A better Bing logo

davidc's picture

I occasionally use Microsoft's Bing search engine. Coming up on the 1 year anniversary, I finally couldn't stand looking at the typographic travesty that is their logo. So I designed my own, and it's a solid, aesthetic replacement, if perhaps a bit bland.

I put together this GreaseMonkey script that replaces the logo (and favicon) on bing.com and discoverbing.com. I hope you find it useful.

riccard0's picture

Good work. Maybe the g is a little heavy. Maybe you could shorten the hook.

nina's picture

Dunno, to my eye this appears to lack a number of necessary optical corrections. ("g" join clotty, stem-to-curve transitions unhappy, weights of rounds and straights don't match, and what's up with the weight in "b"'s bowl?)

Also, maybe it's just me but I've always thought the concept of the "g" (not the execution mind you) is actually one really nice thing about the present Bing logo.

Nick Cooke's picture

It needs a lot of work to make it correct. Not much better IMHO.

riccard0's picture

the concept of the "g" (not the execution mind you) is actually one really nice thing about the present Bing logo.

AKA the "Koch's g":
http://new.myfonts.com/search/koch/?testdrive=dock%3Dfalse%26size%3D118%...

darkwolf29a1's picture

No offense, but I had to go look at the bing.com page to see what it even looks like. I tried it after it first came out...and I was not impressed. I looked up the same thing twice, once on google and once on bing. The results from Bing were worse than google, i.e. I got more hits to get anywhere. Then, I had to go to page two to get to the original page that I wanted to get to. Google, on the other hand, showed me where I wanted to go, first link. So, for my time...I'll stick with old faithful, google. That all stated...

I hate the bing logo. Yours could use a little work, as has been prior noted. But, all in all...I think the whole site stinks. So....I don't know.

Put me down as not a fan of the site, period.

davidc's picture

Feel free to fix it up if you wish. I spent about ½ hour on it and that's all the time it was worth to me.

FWIW, I cobbled it together from glyphs from TW Cen MT (e.g. the b is a 6 that has been rotated), so perhaps Nick and Nina should let Monotype know that the metrics on their font could use improvement. :-)

Oh, and I always thought the Bing g was ripped off from Kabel.

darkwolf29a1's picture

David...I think you spent longer on it than I would have. The site is rubbish, nothing more. Don't waste your time on it...M$ doesn't. LOL

Jongseong's picture

There are some other attempts at redrawing the logo on the old thread.

Shu's picture

For some interesting reference and probably something very few have seen here is the "original" Bing logo before it was Bing. Then, it was named Kumo. A decidedly better logo in my opinion.

nina's picture

"I spent about ½ hour on it and that's all the time it was worth to me"

Well maybe then you shouldn't call the result a «solid, aesthetic replacement», and on Typophile at that.

BTW, the Bing "g" is not «ripped off from Kabel», it's simply following a similar basic structure, which is indeed named after Rudolf Koch (who drew Kabel). Many other fonts (most of which have nothing to do with Kabel) do too, in fact this structure is getting pretty hawt nowadays.

Tomi from Suomi's picture

David-

I spent some time studying Kabel, and in my opinion you are way off the mark. And I agree with Nina: a ½ hour work is really not worth to show on Typophile.

Looking at your logo: 'n' looks best, but it does not sit with the other glyphs.

davidc's picture

I suppose one person's "solid aesthetic" is another person's "lacking optical corrections", just like one person's "hawt Koch g" is another person's "over-stylized tripe".

Shu, I have to agree that kumo is a far better brand. Sadly, kumo.com just redirects back to bing.com these days.

designpuck's picture

Aesthetic quality doesn't really fit into an entirely relativist "to each his own / it's subjective" way of seeing / approaching the craft and discipline...

nina's picture

I suppose one person's "solid aesthetic" is another person's "lacking optical corrections", just like one person's "hawt Koch g" is another person's "over-stylized tripe".

What Dan said. Quality of execution is rather separate from personal «taste».

Tomi from Suomi's picture

I actually made a font to be ugly: Giro. It's based on bicycle race Giro d'Italia. Their original logo just screamed what could go wrong with modernism:

http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/suomi/giro/

I made slight adjustments to forms. I just had to.

Thomas Phinney's picture

I'm with Nina. On the conceptual issues one can debate whether this is better or worse, but my problems with the Bing logo are all about the execution, and this shares all those flaws as far as I can tell. So I don't see the improvement.

And, if one is familiar with these issues and knows what one is doing, one could do this *with* corrections within half an hour. The optical corrections at least at a basic level could be done in two to five minutes, starting with a vector logo. Seriously.

Cheers,

T

davidc's picture

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

–Theodore Roosevelt

Thomas Phinney's picture

That would be so apt, except:

1) Most of the people criticizing have in fact designed typefaces. I've done about 18,000 glyphs for Adobe, albeit all in one typeface.

2) It's like you went into the arena for the first time, and some experienced boxers watching pointed out afterwards that you need to actually punch with your left as well as your right. This is really basic stuff in type design that you haven't learned yet.

I've recently been designing some commercial logos for my employer, in collaboration with our lead in-house graphic designer. It's been a great experience, because she has some fine ideas and we work together at that level, but she lacks any experience with exactly these sorts of optical correction issues, so I fix all those things along the way, and avoid at least one kind of complete logo failure that I see in the logos for, say, Bing and Nook.

By the way, another very specific point which I see in your re-design of Bing, as well as (for instance) the Nook logo: in order for your logo to *look* monoline (that is, the lines are all the same thickness), you need to make the horizontal parts slightly thinner than the vertical parts. This applies to the top and bottom of round shapes compared to the sides, as well. Even 5% difference may do the trick.

Cheers,

T

Syndicate content Syndicate content