Dear Google,

Your new logo release has been quite the topic in the design world over the past week, and rightly so given your revered stature in the modern world of technology. We at Faber & Lo would like to begin by offering a supportive nod, as the new design is undoubtedly more in line with the clean, modern and highly sophisticated technology and services you offer. The geometric sans certainly stands its ground as a strong, contemporary logotype, with an elemental quirkiness and approachable x-height.

Brand suitability aside, it is regarding the execution of the design that we would like to suggest a few minor tweaks. If we were faced with refining this particular logo, here’s what we’d do…

1. That uppercase G – Now don’t get me wrong, in some way the position of the top terminal balances the ‘e’ terminal at the far end, but the wide stature of the bottom of the letterform against the sparse top half make for an uneasy and awkward weight distribution. The top terminal weight is a little on the light side, particularly when compared to the lowercase terminals of the g & e. Additionally the weight coming into the crossbar on the bottom right is on the heavy side, and the horizontal crossbar is markedly heavy relative to the stroke weight of the rounds. The rounds are looking a little what one might call diamond shaped. Let’s pull out those corners, just a tad.

2. Overall weight – Relative to the uppercase G, the lowercase is sitting a little on the heavy side. Particularly the weight of the l; it could afford to lose 5 pounds (or in the case of type design, a few units).

3. Lowercase g – Again the rounds are ever so slightly diamond shaped, and the weight of the rounds coming in to the straight stem on the right could be further reduced, as that gets pretty heavy when small.

4. Lowercase e – This is probably the most uncertain of all the letterforms. While the choice to tilt this little character was justified as playing homage to the original Venetian ‘e’ of your original serif logo (where it makes more sense in a traditional context) the suitability of the form in this geometric sans-serif representation feels awkward. In keeping with the historic reference I’d say sure, keep the angle, but perhaps reduce the angle at which it sits.

5. Kerning – A little tight across the board, particularly as it is mostly viewed at small sizes. Maybe you have a version for large and small sizes, but I haven’t come across a reference for both yet. Regardless, at this particular size, let’s give those letters a little extra breathing space.

Sincerely, Faber & Lo.

Until the next update, Google!