A few days ago, Google released its new logo: a sleek, low-contrast, geometric sans serif overhaul of its old one. The internet is currently buzzing with mixed responses. Most love the new brand look. Generally, type designers agree that, no matter whether the new design was a good or bad choice, the letters lack a little bit of optical compensation and the spacing gets a little tight towards the end of the word. Some have noted that the capital G seems too light because it seems to be using same stroke-width as the lowercase letters, but this is not true (I measured). The capital G has been made thicker, and it does not strike me as being too thin. Type designer Gerry Leonidas reviewed the logo here. Most importantly, here is Google’s article on the new identity, where they explain how/why/what they designed.
The truth is that Google never had a pretty logo to begin with, but we all got used to it. It was so quirky and long-lasting that our associations go deep, and it’s hard to let go. The new logo, while less quirky, will probably soon just become just as invisible as the old ones.
My opinion is that the change is good. I appreciate the new animations that integrate the logo and the rest of the service-icons. However, I somehow wish to have seen the double-story-g of the previous logo carry through towards the new design.
I complained a bit about the spacing, about how bland the letters look, especially the new g. But then I thought to myself: it’s easy to throw stones. So the question was, could I come up with a better solution? God knows, the Google design team DID try a double-story-g based on their making-of pictures (see below).
So he it goes. I tried to make some alternatives for the logo, especially ones including a different g. Honestly, I am not convinced, and I think Google probably came up with the best solution for the g that would make everyone happy. While I was drawing, I realized how hard it would be to make a double-story-g that spaces well and looks good. This g needs a lot of weight compensation and optical corrections, and it would have probably been difficult to animate it in the same way that Google now animates the logo. I do like version 02 of my attempts. which uses a sort of symmetrical-looking spectacles g.
Above is a gallery, so you can see the subtle changes as you scroll through, below my versions as static images.