• Liz says:

    What has been seen cannot be unseen.

  • Ummm says:

    Sorry, but I don’t see a difference.

  • Octopede says:

    As a designer, I prefer your kerning. But after watching their video and learning about their mission, I prefer theirs. Not because it’s better visually, but because it feels more harmonious with their playful, childlike, approach. In their version, the drawn out “goo” feels, as I subconsciously pronounce it in my head, more like how a child would say it: Gooo-gl. With your corrected kerning, I think it looks better but suddenly feels more rigid. Not, like, totalitarian, just more in the realm of informational signage, and less humanistic. Anyway. Nicely done.

  • Thank you very much for this article. I *really* hope Google will fix the kerning of their new logo at some point. I very much like the letter shapes. I *love* the new colors. It’s a wonderful logo. But the kerning, it hurts! So, thank you.

  • bob says:

    Great read, but you have ruined the logo for me. As someone else said, what has been seen cannot be unseen.


  • Dom Dedic says:

    Great article by the way!

  • Dom Dedic says:

    I would also mention, the biggest issue I see with the kerning is that they have obviously measured the kerning horizontally (which is standard practice as kerning does not have the ability to be set based on distance between glyphs on a diagonal). The kerning between the “G” and the “o” should be measured by the two closest points (ie diagonally) using the horizontal distance between the “oo” as a reference. This is how I would measure the kerning, rather than relying solely on a visual queue.

  • Alexey says:

    Here’s a post by the founder of the largest russian design company (Art. Lebedev Studio) on the same topic: http://tema.livejournal.com/2046214.html

    • Jeff S. says:

      The Russian Example is way off as well. You don’t push the Os away from each other. They should be tight and the l should occupy more space as they have it.

  • Steve says:

    Childlike and playful. Google. Wtf??

    Ps: Angela’s logo is better.

  • Niels K. says:

    I am not a designer at all and I needed to compare the logos closely to see a difference at all…

  • ch3ka says:

    Actually, I think both variants look pretty nice.
    While yours looks “cleaner”, it may also be perceived as “sterile”, which is definitely something google – as a brand – might not want to be associated with.

  • Francis Kim says:

    Great analysis – thanks 🙂

  • Ben says:

    Playfulness? Kerning mistakes are not playful–just sloppy work. A vertical offset of a letter or two is more appropriate.

  • Jeff S. says:

    Yes, that has been bugging me for a month now and I finally looked to see if anyone posted on it – and they did. The letter spacing of that word using that font is so far off that it should disturb any good typographer who sees it. It’s not as much a matter of kerning with pixels and numbers – it is a simple matter of proper optical letters spacing. I am a typographer of the 80s, before pixels, and optical letter spacing is key in any format – digital or print. Each letter should occupy the same visual space as it’s counterparts in a line of Display Type – i’s and l’s should use the same visual spacing as the other letters. O’s get tighter kerning – it is in any typography book out there. As the new Google logo gets smaller, the tiny spaces disappear and those three letters become one. Just another case of young, Web-trained designers working on a Logotype – not knowing the fundamentals of proper typography. I see it everyday now.

  • There’s kerning and tracking, right? So your version looks more loose to me than Google’s. I don’t object to the tightness of the new Google logo, just to the unevenness of the spacing. Could you show your choice of kerning, but with the whole logo having more or less the same width as the uneven original?

1 Trackback

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *