Opinion BY Armin

Technically, This is Very Colorful

If you like your movies and television shows in color, you owe such modern-day pleasures to Technicolor, the company that created the eponymous color film processes in the early 1920s and gave movies like The Wizard of Oz the ability to show a yellow brick road, where before there would have only been a gray one. Long associated with Hollywood, the name/term/idea of Technicolor went from having the kind of service-specific equity that Google now has in search engines or Kleenex in facial tissues; this past decade however, Technicolor seemed to have gone astray. It was bought by French tech company Thomson in 2001 and the Technicolor name became a simple subsidiary. In a 180-degree-turn-of-events, this past January, Thomson announced that it would change its corporate name to Technicolor and give it back the consumer-facing reign. Today, Technicolor is a machine of technological proportions, providing services in animation, digital effects, production, post-production, and more. Both Thomson and Technicolor have adopted a new logo, designed by Technicolor’s Marketing Branding team with advertising agency Gyro:HSR.

The new logo symbolizes a departure from our old heritage to a new dynamic platform that celebrates all of our employees’ genius and contributions. It symbolizes how we change people’s lives throughout the world with innovative products and services. The new logo reflects the importance of dimension, the entire color spectrum, and key elements of light, movement and sound in a dynamic and balanced composition.
— Press Release after winning “best new logo award by the Business Marketing Association (BMA) of New York City”

For some reason I associated the old logo more with NBC than with Technicolor, as the film reel reminded me of the peacock. But I digress. The new logo is interesting, I don’t think it’s necessarily great or innovative, but there is an interesting tension to it from the “hanging” strips of color, like paint waiting to spill over. For Fourcolorphobics, this logo is a nightmare, as it only works in full color — a single color version with shades of gray probably looks dumb. From the image above, it looks like there is some rationalization that has to do with “stages,” but I wasn’t able to find anything on it, so decipher as you will.

The typography is inconspicuous, it doesn’t attract too much attention and it doesn’t detract, so all things considered, it’s fairly good. Most importantly, the new logo allows the company to stand for all kinds of technologies, not just film, which the old logo pigeonholed it into.

Thanks to Jeremy Herlakian for first tip.

John’s comment is:

Saul Bass would have done this differently. Therefore, this sucks. How dare Technicolor disrespect what a great master would have done had a great master been alive to do it!

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:23 AM

Lester’s comment is:

I liked the previous all-caps typography better than the new all-lowercase. Other than that, it looks great. I’m sure it looks terrible in greyscale, but with a name like Technicolor, there’s no excuse to ever use greyscale.

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:39 AM

C3PO’s comment is:

FIFA Brazil 2014 World Cup logo is here! http://es.fifa.com/worldcup/brazil2014/photo/127/062/9/picture.html#1270583

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:40 AM

Ondra’s comment is:

Old typography + new colour bar = BEST

New typography + new colour bar = “only” NICE and not so powerful as could be

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:46 AM

Ondra’s comment is:

This way could be better for me - stronger, half-new and with respect to tradition:

What do you think?

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:54 AM

andys’s comment is:

if you went the half and half route I would have actually liked to see some reduction/simplification/saulbass-ification of the original brand mark and maybe use the newer typeface

The whole rainbow stage thing is meh

On Jul.09.2010 at 07:09 AM

rafe’s comment is:

Armin - I would have to agree that this mark is not necessarily great or innovative. I appreciate that the nature of their business has changed and that the conceptual reference to film in the previous mark no longer is relevant. But the mark did have a concept. The new mark, well it’s a little basic and expected. I find it curious that as the image represents the visible color spectrum that it begins with blue and ends with green. The visible spectrum begins at about 400nm, [violet] and goes to about 800nm [red] - it’s a bit like getting the colors in a rainbow in the wrong order. Beyond that, I think the new mark is interesting - but uninspired.

On Jul.09.2010 at 07:30 AM

Neil Martin’s comment is:

After seeing the ‘After’ photo I thought it was great.

After seeing Ondra’s logo with old typography, I thought it was perfect.

On Jul.09.2010 at 07:37 AM

ben’s comment is:

i really like the rainbow stage. then again, anything colourful gets me.
and i think i agree with Ondra’s idea. the old typography is much more interesting and strong.

