Refreshing Plaid's brand(blog.plaid.com)
blog.plaid.com
Refreshing Plaid's brand
https://blog.plaid.com/refreshing-plaids-brand/
36 comments
Notably the brand is for a chili and condiment company. In that field, recalling nostalgia and your grandma's recipes makes sense. But no one wants to use their grandma's old software
> But no one wants to use their grandma's old software
Maybe that will change as the industry matures.
Maybe that will change as the industry matures.
emacs
> But no one wants to use their grandma's old software
(quietly puts away my NES Classic Edition)
(quietly puts away my NES Classic Edition)
Sure.
Consider, say, Coca-Cola.
The basic "dynamic ribbon" logo (https://www.coca-cola.co.uk/content/dam/journey/gb/en/hidden...) dates from 1886.
Consider, say, Coca-Cola.
The basic "dynamic ribbon" logo (https://www.coca-cola.co.uk/content/dam/journey/gb/en/hidden...) dates from 1886.
No way!
I love their chili sauces, and I always refer to it as the "angry lady" hot sauce. She just looks so serious on that label.
Glad to see that they're successful.
I love their chili sauces, and I always refer to it as the "angry lady" hot sauce. She just looks so serious on that label.
Glad to see that they're successful.
Notably, the Plaid has kept the same logo.
Why do sites continue to use the hamburger menu??? (and also hide the menu if we don't decide to allocate 1200px of real estate to basically empty website!?)
Such a bad UX for discoverability.
Here's what I see:
https://imgur.com/a/COfKBYM
Such a bad UX for discoverability.
Here's what I see:
https://imgur.com/a/COfKBYM
I'm confused - what's the problem with the hamburger menu? What would the alternative be on small screens?
Would have to search to find the exact studies, but it's been found that a hamburger menu will lower engagement and result in shorter user sessions (particularly, the user will visit less pages). The intuitive answer as to why is that you're burying a very important navigation menu by making it an extra click away (and hidden from view by default).
Anecdotal side note, but when I was working on a startup in some industry, we found that our largest competitor by an order of magnitude had a navigation bar at the bottom in their mobile app, while everyone else in the space used the hamburger menu. The experience made it seem like this is common knowledge at the higher levels of app design.
Even Apple has come out and explicitly spoken against the hamburger menu as a design element for iOS apps, and instead recommends tab bars.
Anecdotal side note, but when I was working on a startup in some industry, we found that our largest competitor by an order of magnitude had a navigation bar at the bottom in their mobile app, while everyone else in the space used the hamburger menu. The experience made it seem like this is common knowledge at the higher levels of app design.
Even Apple has come out and explicitly spoken against the hamburger menu as a design element for iOS apps, and instead recommends tab bars.
It seems to trigger even on non-mobile devices. If I shrink my viewport to a normal width (900ish pixels) the entire site is basically unusable. :/
Most modern responsive design doesn't specifically target mobile vs. non-mobile devices, but rather simply the width of the browser window. In my experience a width of 900px is generally considered pretty low for a desktop browser, and toward the high end for tablets and large smartphone.
Bootstrap, for instance, uses 992px as the low end of its "large" media query, which is intended for desktops.
Bootstrap, for instance, uses 992px as the low end of its "large" media query, which is intended for desktops.
900px is not normal - that's tiny by today's standards. The only plausible alternative at a width that small would be to shrink the size of the text in the menu, otherwise it simply won't fit. Doing that would be worse to me for usability than switching to the hamburger.
> 900px is not normal - that's tiny by today's standards.
Wait what? That's tiny for a screen, but not for a (resizable!) browser window. Here's a shout-out for folks like me who run browser windows side-by-side.
Wait what? That's tiny for a screen, but not for a (resizable!) browser window. Here's a shout-out for folks like me who run browser windows side-by-side.
Side-by-side windows are simply not used by normal users, which the vast majority of websites are designed for. The real question here is why don't you have a second monitor?
uhh most users don't have a second monitor. and you don't just design for "most." quite a lazy mindset around here.
The mindset around here is "everyone should design things for my extremely specific use case that 99% of users don't share". Find me stats about the % of users with desktop browser windows narrower than 900px and then we can talk.
The mindset around here is "everyone should stop overdesigning their sites so that they only work for people in the peak of the bell curve and needlessly exclude all the less-common use cases, of which mine is an example".
The web works better when site designers try to exert less control over it. Who are you to tell me how wide my browser window should be?
The web works better when site designers try to exert less control over it. Who are you to tell me how wide my browser window should be?
Design responsively and assume that every size of window is equally likely at some point in time. Just because a use-case isn't common, does that mean your product or website shouldn't be usable on it?
From this Show HN yesterday, nearly 25% of visitors had windows narrower than 900px:
https://simpleanalytics.io/simpleanalytics.io
Most of those visitors are likely coming from HN, a community of people who are more likely than most to have multiple monitors. For the record, I multi-monitor at all my stationary worksites. But I don't carry external monitors on planes, airports, coffee shops, etc.
https://simpleanalytics.io/simpleanalytics.io
Most of those visitors are likely coming from HN, a community of people who are more likely than most to have multiple monitors. For the record, I multi-monitor at all my stationary worksites. But I don't carry external monitors on planes, airports, coffee shops, etc.
Sorry I don't think you're correct here. There is a ton of wasted space here.
https://imgur.com/a/COfKBYM
Definitely room for an actual menu there.
Either way, a hidden hamburger menu makes 0 sense on a desktop environment anyway, no matter how much space you have.
https://imgur.com/a/COfKBYM
Definitely room for an actual menu there.
Either way, a hidden hamburger menu makes 0 sense on a desktop environment anyway, no matter how much space you have.
And I don't think you're correct. There are 5 menu items + log in + the API docs button on the main header. If you want all those to fit in a sub-standard width page, you're going to end up sacrificing readability in text. If you want to propose removing a menu item to make more space, that's an option, but just saying "I don't like the hamburger - they could fit the menu somehow" is not helpful.
What you do is fit the important stuff and hide the rest under a "more..." just because it ALL can't fit doesn't mean hiding everything is the only solution.
What is "important" in this context? Resources and About? Do you just hide stuff under "More" from right to left as you run out of space? How many people are actually going to click or hover on "More" to find out what's under there? There's a reason design trends have been shifting toward hamburger menus for smaller layouts - it's the best design choice for usability and lack of confusion once people get used to what the hamburger icon means.
That's all stuff for the designer and content to determine. But if there's room, it's always better to show the user the choices they have than not.
since I don't use facebook I didn't know you were supposed to click on them until I started seeing articles about how bad they were. It opened a whole new world of menus.
Don't know if it's just me, but the hamburger menu doesn't even work on chrome + macOS. I click it and nothing happens.
I do know that is the default for many popular Wordpress themes. The hamburger break-point is usually too generous. It looks like its just a poor use of spacing that leads to premature hamburgerization:
https://i.imgur.com/kTid0y3.png
https://i.imgur.com/kTid0y3.png
I learned a new word today!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilloché
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilloché
@charleyma, why does the company go with that vector art style that _every_ website has these days? It is no longer unique or recognizable.
It looks cool, and management is probably going to be super happy. But that's not what a brand is about. It should be identifiable and recognizable. This does nothing of that.
It looks cool, and management is probably going to be super happy. But that's not what a brand is about. It should be identifiable and recognizable. This does nothing of that.
Congrats -- you now look like every other company in the fintech space.
Is it just me or is the light-blue link color very hard to read against a white background?
Is it possible to make brands (or software) that's just "done?"
[0]: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1002903/face-of-chinese-chili-...
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/9ewvb7/firefox_log...