Comments on: Web 2.0 logotypes. Childsplay?

By: Liminal Web Design Cornwall

Liminal Web Design Cornwall — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:33:26 +0000

Nice post, printers up and down the country must get sick of trying to represent these sorts of logos, especially on offset papers.

By: Logo Design

Logo Design — Wed, 27 May 2009 06:10:01 +0000

I’m new in the internet business field. I’m skilled in the graphics side, but I need info to learn about this business. I was going through your post and got a few pointers.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:27:52 +0000

Having just downloaded Googles new browser it’s logo reminded me of this blog entry.

Simon Says anyone??

By: Emiliano

Emiliano — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:14:53 +0000

Very interesting.
First let me tell you how i got into this webpage.
I’ve got a website called GuitarCoast.com and i wanted to create a logo to represent it. So i started looking for famous logos at Google Images, maybe i could find some inspiration. My goal was to look at several logos and then find out what makes a good logo. So i realized that the logos that had more impact were some like Burguer King, Subway and Google - and they all look somewhat chilldish. From this point i started looking for “Kids Logos” on Google Images. The second result was the picture on this article. That’s how i got on this blog.

Have you ever thought why do Kids Logos looks like Kids Logos? What makes a logo a childish logo? Who said it looks like kids stuff?

Conclusion: Logos made for kids must call the atention from a kid, it must be interesting even for a kid. Maybe web logos look like kids logos because the people who made them think “if it works for a kid, it will work for an adult”. We all have a kid inside.

Emiliano (from Brazil)

By: Igor Mikhnenko

Igor Mikhnenko — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:58:41 +0000

being frank, i assume it 2b a very boring tendency… for instance i call WEB 2.0 - the design for blind people. Seems like in past 4 years all users of the internet lost their mind and gone into childhood. But unfortuantly web 2.0 sells…

By: Gareth

Gareth — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:34:40 +0000

Both:

Companies are non-risk orientated - Not dealing in peoples lives, pensions or life issues….
Because most web 2.0 brands are run by very young risky fun individuals…. (who maybe don’t know better

Good one Cliff!

By: minxlj

minxlj — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:11:22 +0000

I’ve always wondered if it is specific generations that cause sudden trends of ‘retro’ logos, fashion etc. For example, when I (now 28) was young, Lego and Playmobil were the toys of the day, Transformers and A-Team was top TV, and dodgy legwarmers were in fashion (ouch). Roughly 20 years later, when we 80s children are in our 20s and in charge of designing all these brands and fashion must-haves, the 80s style suddenly comes back in (unfortunately, so did the legwarmers and puffball skirts!)

Could we be unconsciously harking back to our childhoods when we design things that mean something to us? Do the current, trendy (and especially social) web 2.0 brands automatically have to be designed in a trendy logo fashion, out of date within a decade when the next trend rolls in?