On Jul.09.2010 at 07:38 AM

Paul’s comment is:

I actually like that they “wrapped” the spectrum around the stage; i.e. putting red in the middle and wrapping around to the left side once they hit the edge. It makes it stand out from every ROY G BIV rainbow out there.

On Jul.09.2010 at 07:59 AM

Cindy’s comment is:

All I see is piano keys.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:03 AM

qwertyale’s comment is:

so cheap.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:05 AM

Rob O.’s comment is:

I’m with the others who like Ondra’s version with the old typography.

I’d really like to know what the logic was behind the varying lengths of color strips in the lower stage area. Surely that represents something - and looks nice enough - but I’m just dense enough that I don’t ‘get’ the underlying reasoning. Sorta makes me think of the pulsating bars on an EQ-type display but I kinda doubt that was the inspiration.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:10 AM

Andy Charly’s comment is:

I don’t think a logo can pigeonhole a company. It’s the company’s attitude toward itself that does that. Thus, I didn’t mind the film reel in the original. It spoke to the origins of the company for me, and I loved the uppercase logotype. I love that comp, Ondra. Much better if you ask me.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:12 AM

Reinko’s comment is:

I too preferred the old type. The new is so bland (and therefore fairly good Armin? Please!)
The striped tablecloth is eye candy, but very geometric and far from timeless, I’m afraid.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:14 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Yeah… but how does it FAX?!?

(yes, I’m being sarcastic…)

^_^

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:15 AM

Larry W’s comment is:

The old one was much better, much cooler, and more interesting.

This new one is contemporary for the sake of contemporary.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:25 AM

CJ’s comment is:

I’m with Ondra on this one… that was my first instinct. The new typography is fairly forgettable and wouldn’t stand on it’s own (of course realizing they may not care if it does).

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:26 AM

Liabes’s comment is:

And how does that work in black and white?
What about having to use it on a color background?

Just like the new Astral logo,
I don’t think this is a very professional & solid revamp.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:28 AM

Abi’s comment is:

While I like the idea of the old typography with the new mark the best, I love that lower case “t” that is in the new typography.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:45 AM

Nate Maggio’s comment is:

Agreed the old typography is stronger and has more personality. The old letters feel like an industry leader.
I love the multi-colored bars. Very striking to the eyes and lets you know what you’re getting into right away. I do wonder with Liabes, how will the one color version work?

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:46 AM

Paul’s comment is:

One color, just use the word mark, done

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:52 AM

Everett’s comment is:

The new design is acceptable, but bland and unimaginative. @Ondra’s suggestion helps retain some brand integrity, but is still a lackluster concept at base. Given the projects and media Technicolor works with, they could have a logo much less restrained.

It almost seems as if the mark was designed with only a cursory examination of the company itself. The reference to what looks to be a theatrical stage is odd, seeing as Technicolor has always been devoted to film and broadcast stages.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:59 AM

Matt Steel’s comment is:

I see they went the practical route and designed the new logo so it can only be reproduced on a fifteen-color press or in CMYK. Well done.

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:18 AM

David B.’s comment is:

Didn’t see much wrong with the old one—looked contemporary in a retro-kinda way.

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:22 AM

Tim Smith’s comment is:

I just think there are too many colours, why not just 11 to match the number of letters? I mean, do we really need all those purple and greens?

…and I agree with the old typeface choice!

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:35 AM

Rob Russo’s comment is:

I like Ondra’s idea; the new type is lackluster. In fact, I was thinking it before I got to the comments.

And I like the new color bar - in FULL color - and, in this case, don’t see a problem with it not working in greyscale. As others have pointed out, try it without the bar or screw it. We won’t be faxing in b/w for much longer, right? :)

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:35 AM

Rondal’s comment is:

I would have liked to seen the color bar continue onto the background with the old typography overlaid in white. For whatever reason, the partial “dripping” colors don’t seem to match up with the type as though they are completely separate elements. I’m also not quite getting how it conveys the way the company “change people’s lives throughout the world with innovative products and services.”

Otherwise there’s nothing technically wrong with it, just not my cup of tea I suppose.

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:36 AM

Rossco’s comment is:

Ondra’s comment is:
Old typography + new colour bar = BEST

That was exactly my first thought!

