Jan.19.2010 at 06:40 AM

Eduardo’s comment is:

The real (and in my opinion very good) Office 2007 icons are these:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/office2k7-icons.jpg

On Jan.19.2010 at 06:51 AM

Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

While the tile-like icons are distinctly Microsoft, they’re not too bad, in my opinion. Like the Adobe CS icons, these are designed from the start to be a “system”, and not merely to stand on their own. I worry though that the document icons will be hard to read, cramming too much detail into the inset version of the larger “tile”.

Regarding Windows vs. Mac, it seems the two systems are drawing closer together. There has been chatter in the Mac world for years now that MS will stop producing Office for Mac in 2010, and apparently the new version will work on both systems sooner or later. Sadly, this means Macs will be injected with Windows icons, and not the other way around. Frankly, I’ve always hated the Hebrew-esque Mac icons for MS Office in previous editions, and have always swapped them almost immediately for user-created alternatives from the Internet.

(side note: I just did a clean re-install of my Mac OS, and I’m going to see how long I can go without installing MS Office. Hopefully, I can divorce myself entirely.)

On Jan.19.2010 at 06:54 AM

buruno’s comment is:

Ugh. I was about to say I was surprised they didn’t screwed up this time until I saw the new icon set.

At least they are aware they don’t design the visuals to “make it look pretty”. I’ll just take that as their design motto.

ps. as a ligature enthusiast, I can’t help feeling a little blue when I see a missed “?” opportunity.

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:15 AM

buruno’s comment is:

oh, I was wondering if the ligature would appear correctly. I’ll just put an image here as well..

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:20 AM

Tobias’s comment is:

It’s times like these that make me appreciate iWork just that little bit more.

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:24 AM

Martin’s comment is:

@Armin

The caption that reads “A sampling of Microsoft Office 2007 (PC) application icons.” is incorrect. It should read “A sampling of Microsoft Office 2008 (Mac) application icons.”

Best,
Martin

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:29 AM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

Whilst the update of the Microsoft Office icon is not too offensive, and the typography whilst uninspiring isn’t the worst you’ll see (they’re obviously happy with it as the only mod seems to be the spacing between the f’s)… the icons are a huge retrograde step of at least 15 years!

The smoother, more liquid initial icons of 2007/08 sit far better with the new revised icon.
Once you’re familiar with the colour and letter coding you don’t need to see a picture of a pie chart to know which app you’re using!!

Unfortunately, the fussy introduction of ring-bound paper, pie charts coupled with a terrible font choice for the initials and you get a update which lacks both synergy and cleanliness to sit alongside the new Office icon.

Only Microsoft could put this out to their less design-savvy users and get away with it.

Try again!

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:48 AM

Brendan’s comment is:

The main logo is fine. Shame it really won’t be used all that much.

The icons could be good, if they aligned everything and lost those funky looking tails on the P, N, V, X, and W. Conceptually, it’s solid (if not a ripoff of CS, as people have said), but the execution is poor, and there’s really no excuse for that.

That being said, the icons probably won’t be displayed as large or so close to each other, so the misalignment might be less obvious when it’s on our computers.

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:50 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

Crap logo for crap applications. Pretty simple.

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:59 AM

d13t’s comment is:

This is horrible.

Try, for instance, to differentiate the three “P” applications when your colourblind.

(Use Color Oracle from http://colororacle.cartography.ch/ and have a laugh…)

On Jan.19.2010 at 08:01 AM

Ryan Paul’s comment is:

I agree that the Microsoft Office logo isn’t bad. If nothing else, it’s clean and easily reproducible. The negative space within the symbol is a little weird (it reminds me of something molecular, or a retro satellite), but still manages to be serviceable.

The application icons, on the other hand, are awful. While the prior versions were modeled and had a nice candy-like dimensionality, the new ones are quite flat. The overall styling feels somewhat dated too. To me, this solution feels as if it were developed around 1996 or so.

On Jan.19.2010 at 08:04 AM

jinushaun’s comment is:

I don’t think it’s THAT bad, but it’s certainly not aesthetically pleasing. I never liked the Office loops, but it’s pretty stupid to remove the rainbow colours. The rainbow has been Microsoft’s brand colors for as long as I can remember, and the execution of those colors are becoming worse. That’s a lot of equity thrown away.

As for the app icons, I agree with everyone else. Good idea, horrible execution. Too busy, doesn’t scale.

I have friends in design agencies in Seattle that do MS work. (Almost nothing is designed internally, it’s mostly agencies) Yes, it’s almost always design by committee. They hate it.

