What is Digg?111 Comments
- DanAtkinson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20There is indeed a pixel missing.
- dburka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16At first I thought you guys were just referring to a small resizing issue on the article's site. But, you're right, it's got a tiny glitch right on the Quark.com homepage. If that's intentional as a light source peeking out from behind the logo, then it's a little bit too subtle. The favicon on their website, which is a nicely simplified version of the logo, actually looks quite nice... nicer than beveled/gradient full size version. Final assessment: not bad, not too exciting either.
- markseviltwin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This is a really bizarre change from a design point of view. Why in the world did they change again? First of all, I can't imagine why a company like Quark, a company that is losing ground fast to its primary competitor (InDesign), would want to mess with its visual identity again so soon. The change to the logo in September was welcome, and the design was great. The older design felt aged, just like the software, but the new logo felt alive and fresh. The remarkable simplicity and choice of green tone reminded me of the BP logo, which, despite representing just another oil company, always makes me feel like I'm buying more environmentally friendly gas somehow.
Now they break out this new logo that's muddied up with gradients and squashed circles. This new logo cannot translate to single tone (black and white) well at all, and you want that! Even in an age of media proliferation, where practically every representation of a product can be full color print or on a computer display, you still want to have a logo that has an identifiable silhouette. Take a look at the McDonald's arches, the Disney logo, the Apple logo, or the CNN logo. Sure, they all get fleshed out with tone, gradient, and shadow in print work, but when you get down to it, they operate as clean cut outs. You see those three circles, you know you're looking at Mickey.
For a company that makes a product all about productivity and power in creative design, this seems like a real dud of an idea...
Mark - ZMerlin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The new one "feels" a little bit similar to the Sony Ericsson logo.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Still can't believe this company. The crazy copy protection. The chronically old software that never gets updated. If there is ever a company to hate, this is it. Well, not as bad as SCO but pretty bad.
- achoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7A new logo is not going to hide the fact that Quark Xpress is bloated, buggy software with an inefficient UI. The only people that still use Quark are the ones that haven't had the chance to discover inDesign.
Sorry, I used to love Quark. Used it for 10 years. But only because there was nothing else better. Nowadays, because of competition from other software companies, Quark has been left in the dust. Anyone still using Quark Xpress, do yourself a favor and learn inDesign. I thought I was a speed demon on Quark, but my workflow efficiency in inDesign is so much faster it's not even funny. - steveo2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Quark is waiting for a third party to release an "Xtension" that will address any problems with their (latest) logo.
- w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You create multiple versions. This can be seen in their favicon.
- Zeerus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5reminds me a bit of the subtle bevel and shadows used on the ubisoft logo, for some reason. maybe i'm just biased because they ripped their september logo
- the_snitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4could it BE any more bevelled.
- phatcactus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, it really is a glint of light. A stupid glint of light, but a glint nonetheless.
http://quarkvsindesign.com/news/archives/2006/03/quarks-logo-2006-something-is-in-motion/
"Glint." Great word. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've never used Quark directly, but worked with people that did. One of Quark's bigger problems was its attitude toward its customers. It was nothing but, well....ATTITUDE. I have no idea if it improved over time since I haven't had to deal with it in quite a while, but it really, REALLY needed improvement.
- LittleOni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason they changed it again was because there was a dispute as to whether or not the design firm they hired to redesign the logo was using an almost identical logo for multiple companies. It also didn't look nearly as professional as it could have. I'm not crazy about the newest iterneration, but it's not terrible, either. At least this time it doesn't look like Quark is ripping off another company's ID.
- prattboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A few caveats about the new logo:
The bevels and shadows dilute the impact of the "Quark Green" that the original September version conveyed so well (although it's a little better on the official Quark site than it is on the dugg link. It looks like creativepro might have used a version that was originally CMYK).
At a smaller size, the "Q" begins to look like a "G".
The typeface usage is not consistent across their website. There's at least a few different faces that are being used for "Quark". Check out the logo on the homepage, the "Quark Particles" graphic at http://www.quark.com/about/newsletter/06/03/ , and any mention of "Quark" in the graphics at http://www.quark.com/software/ It'd be interesting to see a style guide for the usage of their brand identity, because I'm willing to bet they're not following it. - iamsam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That logo sucks
- the_snitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Could you take that Quark cd with you back into the closet?
- Carns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Doesn't look too bad for a logo. A definite improvement over the others listed above the latest one. Also, the subtle bevel and the shadow effect used is similar to the UbiSoft logo.
- diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2These are the funniest comments I've seen on this:
http://forums.macresource.com/read/1/64690#msg-64699
http://forums.macresource.com/read/1/64690#msg-64708 - Korvaras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would have to agree, but the old new logo was an unintentional(?) Rip off of the Logo for the much older Scottish Arts Council.
- JoeDonH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This new logo is crap. While it may seem trivial to some to argue the merits of a logo, this is the "face" of the company and its software designed for image content creation professionals, and nothing screams "amateur" like a little bevel and emboss (not forgetting the missing pixels). Couple that with the fact that their software is outdated and anything past version 5 is non-compliant with other applications like InDesign, and you have a bad company in my eyes. The only reason people still use it is because it's what they are used to, not because it's the best software. There is a reason that InDesign is quickly passing up Quark as the industry standard.
- deesine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I`m a charter Quark user, had one of the very first copies in SoCal. when it came out. The company and program are second rate, and exist today only because of the slow pace of the print industry.
I don`t design much for print anymore, and when I do, it`s never with Quark. I picked up InDesign and became fluent in about 2 hours, another week and I had it mastered. Quark has not been on any of my boxen since 2003. Only once have I had a client that needed the files in Quark format. I turned down that job (wasn`t worth the headache).
The industry file format standard used to be Quark. Not anymore. For years now, the standard has been PDFx1-a. In fact, most high-end, high-volume printers only accept PDFx1-a files.
For years the rumor ran about Adobe buying Quark (sometimes the reverse). With a working InDesign out, and a format standard change in, Adobe can just sit back and let Quark wither away. Ya, I know, it`s not going away anytime soon. The slow as molasses print industry means we`ll still find hold-outs in 2010. - mongrel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A lot of people know about it - just most of us stopped caring.
- Xemoka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Larger Version: http://quarkvsindesign.com/news/archives/2006/03/quarks-logo-2006-something-is-in-motion/
It is definitely a shine and not a bunch of missing pixels... - spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've installed it multiple times, and while it's not the easiest software to work with, it could be worse. The new method of sharing in Quickbooks 2006 comes to mind here.
Btw, set up properly you sould be able to use an emergency key while your licensing server is down. - super_duper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Scottish Arts Council Logo
http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/ - w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It looks just like some artists association logo. Everyone bitched up a storm about it. That's why they changed it.
- spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bah, look at this guys other posts. He's just a troll. Nothing more.
- korteenea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've talked to a couple of print houses that say they have trouble rasterizing InDesign files... even when they're using Adobe's own RIP. They tell me that Quark files RIP much better. I don't really know about the RIP process enough to know whether or not this is a serious issue when it comes to final print quality... I've only heard that it *is* an issue. I also have to say that when I toured the press, they were still running OS 9 on their pre-press systems... so I really can't be certain how authoritative they are on the subject, lol.
That being said, I've found InDesign's UI to be quite usable, especially if you're familiar with Photoshop and Illustrator (and you SHOULD be.) It didn't take me long to convert over to using InDesign at all, and InDesign's plethora of features that you can't find in Quark is enough of a reason to spend time learning the program. Quark has made one too many missteps for me to ever take them seriously again, and their missteps with their logo redesign only add insult to injury. - veter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dugg your comment...however, the integration of photoshop with illustrator and indesign is unparalelled. It makes work-flow so much faster. If i decide that I want an object to have a blending mode, I don't have to open up photoshop and do it, i can do it right within indesign, or if I want to create my own text wrap path,I don't have to rely on what the pageination program decides or reopen my file from photoshop, i can do it right within indesign, etc.
I understand that the programs may be a bit bloated becasue of it, but as long as you keep your computer up to date, it really isn't a problem and your work-flow becomes much more efficient.
Quark, for what it is, should no longer cost the $900+ that it does anymore. I cannot justify spending that kind of money on one program that has only half the features of something else that I can nearly get the whole suite of for the same price.
If quark could impliment the features of indesign into it without slowing down, then, I believe, that is the only way theyll ever keep the market share...otherwise, they are most-certainly going to lose to adobe. - cathode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lame Lame Lame. Quark blows, and their new new logo blows. Like mentioned above, it looks like a student made it, "Let's jusy apply some photoshop effects..."