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:55 AM

Zanda’s comment is:

Why fix it if it is not broken. Sadly, there goes another iconic brandmark and all the brand equity with it - a victim of change for the sake of change and probably as a result of a beancounter CEO’s ambition and ignorance.

The new design is the after-birth of a design abortion in technicolour.

On Jul.09.2010 at 10:21 AM

eric|von|leckband’s comment is:

I do like the original type treatment much better, it brings the old and new together.

I don’t exactly love the paint piano keys, seems underwhelming for such an exciting company. I think it needs some type of motion or movement…better yet magic.

I think it is good not great which is a shame seeing that the old logo at the time was great.

On Jul.09.2010 at 10:25 AM

jen’s comment is:

I like the new a lot better than the old, but I think the old could have been revived/saved/renovated into a better logo than what they ended up with.

On Jul.09.2010 at 10:32 AM

bjornyeo’s comment is:

the old typography just looks so much stronger compared to this new one.. much more considered.

On Jul.09.2010 at 10:46 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

Remember folks, there is almost always a need to have a single colour logo as single colour printing will at some stage be needed. So whilst all the comments about faxing are hilarious (ha, ha, look at the old fax, aren’t we all so modern these days), they are missing the point. Also, I can’t really see much merit in a logo that cannot be replicated on any colour background other than white or black without the need to throw a block or shape or keyline or something behind it.

On Jul.09.2010 at 11:04 AM

jen’s comment is:

That’s a good point…seems like wordmark-alone would be the logical 1c solution, except this one is so generic it probably won’t do the trick.

On Jul.09.2010 at 11:12 AM

Phillip’s comment is:

I’ve only been following this blog for a few weeks and it is really neat to read about the details my eye doesn’t see. Not being a designer or anything like that, the field is incredibly interesting to me. I have to say I am supremely bored with all the brand changes that are basically “Let’s lowercase our name and get rid of the interesting images we had”. I don’t understand why companies keep doing it. They all seem the same and they all seem boring. It will be nice when the cycle changes again and everyone starts making original interesting marks.

It seems to me that this craze started with the internet getting popular. first you would have

My Cool Company

Then for a few years before how uncool they realized it was

mycoolcompany.com

Now

mycoolcompany

meh

On Jul.09.2010 at 11:48 AM

Eric’s comment is:

I recently caught The Wizard of Oz and was just blown away by the richness of the color. It was truly amazing, especially for 70 years ago. It felt like I was watching Hollywood magic.

That being said, the new logo makes no connection to that classic Hollywood. While not a requirement, it seems like a missed opportunity. The new logo looks very nice, but it could have been so much more.

On Jul.09.2010 at 11:57 AM

David Timmerman’s comment is:

While I, too, felt the new logo would be better with the old wordmark, I find that the combination may not work - the Text is too short, too stubby.

I see the new table logo, I see pixels, and considering everything about Technicolor is probably digital now, I think it works. While I enjoyed the old wordmark (and it will be more unique since United is dumping it due to the merger with Continental), the old reel is uninspired.

As for the b/w logo, I am sure they would just use the wordmark. With the medium they are in, there is probably less need for b/w than you think. Most movie publications are four-color glossy, and all their products are color as well. They are Technicolor, for crying out loud, their whole purpose for being is about the color.

On Jul.09.2010 at 11:57 AM

Austin Esmond’s comment is:

Very good point Phillip. You seem pretty knowledgeable for a non designer.

People just get bored with what they see far too quickly now. We need to expand our attention spans and appreciate design for what it is.

I do agree however that this mark does look better with the old typography and it would be a great way to connect the marks.

On Jul.09.2010 at 11:58 AM

Brad McNally’s comment is:

I actually think the old wordmark is much better, just stick with the type.

On Jul.09.2010 at 12:01 PM

Paul M’s comment is:

@Ondra: I completely agree with you.

It was my first thought, too. I just think the original typography had more character.

On Jul.09.2010 at 12:07 PM

Kevin Tucker’s comment is:

This redesign is friendly, unoffensive, and eye-popping. Yeah, those are all criticisms. But the strategy behind rebranding the company, that’s bold, and a solid move, I think… imagine the possibilities of what a company like this can do with the brand equity behind Technicolor, at least if they don’t

For example, I’m really wondering how this whole thing will affect the RCA brand in US consumer electronics. If they were to license that brand to other manufacturers, like they have with RCA, I’d say that rebadging TVs at the very least is a strong possibility. I mean, imagine having a “Technicolor” screen on your living room wall?