On Jan.19.2010 at 08:31 AM

Jason’s comment is:

You made a mistake in the article… those alien-type icons are the Office 2008 MAC icons… The Office 2007 PC icons (which are sooooooooooo much better and more beautiful than the 2010 ones) are these:

On Jan.19.2010 at 08:34 AM

Armin’s comment is:

Thanks for the clarification on the icon sets. They’ve been corrected.

On Jan.19.2010 at 08:57 AM

Nate B’s comment is:

What is with the kerning between the I and C in Office?

On Jan.19.2010 at 08:58 AM

Paul’s comment is:

The Office logo you have above is not the standard version — the version here is correct, with less egregious letterspacing: http://blogs.technet.com/office2010/archive/2009/12/11/office-2010-visuals-and-branding.aspx

While I don’t doubt that you found this somewhere presented as the official logo, displaying an incorrect logo for the purpose of holding the company up for ridicule is bad form, and just lazy. That having been said, I’m sure there are various incorrect versions floating around that do get used.

As someone who has had to become familiar with the branding standards, I have to say the overall branding isn’t terrible — I’ve seen far worse. I’m guessing they removed the four color boxes because the Office family is now so huge that four colors can’t really represent it. Not saying it’s better, but that was probably the reason.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:04 AM

Jordan’s comment is:

Seriously as a Mac user, I’ve been having high hopes for MS lately. Xbox 360 is going good, Media Center is great, but this?!?!? Usability aside, it looks like they had a a freshman intro to computer graphics class design the icons for a school pro bono project. And if I were color blind, then what happens to usability (a great point made above)?! I

t’s like clip art from the late 90’s. Don’t argue it, don’t feel sorry for them and say they’re alright. They’re not! This is a billion dollar software company, where’s the budget for design?

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:06 AM

A Real Black Person’s comment is:

In this case, I know Microsoft was never really design conscious throughout its history but come on! Are the last two posts real?? What is it with these half baked corporate rebrands? The Microsoft Office one wouldn’t even be considered professional level work in a porfolio. I don’t get it.
I thought the graphic design field was highly competitve—overcrowded, even. Why aren’t better desigenrs getting these rebrand jobs? A few days a go a saw a poster that I could tell miles away that was better than anything featured in this blog in over a year. I saw it in a building that’s largely closed off to the public ie a studio building. Except for the occasional movie poster, Why is good design largely invisible or unknown to the public? When I refer to the public, I mean a layman, not a member of the professional class.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:09 AM

Chad Kaufman’s comment is:

Yet another reason why I have started using Google docs for everything.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:13 AM

Byron McCollum’s comment is:

Actually, these were originally introduced as part of office 2004 Mac.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:31 AM

Dennis Van Staalduinen’s comment is:

About as inspiring as yesterday’s dishwater. Which only inspires me to pull the plug and drain the sink.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:31 AM

Aron Rubin’s comment is:

I am going to have to disagree that their UI designs mainly chafe those with an artistic eye. Every new version it seems that the number of operations to get some particular effect from their tools goes up. Also things like reordering menus, modal popups instead of status indicators/messages, mouse warping and inconsistent routes to functionality affect all users. Using MS tools is like having a toddler sit on your lap pushing your mouse and putting their hands in your face as you try to work.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:37 AM

Michelle’s comment is:

I don’t know… looking at the Office 2007 PC icons (with just the graphic), the Office 2010 icons make sense if their main objective was to add a letter- same graphic shifted over, with letter on top. I don’t really think it’s that horrible, especially since people will be upgrading from 2007 to 2010, the transition will make sense- familiar graphic elements with a new letter for clarity.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:38 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

The main logo is fine, but the icons give me a headache.

On Jan.19.2010 at 10:03 AM

NatalieB’s comment is:

Those new icons are HILARIOUS! They look like they were designed in 1993. Thank you for the laugh.

On Jan.19.2010 at 10:09 AM

Marie H.’s comment is:

Skipping the “ffi” ligature? Really?!

On Jan.19.2010 at 10:41 AM

Stephanie’s comment is:

definiteley smiled at the “It’s not just a pretty picture” part - ok, it isn’t a pretty picture but it isn’t a well designed / thought through system either in my opinion.

@d13t’s
thanks for that link! tried the app and was quite surprised! i couldn’t recognize my icons at first glance - immediatley passed it on to my colleagues. for sure - you can’t design for everybody all the time, but definitely you can keep it in mind, especially in colour-classified systems, signage etc. and apply it whenever possible!

