> we created a dynamic red-to-magenta gradient. For the second color, orange and yellow were strong contenders, but magenta felt like the most natural pairing with our new red. Interestingly, magenta doesn't often appear in the natural world, so it symbolizes the imagination and evolution that YouTube embodies. We also placed the gradient at a 45-degree angle with magenta on the right, signifying forward movement.
I dislike these kinds of lofty rationales, especially when there are more pragmatic reasons available. They give license to mock the design industry as some kind of bullshit machine; attempting to shoehorn more meaning into banal executions. Design serves a necessary role in communication. I thought we collectively got over "pepsi breathtaking design strategy" style rationales?
I am a strong proponent of iterative design, and it's my expectation that this change is not a stepping stone that leads somewhere else, it'll be fashion for fashion-sake to impart a temporary sense of newness before being abandoned for the next web gimmick down the line.
If I were to have a stab at the direction it would be: We were tasked with making a change, not because we have a new direction or motive, but simply for newness. We understand that the company is entirely risk-averse with its largest brands and also experienced enough to understand that noticeable changes attract scrutiny. We've opted to hop on the bandwagon of adding a subtle gleam to our logo because it's minor enough that without this blog post you probably wouldn't have noticed it, and if there was a hint of negative push-back we could easily abandon the design entirely without much visual change.
I dislike these kinds of lofty rationales, especially when there are more pragmatic reasons available. They give license to mock the design industry as some kind of bullshit machine; attempting to shoehorn more meaning into banal executions. Design serves a necessary role in communication. I thought we collectively got over "pepsi breathtaking design strategy" style rationales?
I am a strong proponent of iterative design, and it's my expectation that this change is not a stepping stone that leads somewhere else, it'll be fashion for fashion-sake to impart a temporary sense of newness before being abandoned for the next web gimmick down the line.
If I were to have a stab at the direction it would be: We were tasked with making a change, not because we have a new direction or motive, but simply for newness. We understand that the company is entirely risk-averse with its largest brands and also experienced enough to understand that noticeable changes attract scrutiny. We've opted to hop on the bandwagon of adding a subtle gleam to our logo because it's minor enough that without this blog post you probably wouldn't have noticed it, and if there was a hint of negative push-back we could easily abandon the design entirely without much visual change.