I don't care about the new logo, or the old one... I just clicked the comments link to confirm what's at this point become pretty well documented on HN: all articles introducing new graphic designs of any kind will be hated.
Not that it's not justified, but I'd challenge anyone to pull up an example to the contrary. I'm sure someone can find one, and it'll probably somehow involve Stripe :)
It's funny... I think there might actually be a good reason for this.
In so much of my experience, it often seems like version 1.0 (or sometimes 2.0 or 3.0) is the best version of something. All the original creators are still on board, the interface is straightforward, the functionality is clear, the product is good.
But then, by the time you get to 4.0+, the original creators have moved on, a new team comes in looking to make their mark, and suddenly a graphic overhaul is introduced, they start focusing on "content" or "exposing features" or whatnot, the interface loses organization and coherence, and bad decisions start being made.
I don't know of a name for this phenomenon, but it almost seems to be the rule rather than the exception. But it may explain why people seem to be so anti-change -- because, so many times, the change actually is just pointless or bad.
I don't think it's limited to new graphic designs. Any kind of change at all is met with instinctive vitriol.
If posts looked more like "These bits are good. These bits need work. These bits should be scrapped entirely." then it would be easier to call them constructive. As it is, they just seem uncompromisingly conservative and pointless.
Comments
I don't care about the new logo, or the old one... I just clicked the comments link to confirm what's at this point become pretty well documented on HN: all articles introducing new graphic designs of any kind will be hated.
Not that it's not justified, but I'd challenge anyone to pull up an example to the contrary. I'm sure someone can find one, and it'll probably somehow involve Stripe :)
It's funny... I think there might actually be a good reason for this.
In so much of my experience, it often seems like version 1.0 (or sometimes 2.0 or 3.0) is the best version of something. All the original creators are still on board, the interface is straightforward, the functionality is clear, the product is good.
But then, by the time you get to 4.0+, the original creators have moved on, a new team comes in looking to make their mark, and suddenly a graphic overhaul is introduced, they start focusing on "content" or "exposing features" or whatnot, the interface loses organization and coherence, and bad decisions start being made.
I don't know of a name for this phenomenon, but it almost seems to be the rule rather than the exception. But it may explain why people seem to be so anti-change -- because, so many times, the change actually is just pointless or bad.
I don't think it's limited to new graphic designs. Any kind of change at all is met with instinctive vitriol.
If posts looked more like "These bits are good. These bits need work. These bits should be scrapped entirely." then it would be easier to call them constructive. As it is, they just seem uncompromisingly conservative and pointless.