On Jan.19.2010 at 10:49 AM

Darrel’s comment is:

I miss the days when icons were distillations of a concept into a simple form rather than detailed 3-D shiny illustrations.

I’m not sure the term ‘icon’ has the same meaning it used to have.

Or maybe I just really miss Susan Kare’s work.

On Jan.19.2010 at 11:23 AM

aaron’s comment is:

What’s wrong with the mac icons being adopted for windows too? They’re interesting looking, colour coordinated, simple, and easy to identify.
These new icons are serious step back. There are too many icons with P on them, and the visuals are crowded and too similar to each other.

Logo wise, its fine, nothing amazing, but nothing terrible. I can see how it got there, having grown up with it. But the type is just as terrible as usual. I wish they’d stop being cheap and just by a decent font.

On Jan.19.2010 at 11:44 AM

Danielle ’s comment is:

Is it a bad sign that I had to keep looking back and forth between the 2007 icons and the new icons to figure out which matched with which program?
Why is it that I can figure it out easily with the simple ‘W’, ‘E’, ‘P’, etc of 2008, but not with the new icons?
Why is there a need for a complete overhaul in the design of the icons every year or so? Even if the design is bad, there is something to be said for consistency (especially when it comes to usability!).
What a mess.

On Jan.19.2010 at 11:53 AM

Mojo’s comment is:

The P debacle is unacceptable. I could see myself clicking the wrong application until I delete the whole suite and NEVER use MS again.

Mac users simply rely on the visual icon more than PC for identification. PC has the name below the icon, Mac does not on the dock. Unless you’re using a shortcut (which i doubt you are) you have to run your mouse over the icon to see the name, and the GOOD icons don’t make you do that for identification.

On Jan.19.2010 at 11:57 AM

Hibryd’s comment is:

The 2007 PC icons work because they bring the *function* of the program front and center, with small text for clarification. Now the function has been hidden behind a single big fat letter, and someone should have told them, sorry, you can’t lead with a single big fat letter when THREE programs share the same letter. Adobe’s “periodic table” icons have TWO letters for that very reason. Furthermore, Adobe realized that two letters makes the program “click” in your mind so quickly that adding more visuals to the icon would only confuse the issue.

On Jan.19.2010 at 12:18 PM

Darrel’s comment is:

Also, there is no Mac version of Access, so I’m not so sure those last icons are for the Mac.

I also hope there isn’t a Mac version of Infopath. Condolences to those that are affected if there is.

On Jan.19.2010 at 12:24 PM

Paula’s comment is:

Whoa. Is it just me, or is the kerning bad in the newer version? It was just fine in the old version. As for the mark - eh, I don’t know what to say. It’s not better, it’s not worse, it’s just…Microsoft.

On Jan.19.2010 at 12:27 PM

radio_babylon’s comment is:

is it just me, or does that new office logo look like four borg cubes warping in-system?

ok yeah, im a dork. but… it DOES!

On Jan.19.2010 at 12:37 PM

matt blank’s comment is:

Just remember this is a beta. The icons for Office 2007 looked similar to the icons for the 2010 for a while. Then after people tested it and they realized no one could tell them apart at 48x48px (or they made your eyes bleed) they tweaked them to their current revision. I suspect the same will happen here.

On Jan.19.2010 at 01:21 PM

Bendy’s comment is:

Segoe! What a surprise!

What does that new mark accomplish, other than confusion? I just don’t get it - is it an X with weird tips, a flower, a strange creature?… how does it in any way say ‘powerful, integrated office suite’? Not to mention, all I see when I look at it is the CWB wakeboards logo…

On Jan.19.2010 at 01:35 PM

Dusty’s comment is:

Eww. Guess that’s what happens when you design on Piece-a-Crapper’s.

On Jan.19.2010 at 01:38 PM

C Jones’s comment is:

Hahahah the new logo looks like 4 cubicles hanging out together. Which is exactly were this soft ware will be used, how fitting.

On Jan.19.2010 at 01:44 PM

Sebastiaan de With’s comment is:

Adobe software? Tasteful? Hahahaha.

On Jan.19.2010 at 02:28 PM

Artémis Psathas’s comment is:

MY EYES! MY EYES!
my eyes officially hurt, and my brain too…

funny how these visuals reflect very articulately the sluggishness and how uncomfortable we feel whenever we are forced to use any of their applications. wow..