- Empyrean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Using the FF extension Image Zoom, I zoomed the logo to 400%. There is indeed a big chunk of pixels that disrupt the flow of the curve. Also, in the white part of the logo "Q", there is a small buldge of of white that is diagonally down from the missing pixel chunk. However the inner lighter green area is perfect. Its not a 'glint' of light or any other crap like that, its a big ugly mistake, and now that someone pointed it out, thats all I can see in the logo, haha.
Not that I care about Quark, but as a graphic designer it just kind of makes me wretch considering how easy it is to make a circle in Photoshop or any other image program they may be using. If something as miniscule as this gets by, it should tell you something about how much care and effort they put into their product. - 06metzp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Does anyone else think the new new Quark logo looks like the monster.com logo? Not exactly alike, but they're very similar, I think.
- Korvaras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Glad someone came up with this... I mentioned it earlier. THIS is the reason you should always do a thorugh check of other logos/logotypes that are currently out in the world. The received a LOT of flack for this. Personally, I liked the style of the old new logo, but the fact that it was just almost exactly like the Scottish Arts council which is much older is just silly for a company like quark to do. Whoever they gave the job to do obviously didn't do their homework.
But on another note. I DO NOT like the new logo. It's yet another trendy and UGH gradient logo! What the heck is up with this? Doesn't translate B&W, and just looks plain AWFUL on most occasions. I'm a graphic designer by profession. These guys need to take a lesson from Rand. SIMPLIFY!
Side note. I scrolled down a bit more and saw an article with it in a flat white and green. MUCH Better. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Although I jumped from Quark to InDesign myself, I disagree with the people that are hating on Quark XPress. For me, the reason I switched was simple - Adobe released an OS X version way before Quark did. I wasn't about to do my page layout in a Classic app - imagine the printing issues, never mind the performance problems.
If Quark had made a commitment to OS X earlier, I probably wouldn't have needed to learn InDesign. A primary reason for choosing a page layout program is support from service bureaus and printing presses. They all had the same issues with OS X, and began supporting InDesign almost immediately. That made it easier for us to decide which program to use.
Once a design company has switched their print layout program, it's difficult to get them to switch again. Quark let down their primary customer base, and it will take a herculean effort to get them back. As far as I'm concerned, they can use the logo from 1996. Rebranding makes no difference, in the end. - MrFisty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Damn straight. Adobe wiped the floor with them when they released InDesign which was a fraction of the cost, and worked hand in hand with Photoshop and Illustrator, which every designer uses as standard.
But Quark brought that on themselves. For years the program was in excess of $3000 (Australian) and you couldn't get multiple licences. Adobe saw an opportunity and stepped in. And good on them. InDesign is a superior product by a long stretch. - gmax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A new logo does not mean their software got any better. Quark is a dinosaur and needs to evolve fast if it intends to rival InDesign realistically. They should have spent the time reworking their software than making identity changes. Good grief!
- rayde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1my first thought was the uTorrent logo, but it also looks a lot like Sony Ericsson's logo too.
- illegal_op, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That was my initial thought as well, http://www.internity.co.uk/images/Sony_Ericsson_logo_.gif
- ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1old tired logo? you mean the one from 6 months ago?!
I preferred the previous one. Much simpler and nicer. But it does't matter, Quark is going down hill anyway. Long live InDesign! - error00101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I prefer the flat green one to this most recent version. talk about trite... "let's bevel the logo, and slap a shadow on it."
Super cliche "gussy-up" job.
Thumbs down to quark. I Like to see design on the front page, though, so thumbs up to the article. - captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Good, now that they've got the logo thing settled, they can focus on making their software not suck.
- etx313, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How about a new PRODUCT for quark. heh
- error00101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1whoa. that's first i've seen this. I guess quark had to change the logo... that's just too blatent. lazy, though, not to have found that before releasing the sept. logo.
but what does a Q have to do with the scottish art council, anyhow? - jimb0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1nasty...just like their software
- THEMACGOD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe they should take the time to update Quark instead of it's logo. This program is a $1200 dollar virus with unexplaned behaviors and random actions. I can't wait until our design house can switch to Indesign.
We have a saying where I work and you trekkies will understand...
"QUUUAAAAAAAAAARRRK!!!!" - modian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1LOL! Mod that ***** up, It's gold!
- wnathans, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I tend to agree. I prefer a "2d" look but I think this would work equally well as "2d" if they needed to tone down the effect for a different media type
- leitjaxon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That logo is gross, their last one was so much better.
- Magnitude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why is 'Quark' set in two different fonts on their website?
Looks confused, especially when they are in such close proximity. - cathode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1good catch
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 