Google’s look, evolved

Re:Google’s look, evolved by amelius on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @12:14PM (#10153448)

Hmm... the spacing between the letters in "Goo" seems optically wider than the spacing between "gle". But it might be just me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google’s look, evolved by equil on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @12:24PM (#10153570)

Quite the opposite, actually. http://i.imgur.com/bKBcIyX.jpg [1]

[1] https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-ident...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google’s look, evolved by amelius on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @12:40PM (#10153701)

Yes, I said "optical" spacing. Not real spacing.

The link you provide is interesting. However, any technical explanation doesn't solve the optical illusion that the last three letters appear to be closer together than the first three letters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google’s look, evolved by kuschku on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @10:47PM (#10157159)

Yes – that’s why normally you use serif fonts and modify the width of the strokes dynamically. Also the reason why the old 'o's were tilted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google’s look, evolved by kenbellows on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @12:27PM (#10153596)

Ironically, the "Goo" spacing is actually about 25% narrower that that between the "gle" characters

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google’s look, evolved by cbr on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @12:33PM (#10153643)

That's really a problem with the word "Google", which has round open shapes in the first half, and then a tighter second half. Perhaps "Googol" would have been better?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google’s look, evolved by dingaling on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @12:38PM (#10153684)

Or perhaps G∞gle...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google’s look, evolved by shdon on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @06:18AM (#10158321)

Odd. I had the exact opposite response. To me, the "GOO" spacing seemed uncomfortably narrow and the L seemed disconnected from the G and E.

[ Parent | on HN ]