Note that I’m not suggesting this is a GOOD idea or one that would enable them to KEEP that brand equity, mind you, and in fact, they may more wisely continue to move away from consumer products, and use the rebranding to symbolize that shift.

On Jul.09.2010 at 12:11 PM

Kevin Tucker’s comment is:

Oops, I think I was trying to say “at least if they don’t do something that drastically reduces the brand equity” in that first paragraph there, but I rephrased what I was thinking in the last paragraph and forgot to delete that part. Sometimes, mid-sentence, I lose my train of

On Jul.09.2010 at 12:23 PM

Andrea’s comment is:

I’m with @David Timmerman. I see pixels/digital-ized-ness, which works nicely with the services they provide. It also reminds me of those light bars on sound board equipment (help, don’t know what they’re called) that flicker and jump, which also works with the industry Technicolor is in.

Even though they are dealing with film stages, I like the theatrical stage. A film stage is just flat, and that’s not interesting. When you put something on an elevated proscenium stage, you are “presenting” something…which, again, is what their final outcome is, a presentation. In that sense, I love the concept. Heck, a lot of movie theaters these days still have stage curtains on the sides to add to the atmosphere!

On Jul.09.2010 at 12:27 PM

Jack’s comment is:

Has it become so un-sophisticated to not have ideas-based logos for companies anymore? The earlier logo had an idea. It was simple, delightful, and didn’t take a press-release to break it down through an exercise in word-smithing.

Words have become more valuable than visual communication. Is it because words are inhrently meaningful? Or is it because culturally we are more interested in talking than looking?

Shit, I’d blame the art world.

On Jul.09.2010 at 01:00 PM

F’s comment is:

Yeah… but how does it FAX?!?

(yes, I’m being sarcastic…)

Replace the colours with pantone numbers ^_^

On Jul.09.2010 at 01:13 PM

michael scott’s comment is:

@John: “Saul Bass would have done this differently.”

Haha, that should be a new phrase like WWJD.

On Jul.09.2010 at 02:12 PM

Nicole’s comment is:

I like Ondra’s solution.

On Jul.09.2010 at 02:13 PM

Chris’s comment is:

The new gray type is a mistake because of how it relates to the color bars. Black type makes the color pop more. I like the mark/graphic a lot, though. It’s open to interpretation, and locks with the type well.

On Jul.09.2010 at 02:32 PM

metai’s comment is:

Quick semi-insider background: Especially since they made the move from actual movie reels to digital content delivery, pretty much all of the movie/film industry has become allergic to the film strip/movie reel iconography. It is considered antiquated and to be avoided at pretty much all (graphical) cost. Expect it to be purged from many more logos in the future.

On Jul.09.2010 at 02:58 PM

Tyler’s comment is:

“For some reason I associated the old logo more with NBC than with Technicolor, as the film reel reminded me of the peacock.”

This. That’s exactly what I see when I look at the old logo. Since I’m a fan of The Price is Right, I also see a multi-colored Goodson-Todman asterisk. That’s just me, though. :)

I love the typography. Sure, I have a beef with the “t” being shorter than the “h” and “l”, but I love the typography. On the other hand, if the “t” was taller, I don’t think it would look right.

The stage is also quite nice. I think the lower stage on several colors was enough to give it a nice amount of depth—which is probably why I can’t see piano keys in this, as other posters have noted.

For me, this identity does what it’s supposed to do. I like it.

On Jul.09.2010 at 03:10 PM

Posco Grubb’s comment is:

I also agree with Ondra. My first thought was, Oh no, not another all-lower-case name. I miss that pointy capital N! And the sharpness of black type on white background.

On Jul.09.2010 at 03:19 PM

Kelli Annison’s comment is:

Ondra has a point. The lightness of the type is emphasized by the strong wide bars giving it a visual off balance in weight. Placing the old or a bolder type would give the mark more presence.Right now it seems too timid and unnoticeable.

