Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

Return to Answer

Post Timeline

clean up poor explanation
Source Link
cjs
cjs
  • 1.9k
  • 1
  • 10
  • 12

I don't think that the old StackExchange logo was useful for identifying the SO/SE connection; it looked too different from from the Stack Overflow logo. So moving to a logo common between the two is a good idea.

That said, the text "StackExchange" on the SE sites was probably the most important identifier: it's both similar tothe parallelism with "Stack Overflow" whichhelps makes the connection, if not immediately for those who know enough, easilyand even for those that don't it's very memorable once you've heard it once. Removing that, if you're worried about identifying SO/SE sites as the type of site they are, seems like a really bad idea to me.

It would have been good to present your research that indicated the actual problem, and the results of whatever testing you did to show that the redesign addressed the problem successfully. You did do this research, rather than just running on "vibe," right?

The new logo itself is just ugly, and the sense changes from "overflowing box" to "a stack of things toppling." It also has a much more brutal feel to it. Well, maybe that's right given the reaction to this. Freudian slip on the part of your design team?

I don't think that the old StackExchange logo was useful for identifying the SO/SE connection; it looked too different from from the Stack Overflow logo. So moving to a logo common between the two is a good idea.

That said, the text "StackExchange" on the SE sites was probably the most important identifier: it's both similar to "Stack Overflow" which makes the connection, if not immediately, easily memorable once you've heard it once. Removing that, if you're worried about identifying SO/SE sites as the type of site they are, seems like a really bad idea to me.

It would have been good to present your research that indicated the actual problem, and the results of whatever testing you did to show that the redesign addressed the problem successfully. You did do this research, rather than just running on "vibe," right?

The new logo itself is just ugly, and the sense changes from "overflowing box" to "a stack of things toppling." It also has a much more brutal feel to it. Well, maybe that's right given the reaction to this. Freudian slip on the part of your design team?

I don't think that the old StackExchange logo was useful for identifying the SO/SE connection; it looked too different from from the Stack Overflow logo. So moving to a logo common between the two is a good idea.

That said, the text "StackExchange" on the SE sites was probably the most important identifier: the parallelism with "Stack Overflow" helps makes the connection immediately for those who know enough, and even for those that don't it's very memorable once you've heard it once. Removing that, if you're worried about identifying SO/SE sites as the type of site they are, seems like a really bad idea to me.

It would have been good to present your research that indicated the actual problem, and the results of whatever testing you did to show that the redesign addressed the problem successfully. You did do this research, rather than just running on "vibe," right?

The new logo itself is just ugly, and the sense changes from "overflowing box" to "a stack of things toppling." It also has a much more brutal feel to it. Well, maybe that's right given the reaction to this. Freudian slip on the part of your design team?

Source Link
cjs
cjs
  • 1.9k
  • 1
  • 10
  • 12

I don't think that the old StackExchange logo was useful for identifying the SO/SE connection; it looked too different from from the Stack Overflow logo. So moving to a logo common between the two is a good idea.

That said, the text "StackExchange" on the SE sites was probably the most important identifier: it's both similar to "Stack Overflow" which makes the connection, if not immediately, easily memorable once you've heard it once. Removing that, if you're worried about identifying SO/SE sites as the type of site they are, seems like a really bad idea to me.

It would have been good to present your research that indicated the actual problem, and the results of whatever testing you did to show that the redesign addressed the problem successfully. You did do this research, rather than just running on "vibe," right?

The new logo itself is just ugly, and the sense changes from "overflowing box" to "a stack of things toppling." It also has a much more brutal feel to it. Well, maybe that's right given the reaction to this. Freudian slip on the part of your design team?