One would be hard pressed to find something particularly unappealing about HP's previous logo mark. Yet we must always have 13 degrees of progress.

Once again, Schiff demonstrates his total lack of design eye and taste in one simple sentence.

Perhaps Bierut is right, a designer really can do "almost anything" once they accept their role as a mere triviality.

this intentional misinterpretation of Bierut's quote is borderline slanderous. par for the course, i guess.

I enjoy reading Eli's articles. I don't always agree with his assessments, but they are nevertheless thought-provoking. It's nice to read an opinionated piece that is well-structured and covers topics more interesting than the typical design industry navel-gazing.

I don't even read these articles anymore, I just come for the comments here.

Whilst I enjoyed Eli's alternative viewpoint for the first few articles, I do find his "minimalist design illuminati conspiracy" a bit tedious at this point.

Was quite a good read. Yeah, that old HP logo was corporate and awkward, the font being the worst part about it.

I think one thing about the new HP logo is that it is something to talk about. Say the closed laptop situation — “What’s that say?” “HP, see now…” “Oh yep!” It’s like a little secret, a club you can be part of. How ever lame that might sound, it’s better than being invisible.

I think the same thing applies to the MIT Press logo, its lack of legibility is what made it stand out and unique, if for just a moment. The Apple logo and the Windows logo are not readable either, they are just familiar.

These abstract logos are trying to become iconic symbols which have meaning just because you recognise them.

I think most app icons actually work the same way, they might use a symbol or a prop to suggest meaning, but in actual fact the symbol is so broad, abstract, or subtle that you’d have little idea of what they represent until you understand what the app does.

web "designer" with no education or knowledge talking about branding lolololol

Daaaamn Eli, back at it again...

You know, I'm starting to think that Schiff just doesn't enjoy design, in any sense of the word.

Why is Eli's logo an elongated 6 with a slash in it?

I really enjoy this talk by Michael Bierut on how the MIT Press logo influenced the new MIT Branding system. Pentagram missed the mark on design the first time and came back years later to try again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuKb9mk0ac

This article starts with a complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the modernist philosophy and just gets worse from there. Has Schiff never read the crystal goblet?

I think Schiff's perspective on the MIT logo is being looked at from the wrong angle. Instead of critiquing it from this point in time, we should be critiquing it from the time the logo was created. Most logos 60's/70's had a similar feel and style. But Cooper's logo was different and resembles logos in our modern day era, which proves that her thinking was ahead of her time and deserves the accolades.

He needs to wear an undershirt.

I thought Eli had given up being vocally butthurt about the modern minimalist conspiracy against the only style of design he likes/can produce. Back on the agenda with a vengeance here, I see. I guess his time will come again in a decade or two when bevels and dropshadows make a comeback?

Here we go again. Jesus mate, get over it. I can recommend you a good surgeon to get that chip on your shoulder removed.