On Jul.09.2010 at 03:25 PM

Max Keenan’s comment is:

Alright! A rebrand using all lowercase letters! WOOO HOOO! Unique!

On Jul.09.2010 at 04:03 PM

Stephanie’s comment is:

One more vote for Ondra’s version. And yeah, with a name like “technicolor” they shouldn’t be using anything less than full-color.

On Jul.09.2010 at 04:19 PM

Tim Gengler’s comment is:

I’m a big fan of this new logo, lower-case gray type and all.

One important aspect that really makes sense is that the logo is now in 3d, something that is — unfortunately, in my eyes — terribly appropriate given current and future movie frontiers. The text isn’t so much gray, as it is a “faded black” solidifying the 3d effect.

Whether or not this works as a strong brand mark or is properly balanced I’ll leave to those more learned than I, but it certainly seems both fitting and attractive.

And let’s not be silly, obviously it can work as a single color in necessary instances, either by cutting space between the segments or by having the stage as a solid mass. Neither may be perfect, but both are absolutely serviceable, particularly the former.

Really nice work.

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:32 PM

Frankybonz’s comment is:

Ondra, sorry, but obviously, you’re not familiar with the Prismacolor brand (which that reminds me of immediately). However, I don’t disagree with your preference for the all caps logo-type, so I’m with you on that!

Meanwhile…
“The new logo symbolizes a departure from our old heritage to a new dynamic platform that celebrates all of our employees’ genius and contributions. It symbolizes how we change people’s lives throughout the world with innovative products and services”

Really? There’s nothing about that logo that says “innovative,” “genius,” or “dynamic.” While it’s not bland or boring, it’s certainly not different or new. If you’re going to make a BS statement like that, back it up with a design that conforms with your words.

On Jul.09.2010 at 11:10 PM

Tori’s comment is:

I was surprised to find myself feeling refreshed by this mark. I do 32nd the notion of pairing the privious type with the new graphic.

On Jul.10.2010 at 04:05 AM

Jars’s comment is:

Ondra’s version reaches double-rainbow status of awesomeness.

On Jul.10.2010 at 04:34 AM

Bugs’s comment is:

Reminds me of TV Tropolis.

On Jul.10.2010 at 04:50 AM

Ezequias Viana’s comment is:

Gostei da idéia inicial mas outra fonte teria uma personalidade maior.

On Jul.10.2010 at 08:57 AM

Mark’s comment is:

It’s good but the font leaves out something, that it definitely needs, somethings missing.

On Jul.10.2010 at 12:07 PM

Stripeyhorse design’s comment is:

Its not bad. I prefer the old logo, but understand why they could no longer use it. The old typography is a lot better and seems to work better on the new logo. I too dont get why the bars are different lengths, it looks as though there is a meaning to it, but im not seeing it.

On Jul.10.2010 at 02:40 PM

jmk’s comment is:

“The new logo symbolizes a departure from our old heritage…”

then why did they buy that company? they should have just started a new one and left that company alone. what a let down. hopefully someone else buys it at some point and reverts it back to it’s heritage, someone who understands the symbol of the company and what they’ve accomplished.

On Jul.10.2010 at 09:15 PM

Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:

Well done.

As @Armin points out, Thomson is remaking itself into an internationally known, consumer-focused entity. The new logo makes a lot of sense considering that positioning. As Technicolor, Thompson is adopting a storied brand name and refreshing it for this new mission.

I believe that the lower case solution balances the color spectrum stage element. I understand those that are bored with lower case solutions, but I believe they still are a viable, as seen here. The previous bold geometric sans serif solution, coupled with the color stage as some propose, feels much too heavy (and heavy-handed).

I applaud the designer for taking on the rainbow of color and making it fresh and vital in our know-it-all, cynical era. A good design can take a tired cliché and make it an innovative solution. Bravo.

Here’s another recently well-crafted rainbow.

On Jul.11.2010 at 02:59 PM

Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:

@Martin Boath
Re: one-color solution

I strongly disagree that difficulty translating this mark into a one-color solution invalidates its success in any way.

If I may be painfully obvious, the company’s name is “Technicolor.” It evokes saturated, bold color. To ignore color in a Technicolor logo solution would, to me, be an egregious mistake. It might seem too uninspired to some to make it a rainbow; but this spectrum stage IS and inspired solution.