On Jan.19.2010 at 02:36 PM

Nadyne Richmond’s comment is:

Prescott - As a member of the Office:Mac team, I can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that those rumours you keep on hearing aren’t accurate. :) The Macintosh Business Unit was created more than 10 years ago to focus on our Mac productivity apps, and we’ve continually grown in that time. We’re currently ~220 people worldwide working solely on our Macs app. We’ve publicly announced that the next version of Office:Mac will be released by holiday 2010. We’re the oldest and (if I recall correctly) largest all-Mac development shop outside of Apple themselves, and we have no intent of stopping.

Personally, as a UX researcher on the team, I’m starting to transition off of working on the version coming out this year. My team is starting to ramp up on the exploratory work for the next version. I think this bodes pretty well for the continued existence of Office:Mac. :)

On Jan.19.2010 at 02:47 PM

Jacob’s comment is:

Those are some horrendous colours, all there together.

On Jan.19.2010 at 02:48 PM

Unwinder’s comment is:

These icons are pretty bad.

Really though, the logo is perfectly fine. My gut reaction to it was that it was less interesting than the old one, but really it’s serviceable, and I like how simple the shading is on it. Obviously the version with the better type makes a lot of difference.

Don’t see why everyone’s contrasting Microsoft with Apple here though. Apple is definitely more savvy and well-crafted than Microsoft, but I’ve never liked their overall image. Too much shiny stuff, I say.

On Jan.19.2010 at 02:54 PM

Unwinder’s comment is:

Seriously, right up in the upper left corner of their website, Apple has a shiny Apple logo with a little Nike swoosh in it.

On Jan.19.2010 at 02:59 PM

Mark Johnson’s comment is:

Although this logo is really bland, I’ll agree there, it is slightly better. I’m not a fan of the one color treatment, but there is some play, and the type is better.

One thing I found though Armin is you have a few of Microsofts logos reviewed on here (Silverlight, Office, MSN, Bing) all of which, I’ll agree, suck quite a lot. But there is one logo you haven’t mentioned at all and that’s the Zune logo. The Zune is a Microsoft related product, that doesn’t suck entirely and in fact the logo doesn’t look half bad in my opinion. One may be so bold as to saying it’s nice.

On Jan.19.2010 at 03:36 PM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

Oh, no. Oh, no no no.

Office empowers you to do more than you could ever need in more time than you’ll ever have with more difficulty than you’ll ever want. It appears that this thinking has crept into their icon sets. Seeing the newest Office-related design decisions get unveiled every few years is like being told that the labyrinth you’re trapped in has just been expanded for your benefit. I wish MS would release an Office Lite so they’d have an excuse to get rid of all the legacy issues, awful by-committee design, and interface cruft.

On Jan.19.2010 at 03:46 PM

Fish’s comment is:

Oh my… horribly unsatisfying. Maybe they should cram a paragraph of text into each icon describing what that particular version of software does. Typical Microsoft. I sure hope these aren’t final versions. Yikes!

On Jan.19.2010 at 04:23 PM

Chris M’s comment is:

What happened to the k e r n i n g

On Jan.19.2010 at 04:38 PM

David’s comment is:

Those icons are the NEW ones? *checks calendar*…. oh.

On Jan.19.2010 at 04:44 PM

Gunther’s comment is:

Okay, those icons can only improv and I agree that this change every year is nerve-wrecking. If they don’t change the icons, it will at least become extremely funny to constantly think about the question which ‘P’ belong to which application.

By the way: I don’t want to burst you ranting bubble, but since when was or is the letter-spacing option natural? Word is for writing text, not designing text. For that we have InDesign, QuarkXPress and so on. I really thought that by now anyone would know this.

On Jan.19.2010 at 05:18 PM

Tez’s comment is:

Hmm, missed opportunities for ligatures. What are you thinking guys this is microsoft we’re talking about most likely using microsoft fonts. They wouldn’t know good design sense if it bit them on the behind.

On Jan.19.2010 at 05:29 PM

Mog’s comment is:

I don’t get why they don’t go back to using puzzle pieces. That instantly says “suite,” and they owned that. They haven’t used them in like a decade and I’d bet they still have more equity than these new rounded-corner-things.

I second what everybody else said, about using the initial letter when you have three programs that begin with “P” being a bad idea, &c. The application icons are bad, but the file icons are even worse. You have a picture of a document on an icon on a picture of a document. GAH!!

They actually touch on some great ideas by accident, though. Look at the clock in the Outlook icon. If you made the time 12:15 it would look like an O with an smaller L inside of it. Perfect for Outlook! Why couldn’t that just be their icon?

Strength is in simplicity. Microsoft will never get that.

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:34 PM

Armin’s comment is:

> By the way: I don’t want to burst you ranting bubble, but since when was or is the letter-spacing option natural? Word is for writing text, not designing text. For that we have InDesign, QuarkXPress and so on. I really thought that by now anyone would know this.

Gunther, in my experience, when doing identity jobs that involve doing letterhead (and their memo and fax extensions) and press kits, clients do not want a file in InDesign or Quark, they want a document that a CEO can work with while he or she is on a plane, or that anyone in an office of hundreds can use without having to worry about whether a fancy application like InDesign or Quark is installed on their computer. For those clients and, again, in my experience, those are a large majority, a nicely designed document in Word is more than necessary, and whenever I set anything in all uppercase I like those letters a little loosely letterspaced. Naturally.

On Jan.19.2010 at 07:42 PM

Matthew Moore Design’s comment is:

This definitely looks like either an internal design job or a weak-minded agency job. Whatever designer did this gave up long ago on doing anything meaningful and let the meeting hyenas nibble the work to bits.

On Jan.19.2010 at 09:36 PM

Chris’s comment is:

The biggest problem with this redesign is plainly the program logos. They don’t hold any actual identity, all seeming to have too much of a similar feel and the issue with multiple “p“‘s, as mentioned above, seems like a massive issue for being able to identiy items.

On the actual product though, Microsoft makes the best office software out there, hands down to be honest. I use Work on a daily basis, and can always manage quick items in Excel work. At the very least, the Ribbon UI takes a step in a different direction, which works very well for myself to be honest.

On Jan.19.2010 at 10:49 PM

buy r4 ’s comment is:

I would love to see features like this merged into other Microsoft applications such as Publisher and Expression Design.In fact, I would love to see a LOT more parity between the features of all of these applications.

On Jan.19.2010 at 11:29 PM

Genn’s comment is:

Talking about icons of MS Office for Mac OS X, we’ve discovered ages ago that they look like Hebrew letters a lot.

On Jan.20.2010 at 02:32 AM

shiftklick’s comment is:

Can’t get enough of gloss. Gloss is definitely here to stay. The best thing to happen to design since the invention of drop shadows and lens flares.

On Jan.20.2010 at 03:07 AM

Alexander Greyling’s comment is:

M$0 (for office) and M$1, M$2, M$3, M$4 … would have been far more applicable and representative

This collection of fruit salads (OK icons) under the banner of the weak, feeble and boring Microsoft brandmark are representative of the board that runs Microsoft, as opposed to the board running Apple.

One look at Microsoft’s management structure of eight chief financial officers tells you it is bloated with committees full of bean counters and window washers.

Of its seven business units, only three units – Client, Information Worker, and Server Platforms – are profitable. The rest are collectively losing billions of dollars a year.

By contrast, Apple with its unique and elegant brandmark and product icons that have reached cult status, is now run by a former Apple marketing vice-president who clearly understands the value of the consumers’ opinion and desires.

Yesterday Apple’s shares closed at $205.93, roughly $10 below its all-time high on news that Apple sent an e-mail invitation to reporters for the 27 January media event to “Come see our latest creation” rumored to be the tablet computer.

Now that is a lesson in brand equity!

Please excuse me, I have just had another look at the M$ icons and I have to now go and vomit blood!

Author of Face your brand! The language of visual branding explained.

On Jan.20.2010 at 04:11 AM

Chuck Spidell’s comment is:

PowerPoint is the enemy … and the sloppy kerning.

On Jan.20.2010 at 05:48 AM

John L Hoh Jr’s comment is:

The first set of three icons look like Hebrew letters to me: Sin/Shin, Alep, and Qof.

On Jan.20.2010 at 09:04 AM

Scott Souchock’s comment is:

The Patron Saint of Mediocrity strikes again.

On Jan.20.2010 at 02:27 PM

Jhames’s comment is:

Dear Microsoft® Counsel:

I appreciate your desire to protect the intellectual property rights of Microsoft® in all your communications and collateral, but could I ask you to reconsider the size requirements when applying registered trademarks in your brand?

xoxo,
-J.

p.s. No one thought to ring Matthew Carter for his assistance on the icon typography?

On Jan.20.2010 at 03:21 PM

qwertyale’s comment is:

MS will become Linux and disappear

On Jan.20.2010 at 04:53 PM

Emma’s comment is:

I… have no idea what any of those new icons represent. I would never be able to find what I was looking for.

