The bing logo really oozes of basic lack of type optics. Look at how the n gets so narrow and thin at the apex. The g sits off the baseline with a half loop that doesn’t link up, not that it must, but in this case it looks too awkward. The counters are ludicrously huge and the descenders don’t rise near high enough to forgive such a huge x-height. Large x-heights are good for reading, but with a low cap you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

It will need more work but what I have done, I have done well when compared to the current state of affiars. I have paid attention to the letterforms and the space around them, the weight, contrast and the flow, something that wasn’t done the first time around. I’d advise the folks at Microsoft to get a typographer/foundry to design a custom face; or at least the four letters, or even use a typeface that already exists? Microsoft’s reluctance to pay for typeface licenses in the past render that unlikely. e.g. The Helvetica/Arial Story.

Here are some more images,

Integrated on the website without much obstruction or effort and it looks quite acceptable. Of course you could argue a total redesign of the site is needed but it is the logo I’m focusing on more than user interface.

Bing logotype at different sizes.

The logo is based on Chaparral Pro Semi bold Italic, above.

I would be exaggerating slightly to say I am content or even close to finished with this, however it is more of a suggestion of what I envision, a step in a better direction. It is in it’s early stages but already we can see an improvement. Over the coming weeks I hope to develop this further, rather than just making it acceptable or a step in the right direction I’d like to make it something more than that, something with character that is memorable. If anyone is interested in advising me on it or even offering feedback or constructive criticism I’m open for suggestions.

You can follow me on twitter for regular updates or if you’d like to get in touch, chat or network.
Follow Youssef Sarhan on Twitter, email me at contact@whiteinkblog.com or leave a reply comment.

In this edition of Design Deconstructed (DD) I am going to be highlighting and discussing some of the design issues of internet/information magnate, Google (http://www.google.com/).

Ever since it’s early days Google has been aiming high, in 1998 they had circa 25,000,000 million pages that were searchable. That was pretty huge. The site read, ‘Index contains ~25 million pages (soon to be much bigger)‘, there weren’t wrong either; 10 years later they broke 1 trillion. This number is growing at an alarming rate so the information they need to display must be displayed clearly. The idea is that you can find exactly what you are looking for, and easily. I can imainge reading this at some point in the future and these figures being irrelevant.

Something interesting to note:

‘So how many unique pages does the web really contain? We don’t know; we don’t have time to look at them all! :-) Strictly speaking, the number of pages out there is infinite — for example, web calendars may have a “next day” link, and we could follow that link forever, each time finding a “new” page. We’re not doing that, obviously, since there would be little benefit to you. But this example shows that the size of the web really depends on your definition of what’s a useful page, and there is no exact answer.’

Ok, onto the visuals of Google. There are many variations of google, depending on country etc. I am going to use www.google.com as the example.

The main content (search field, buttons, advanced search link etc) are center aligned. There are links at the very top, linking to different areas within google. Areas such as Images, Video, Maps, Gmail, iGoogle, etc. Upon searching you are prompted with search suggestions, this can be a very handy way to search for related content. It can also be a bit of a ‘feeder’, telling you what to search for. Sometimes distracting, sometimes helpful.

The current official Google logo was designed by Ruth Kedar, and is a logotype based on the Catull typeface. For me, it seems like an unorthodox choice of typeface, but google has become so easily recognizable it works. I’m not sure a sans-serif would be able to replace it. However I could see google changing their logo in time, it could do with a make-over. I feel, the bevel/drop shadow is very “Look what I can do in photoshop”, but in reality, it works as Google is a service that does it’s job excellently, it’s service speaks for itself. It’s not relying on tidy kerning and a slick colour palette. The logo works because the technology works. In saying that it has become something very distinctive. These colours are bold and are now strongly associated with Google.

Search results are displayed clearly, with enough emphasis on what are Paid Ads and what are Indexed Pages. It’s important that these are separated, for a couple of reasons, most importantly from a users point of view; it allows people to choose whether or not they are clicking on an Advert, it also means that adverts get their own place, they’ll stand out and thus that is the privilege you get by paying for listings. Something that irritates me are integrated advertisements. Links that are styled to fit the page, where you believe that the links are actually part of the site but they turn out to be AdSense/AdWord links. I’m sure we’ve all experienced this, after a while you can spot them, and learn to avoid them. Perhaps styling adverts too much like page content is a bad idea, google seems to do that well on their search pages.

I found it hard to identify a grid, but there’s more a logical arrangement rather than a strict grid, it seems to work. All indexed results appear on the left with a line-width of about 545px. This is the same on all resolutions. The AdWords take up just under a 3rd of the screen to the right. So you could basically say it’s 2 thirds indexed listings, 1 thrid ads. Roughly.

The typeface/font choices are pretty simple:

.h{
font-family:arial,sans-serif
}

The colour palette doesn’t really exist apart from the logo. Links appear blue and turn red for the duration of time you hold down on them.

Another small obvious feature I like is the result information bar that appears on the right, above the adverts. It has a link to the definition of the word you’re searching for. There are many other handy codes you can put into your search as a prefix or suffix to tweek what google searches for.

There are other user features to Google, but these are the main ones that I feel you have to deal with 90% of the time. It’s a simple interface thats easy to use, tried and tested daily by millions of people. For the moment, Google’s layout works, and it is small on-going changes that will improve it. A drastic change couldn’t really happen, people are to used to it. It may not be slick or sylish, but overall, it’s a great layout, with a solid backend, and for it’s purpose it’s working perfectly. Ok, so I hope you found this useful. What do you think?

Is Google user-friendly?
What do you like/dislike?
Anything you would change? Suggestions?
Perhaps you might just be onto something.

By the way, if you like you can follow me on twitter, I’l be posting links to blogs and other cool things, along with my own thoughts and questions. If you’re into it, follow me!

http://twitter.com/YoussefSarhan