I have no intention on blaming design for this however. These types of bevel/drop shadow/glow effects are only visually striking to someone with no experience.

Time and time again I am asked to put a bevel or a drop shadow on something. It’s the age of the high school student and the internet. Most people don’t develop art skills beyond that and therefore the world can be a topsy turvey place with bad designs chasing good ones.

A solid 2 colour logo without any of these effects is what is really needed. It needs to look strong in its own right, flat.

To me, it looks like some exec has told the designer what to do, which is a problem with our industry as a whole.

PLEASE. Leave the designing to someone with some talent and in turn they will leave your spreadsheets alone.

If this was the best of the bunch, what on earth did the others look like.

Personally, I think this 2010 logo is an unmitigated disaster, but the price was right!

I read an article about their new preflight features within the application. I used PasteBoard and FlightCheck Professional from Markzware for over 7 years now. I think they have a patent on their product. I hate to see Quark and Adobe ripping off other company patent. Adobe In-Design has preflight build-in but its so lame. I love Markzware product and I will continue stick with them.

The only thing this logo calls to action is to stop looking at your operating system GUI for inspiration.

“A potent emblem, the 2006 logo both reminisces as a target and
communicates action. It’s circular, three-dimensional relief in green
is evocative of a button, implying a call to action—click here to go.
Offsetting the Q and placing the tail only inside the letter’s counter
creates the sensation that the button may have already been pushed,
that action is already underway and something is about to happen.
Subtle lens flares along the raised edges give the image a metallic
newness and reinforce the lines of force established by the jutting
diagonal and off-center, variable weight letter.”"

The most egotistical of artist would blush at such flowery prose. its obvious where the author stands on the “quark vs indesign debate, when they cant separate a program from its freaking logo.

Home sick this weekend, surfing back design news instead of enjoying the 70-degree closing evening of Macon’s Cherry Blossom Festival. Had to complain…;) Missed this, from the 16th: The new Quark corporate logo, in “preferred colors&#…

…as long as they make good software.
And with version 7 they seem to, not only what my tests show but also wherever you look (reviews) and whoever you ask.: Quark 7 seems to be a great and innovative product.

So stop worrying about the logo, rather ask where the Universal Binary builds are (from Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft and Quark).

Greetings
Peter

As for the marketing description of logos, of course no one believes any of that, especially the people that actually design the material.

In the case of the new, new Quark logo, they went particularly overboard in trying to create an explanation for what is nothing more than a poorly stylized “Q” in a circle.

However, I have to praise Quark for this time ‘doing it for themselves’.

I’d love to know how much the design agency were paid for ‘designing’ the 2005 logo, and how long it took them to design it..

And while not wanting to offend designers, but I do wish every logo didn’t have to have a whole story about how the curves equate to the winds of change while the tail signifies we’re listening blah blah blah…. All a load of bollocks. Does anyone who buys the product actually look at the company logo and recognise ANY meaning from the ‘marketing’ bumph?
Lets see… Shell Oil… simple logo, instantly recognisable… have no idea what the ethos behind the logo is, but I recognise it’s a shell and know it’s a shell gas station…
Coca Cola… instantly recognisable, I don’t care what the curves signify, I like the taste, and don’t dislike the Pepsi logo any more than the Coca Cola logo…
Kodak… other than resembling a capital K, I like the fact that it’s bright and again, instantly recognisable. I’m sure there were some ramblings about what these logos stood for when they were designed, but how many of us actually think about them when we’re buying a Kodak film, or a bottle of coke?
To me, and please don’t flame me for this, all this hot air about the significance of the curves, swirls, shapes and colour is simply for an expensive, sorry, ‘premium’ design agency to attempt justification of their fees….

Give me a logo that looks nice, is cost effective when printing letterheads, and looks professional. I don’t care to know about the mood or poetic skill of the designer….

J

That said, though, I can’t say that I really love the new logo. I like it better than their old logo, definitely, but I can’t say that it really strikes me. I like the flat version of their logo just fine. The shapes are clean and simple, and they don’t try to overload your eyes at first glance. The beveled version, however, just ahas a few too many photoshop tricks for my taste. It seems like a good version to use for their online work, but it’s perhaps not what I’d like to see on printed material.

But I definitely have to give them props for their efforts. And there will always be people who don’t like it for one reason or another. That’s a problem in this field, when so much depends on personal taste.

Regardless, though, it’s a design reminiscent of art directed by middle management — wether the intent was to make an ‘eye’ for symbolism much like the fedex arrow, it is a poor play on visuals, and an awkward layout for a company that wants to be the face of design.

Their original idea to make themselves ‘fresh’ and redesign their image may have just fallen flat in general, as far as their identity goes. I’ve always seen Adobe’s designs as uninspired to some extent (their trashing of the macromedia site to look like their ugly website is a clear example — though their print ads are always interesting), but their aged logo still has a nostalgic appeal that Quark just killed.

Some say that’s a good thing, that their past needs to be erased — but all I think of now is Quark’s failed advertising attempts I get in the mail boasting their destroying indesign, I see a logo redesign that was elegant but a rip off, I see a new logo that looks like it was designed by a production artist taking cues from office management. They listened at our request to change, but they aren’t onto the pulse of the design community in many ways.

Regardless of how you feel about the company or the logo design itself, you must recognize that the creation of the new logo is an important setp for Quark. After the controversay over the September 2005 version, many companies would have taken the attitude of get over it. Instead, Quark listened—really listened—to us, the creative community, and invested more effort and money in responding.

You and I inspired Quark to redesign its logo. Think about that for a moment. A year ago, did you feel like anyone in Denver heard—or cared—what you had to say?

I am probably the most famous (infamous?) critic of Quark, and I applaud the company for listening and then acting on what it heard. Quark spent money and put forth a lot of effort to react to what the community voiced. Regardless of anything Quark did yesterday or will do tomorrow, you must objectively recognize that the existance of this new logo is a significant event in Quark’s relationship to the creative community.

It’s just a freakin’ Q!!! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry for them. Wait. I do know. I’ll laugh.

Andrew

There are about 10+ more designs at http://logolounge.com/ I designed, and I’ll be featured in their book next year, feel free to log on and compare more.