How many times have you been told not to leave something for the last minute, but when you did, it actually turned out better than expected? Well, Gmail's logo was the product of this situation — it was designed by Dennis Hwang (who's responsible for most of Google's doodles at the time) the night before Gmail launched. Former Google designer Kevin Fox tells the story on Quora: "The logo was designed literally the night before the product launched. We were up very late and Sergey and I went down to his cube to watch him make it."
What's even more interesting here is the logo itself. Fox notes that its letters are in two different fonts — the 'G' is in Catull, the same font as Google's logo, while the 'ail' is in Myriad Pro because Catull produces a strange-looking 'a'. We'll bet that you won't be able to unsee the font differences in the logo ever again — just take a look above.
There are 46 Comments. Add yours.
Gmail doesn’t even show the logo anymore.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes it does, look in the top left corner…
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:54 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Not if you have the new Google bar (not the black one, the newer strip). Now it just says Google like all the other services.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
you dont have the new update yet?
dont worry, you will get the ‘new’ black bar soon :-P
they are actually rolling back the “new bar” soon, and will have the black bar again
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I still don’t have it either.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 9:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can someone post a screenshot?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
strange. you’ll see that when i use my local Google India, I get the new bar, but on Google.com (International), I get the old strip.
Google India
Google.com
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:41 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thanks for that, which one appears to be better functionality-wise?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I currently prefer the Google.com version, but I guess that if Google makes the other type mandatory I’ll grow to love it, although I have an issue with the extra required click to get to other services.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 10:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why are they rolling it back? Cause of expected internet nerd outrage to any change, which always fizzles out? I love it, gives back valuable vertical real estate. More useable too.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I have the black bar at work, but have seen the drop down menu thing at home. No idea what’s going on. Which one are they changing to? I kinda like the bar better, but have realized I never use it so wouldn’t care if it’s gone.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 3:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow. Isn’t that type heresy using two different fonts in one word/logotype? At least with those two choices?
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The worst part is that the logo itself, using an envelope for the ‘M’, is actually not that bad, its just so poorly implemented. If only they’d spent a little extra time finding one suitable typeface…
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:54 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yes, perhaps had they done the logo better, instead of reinventing email, it would had been more suitable for them.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:59 PM EST reply Recommend (27) Flag actions
Obviously, they were focused more on the product and not the design of the logo. And I’m personally thankful for that. I love Gmail. Also, I completely sympathize with the designer not producing something incredible in ONE NIGHT, being a designer myself and having to do things last minute.
I agree with mikey_clarke though, it doesn’t take too terribly long to find a good typeface. Especially when you’re Google and you can afford to buy anything. hah
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:03 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Touché ;-)
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, to be fair, the G in Catull was already fairly iconic at the time. The ‘a’ in that font is fairly odd (see below, taken from Wikiepdia) and really would not have worked out. All in all, I think they made do fairly well, though they could have at least used a serif font for ‘ail’ instead of the sans-serif Myriad Pro
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I disagree, they should have picked one font and stayed true to it.
Also, as a fan of decorative fonts, I find that ‘a’ rather endearing. Granted, it would not have been suitable for the logo of a mainstream product.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 10:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, just look at it from their point of view. The G from Google is a logo unto itself. They use it all over the place, even without the accompanying ‘oogle.’ It made sense to include it in the logo as a way to declare Gmail as their product without flat out calling it Google Mail as they were forced to in Germany. The ‘a’ is simply too decorative for a mainstream font, as you put it, so they had to make a choice: either abandon the iconic G altogether or use two fonts. In terms of marketing, they made the right decision.
Though, like I said, they could have chosen a serif font and it wouldn’t have been that much of an issue. They may have had trouble there due to licensing issues when it comes to trademarks (meaning they had the Catull license for its main logo and the subheadings for its other products already used Myriad Pro. As this was a last minute design, they may not have had time to pull together the necessary paperwork and payment to use another font). Either way, I don’t see much of an issue with the font because it was a success and the envelope-as-an-M worked perfectly.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 10:17 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I’m afraid I still disagree with you. Regardless of their motivations, mixing two fonts in one word, a serif and a sans no less, is butchery. Branding and licensing concerns do not change that.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 5:13 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It’s form vs function at its finest. In this case, Google absolutely had to go with function over form.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 9:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because they designed the logo the night before the launch.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 9:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Precisely. Bad timing by them, but in Google’s case, form has always played second fiddle to function. I mean, up until last year, the only color on a Google search page was the logo and blue links.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s actually called art. I bet there were people who said Picasso was butchering one thing or another when he put an eye where the knee is suppose to be.
Rules and guidelines in design are great and it’s a good idea to stick to them most of the time, but sometimes the best things are created when you break the rules.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Absolutely agree about the serif font. Keep them at least in the same CLASS. They went all crazy mixing serif and sans-serif in one work. Were they trying to convey harmony? Didn’t want to pick sides of the font battle? That’s the only thing I can think.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:56 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apocalyptic0n3 made a good point, Myriad Pro was another font they already had the license to use (besides Catull). Maybe they didn’t already have the license for a different serif font, and they were obviously pushing up against the deadline so they did what they had to do.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 2:03 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, it seems logical. Such licenses can take weeks to be fully handled by a legal department. I would imagine that they would have a few fonts already with a license, but then again this is Google. Every single decision they make is based on efficiency and having licenses for just the two fonts you need would be much more efficient than going the safe route and having spares.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 4:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How about the newest member of the Google type-family, the “Four-headed Frankenfont”?
http://typographica.org/2011/on-typography/roboto-typeface-is-a-four-headed-frankenstein/
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 9:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Font purists hate Roboto, but I think it’s exactly what it needs to be. It works extremely well as an interface font by combining the best and most easily read elements of 4 different fonts into one. It’s very easily read and is distinct enough on screen to be good for quick glances at interface elements. This isn’t a font meant to be used for design pieces or advertising or in print, it’s meant to be used in Android and Android alone. Google did exactly what it needed to do with Roboto.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:29 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Are you suggesting that they should have created their own font for the Gmail logo? I suspect they didn’t have the time, and they probably felt that would have been a waste of resources just for one logo. Perhaps it would have been justified if they were going to change all their logos over to the new font, in that case carefully designing a personalized font would be a productive effort.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 4:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
what has been seen cannot be unseen
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
agreed, really wish I didn’t read this article.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 9:05 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Yeah, especially after that “Resident Evil 6” logo.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s 3 separate fonts if you count the “m”. 3 fonts in one logo!
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
AHHHHHH NOOOO, thats going to bug me forever now :(….
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
hahaha totally never noticed that. really interesting. I wonder if he really procrastinated to the night before or if it was all in google’s evil plan to take over the world. love these little blurbs they’re awesome.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Ahhh, Myriad Pro, the iProduct font. Interesting.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 8:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Noticed the different fonts…
Now I’m sad.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 9:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I will never, EVER, understand fonts Nazis.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:05 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I noticed the different font when I saw it in the picture above and in my face. Then I was in a state of denial until it was confirmed in the article. What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 2:46 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Now I’m never going to be able to unsee that…
Something else that I couldn’t unsee after being told was that the FedEx logo has an arrow inbetween the E and the x. Look at the space between the letters and you’ll see it (and then never unsee it).
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Goddamn it!
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I remember seeing that on a post on a site earlier last year (I think)… I can’t look at it anymore. Also, FedEx is the devil. (in Canada.)
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google and design… always two different stars, far far away from each other.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 4:47 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
John Gruber just spontaneously combusted.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 6:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.