On Jan.20.2010 at 06:41 PM

Chris’s comment is:

I’m not sure what is going on over at MS. First Office 2007 comes out and it’s actually pretty nice looking, and the UI functions are a massive improvement. Then Windows 7 and all of its improvements — An OS that is snappy and doesn’t simply play catch up with Apple. And the design stylings are actually pretty nice (the new taskbar and explorer are a fantastic touch).
And looking even further, we have the Zune with it’s sense of style.

All of these were fairly design conscious.

Now we have this. Why the unbelievable step backwards? Have they fallen off the wagon?

On Jan.20.2010 at 07:12 PM

pablo prato’s comment is:

algunos eslabones de la evolución http://bit.ly/8SMpeE

On Jan.20.2010 at 10:14 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

Not a fan of anything Microsoft. This identity included.

On Jan.21.2010 at 12:36 AM

Phanyxx’s comment is:

I actually kind of liked the groovy alien icons. The “new” icons look like a poor attempt at art deco…

On Jan.21.2010 at 01:23 AM

Matthias, kernpunkt’s comment is:

Look good. I liked the old logo, but the new style is cleaner…

On Jan.21.2010 at 09:20 AM

Chris’s comment is:

Attempting the impossible: polish a turd.

On Jan.21.2010 at 11:20 AM

Amy’s comment is:

I totally agree - these new icons for the 2010 version are impossible! The first thing I thought when I saw them was: There are 3 P’s…which one is which?? What in the world were they thinking??

On Jan.21.2010 at 12:42 PM

Gareth Coxon - Dot Design’s comment is:

Well its better, but not much better!

On Jan.21.2010 at 03:46 PM

derrick’s comment is:

wow.

should’ve hired this guy…

http://www.iconwerk.de/index.html

On Jan.22.2010 at 02:02 PM

jim’s comment is:

I LOLed at all the icons so hard. Maybe except Landor’s Mac icons, they don’t suck too much

On Jan.22.2010 at 06:01 PM

jim’s comment is:

oh yeah, and everytime I hear MS Office I think of this: http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/ttbardj/LARGE_word.jpg

On Jan.22.2010 at 06:06 PM

Jen’s comment is:

Oh my goodness—those icons are a hot mess. Do I forseriously see SPARKLES on there? Is that because of the 5-year olds in the ads?

Do they include a magnifying glass so users can tell which icon-picture they are looking for?

I mean, if you took the Adobe icon concept, ran it through a committee of twenty-five executives who have no art training whatsoever, added Microsoft clip art for illustrations and picked the finals by dartboard method you couldn’t have done worse.

Seriously…the only way they could be uglier is if they were done in Comic Sans. Which is probably coming next. Lord help us all, that is ugly.

:)

On Jan.27.2010 at 10:07 AM

Stuart Holmes’s comment is:

Is it just me or is the kerning between i, c and e in the word office out of whack and seems far too spacious? Surely that needs to be tracked in some more, no?

On Feb.01.2010 at 02:36 AM

Cameron Booth’s comment is:

Gahhh, the letter spacing in the new logo is insanely bad! You could drive a truck through the gap between the “i” and the “c”… and it’s even more obvious when placed side by side with the older logo, because it’s actually spaced pretty well. And, I too, wish for an “ffi” ligature instead of the three individual letters.

On Feb.04.2010 at 06:10 PM

Ethan’s comment is:

The icons are a wreck, but that doesn’t need to be discussed more.

But, I very much like the logo.

The new symbol is ok. It clearly says connection, it ditches the stupid 4 colors, and it scales well. It seems more organic than the old one (which may or may not be a good thing). Its shape also feels somehow a bit unsettling.

More than the symbol, though, I’m a big fan of the font choice (kerning aside). It has a modern look and the open counters, subtle modulation, and rounded tittle make it feel approachable and not boring, but still serious. Just like it should.

On Feb.07.2010 at 01:53 PM

Mark’s comment is:

Actually, I’ve been using the 2010 beta on my Windows side of things (Parallels and Boot Camp from my MacBook), and I thought these were actually kind of nice. I did think it was really dumb that the P-applications were all nearly the same.

But looking at this post, I realized I liked them so much because I really despise the Office for Mac icons. I hate them. So much. So this return to what I was used to with Office 2007 I guess was kind of comforting. But yes, the 2007 logos are way better.

On Feb.08.2010 at 02:08 PM