I’ve freelanced with Thomson/Technicolor and I can say with relative certainty that the need for a one-color version will be insignificant. Electronic communication has eclipsed all other forms. In house color printing is available to corporations of all stripes. One-color solutions are now more a matter of choice; and I think Technicolor will choose to not use them.

On Jul.11.2010 at 03:13 PM

Ash’s comment is:

I like the new design, but am curious about what it’ll look like in one colour.

Can anyone post a version of the logo that Thomson have previously been using??

On Jul.11.2010 at 07:00 PM

Durka’s comment is:

I think the typography kinda’ sucks, but don’t mind the colour bar.

I also think that the previous logo was too close to the NBC logo.

On Jul.11.2010 at 09:27 PM

Roby Fitzhenry’s comment is:

Definitely more a fan of Ondra’s variation. Just sayin’!

On Jul.11.2010 at 11:55 PM

Web Design Kent’s comment is:

Like the 3d aspect, quite relevant with the re-emergence of that slant on TV

On Jul.12.2010 at 01:03 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

@Bill Dawson (XK9)

“Electronic communication has eclipsed all other forms.” That may be so, but it does not mean that a single colour logo is not a necessity. Technicolor, like Dolby, is a logo that will appear on end credits for years to come. I’m sure there will be plenty of requests from art directors for a single colour logo, like Dolby, that will sit back and be in keeping with the look, feel and mood they’re trying to create.

“In house color printing is available to corporations of all stripes.” Very true. But again, Technicolor will be giving out their logo for many agencies/companies to use and whether or not it’s full colour print – and in many instances, making a job 1/2/3 colour is a creative choice and not a budgetary constraint – a single colour option really should be available.

“One-color solutions are now more a matter of choice; and I think Technicolor will choose to not use them.” Correct. It is a matter of choice but Technicolor have removed that choice for designers which, in my opinion, is wrong and unprofessional.

As one other on here mentioned, sure they could just use the wordmark but that would defeat the purpose of this new identity.

On Jul.12.2010 at 05:09 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Old typography is much stronger. The color bar is ok, but it only works in color. I’m not impressed.

On Jul.12.2010 at 09:25 AM

leah k ’s comment is:

I have to agree that new image + old typography looks best. Ondra has it.
You need that heavy-set and all caps look to balance the multi-coloured bars.

On Jul.12.2010 at 03:06 PM

Mark’s comment is:

They need a better typeface to contrast with the color bars because right now the name looks like it’s fading into the background, sad really.

On Jul.12.2010 at 05:05 PM

andyRespire’s comment is:

And what about Joseph’s dream coat?

On Jul.12.2010 at 10:24 PM

TP’s comment is:

seriously the new one reminds me of rainbow gay flags. The old logo is more unique and original.

On Jul.12.2010 at 11:49 PM

Kellie Schroeder’s comment is:

Ah…all this criticism.
It’s so…ridiculously tiring.

Save the energy for the real crap, guys.

1) Concept: Good
2) Craftsmanship: Great
3) Longevity: Solid

Well done, I say.

On Jul.13.2010 at 03:15 AM

Brendan the Hooley’s comment is:

I hate the new typography so much. The rest of it is interesting, though. I think the movement of the color bars is simple, yet kind of fun. And I agree that a rainbow doesn’t have to go from red to violet.

But when I step away and come back for a second look, I can’t help thinking that it has an inappropriate sense of youthfulness for a company that’s supposed to be the authority on producing & delivering rich color. I don’t know if changing the font or switching to all-caps is enough. This logo is a color earthquake (which may be appropriate for a company based on SoCal), but I guess what I expect to see is something with a more solid foundation.

On Jul.14.2010 at 12:20 PM

taelor’s comment is:

The new colour bar is interesting and well done, but the font type is very bland. Should have (if possible) kept the old text, it had character.

On Aug.04.2010 at 01:07 PM

simon’s comment is:

Boring. Old version is good communication design. New version doesnt communicate much, and the lowercase font and colour bars are weak and same-ol-same-ol.

What’s wrong with designers these days? Design is getting more generic and about using current shape/type trends, and less about good communication.

On Aug.23.2010 at 04:02 PM