How is it "fairly unique"? The author cites several examples of designers and authors contemporary with this change this shift in aesthetics that characterized these designs as child-like. E.g.:
"Already before the change, the graphic designer Peter Saville had described Google’s logo as infantile: ‘Everything about it is childlike: the colors [sic], the typeface, even the name’ (Rawsthorn 2010). The redesign had intensified this. Chris Moran, at that time The Guardian’s search engine editorial optimizer, described the new look and feel as a turn towards ‘My First Search Engine’ (Moran 2010). "
This is hardly a surprising characterization, too. Simple, shadowless shapes that emphasize colours is exactly what children draw.
The author cites several examples of designers and authors contemporary with this change this shift in aesthetics that characterized these designs as child-like.
She cites a single person, Chris Moran, from personal communcation. Chris Moran is not a designer, but an editor.
Peter Saville is quoted in an article from before they removed the drop shadow and deemphasized the shading in the logo. It is the author who suggests that reducing the 3-dimensional style of the logo "intensified" its childlike qualities, and not Peter Saville, who had not seen the redesign when he made his comment.
The author's interpretation seems to be that the spirit of "child-like playfulness" was already the dominating design paradigm at Google, as characterized by Saville in 2010, and the re-design of the logo was done in this spirit. It's pretty plausible, given that this was the first time Google was changing its logo in ten years.
Edit: FWIW, it's not designs that are just flat that the author considers child-like. It's a design vocabulary that uses flat designs, cartoonish characters (e.g. Octocat), addressing users in a child-like manner that's seen as childish. Flatness is just one element of this vocabulary.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that cartoons and vivid color schemes are used more prominently in the digital world, but I think the discussion of skeuomorphism vs flat design is mostly besides the point, and is undermining her argument with unconvincing examples.
Having worked over a decade in creating artistic works with children (and adults) I don't believe that to be true any more than to say "adults like Caravaggio, children like Mondrian".
Children draw basic forms and use basic colours because they don't yet understand how to interpret the world in a complex way. They abstract, and draw their abstraction - tables are square, therefore the image on the page needs to be square to be a table. Untrained adults do the same.
My kids (neurotypical) don't just abstract and don't draw like untrained adults. They raw something completely different then what they like to look at. The brain also develops oddly. I guess this also depends on what age we talk about, but before 6 years old they have those typical mistakes where kids basically can figure out square, but can not figure out rotated square.
But mostly, it is not just about primary colors. It is more of preference for bright (primary does not matter) and simple - single color with no shading is better then realistic shading. Two color shading is acceptable, but does not seem to add to experience.
Comments
How is it "fairly unique"? The author cites several examples of designers and authors contemporary with this change this shift in aesthetics that characterized these designs as child-like. E.g.:
"Already before the change, the graphic designer Peter Saville had described Google’s logo as infantile: ‘Everything about it is childlike: the colors [sic], the typeface, even the name’ (Rawsthorn 2010). The redesign had intensified this. Chris Moran, at that time The Guardian’s search engine editorial optimizer, described the new look and feel as a turn towards ‘My First Search Engine’ (Moran 2010). "
This is hardly a surprising characterization, too. Simple, shadowless shapes that emphasize colours is exactly what children draw.
She cites a single person, Chris Moran, from personal communcation. Chris Moran is not a designer, but an editor.
Peter Saville is quoted in an article from before they removed the drop shadow and deemphasized the shading in the logo. It is the author who suggests that reducing the 3-dimensional style of the logo "intensified" its childlike qualities, and not Peter Saville, who had not seen the redesign when he made his comment.
The author's interpretation seems to be that the spirit of "child-like playfulness" was already the dominating design paradigm at Google, as characterized by Saville in 2010, and the re-design of the logo was done in this spirit. It's pretty plausible, given that this was the first time Google was changing its logo in ten years.
Edit: FWIW, it's not designs that are just flat that the author considers child-like. It's a design vocabulary that uses flat designs, cartoonish characters (e.g. Octocat), addressing users in a child-like manner that's seen as childish. Flatness is just one element of this vocabulary.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that cartoons and vivid color schemes are used more prominently in the digital world, but I think the discussion of skeuomorphism vs flat design is mostly besides the point, and is undermining her argument with unconvincing examples.
It is also what children like to look at. They dont appreciate elaborate realism or shadows. They prefer simple shape, uniform color and no shade.
Having worked over a decade in creating artistic works with children (and adults) I don't believe that to be true any more than to say "adults like Caravaggio, children like Mondrian".
Children draw basic forms and use basic colours because they don't yet understand how to interpret the world in a complex way. They abstract, and draw their abstraction - tables are square, therefore the image on the page needs to be square to be a table. Untrained adults do the same.
My kids (neurotypical) don't just abstract and don't draw like untrained adults. They raw something completely different then what they like to look at. The brain also develops oddly. I guess this also depends on what age we talk about, but before 6 years old they have those typical mistakes where kids basically can figure out square, but can not figure out rotated square.
But mostly, it is not just about primary colors. It is more of preference for bright (primary does not matter) and simple - single color with no shading is better then realistic shading. Two color shading is acceptable, but does not seem to add to experience.