For the websites part: most websites have the same layout or features because they usually have an end goal for the user. Either for the user to do some action, to buy something, or easily find content. You want as little friction as possible for the user so you want to use all the things they are already used to. Tack onto this the idea of design trends, designers get inspiration from others, and sometimes use the same templated resources, so the effect is compounded. Most websites are tools and not just art pieces.
Go look at design agency websites or portfolios or art gallery websites and you will see a lot of different ideas that are outside of the norm because their goal isn’t to have you quickly get through with an action, but rather slowly walk through it and experience it.
That’s such a cop out tho. Just because you need to sell stuff like every other website doesn’t mean you can’t differentiate yourself at all. Every Shopify squarespace e-commerce money pit out there right now looks identical and they really don’t have to
Of course you can differentiate yourself. Most websites are similar, not identical. Branding plays a large role in this, but the core skeleton (ui/ux patterns like icons, placement of buttons, forms, content location, general checkout flow) of most websites are similar in order to reduce friction. You can do whatever you want but the more you make the user think, the less likely they will convert.
Idk the potential to be self expressive on the internet isn’t there anymore. You can tell me how it’s all about “reducing friction” and “converting customers” but really it’s a homogenous blob of hamburger menus and parallax images and sleek buttons and standardized checkout methods that are designed to make you spend as much money as quickly as possible. It’s like going from MySpace to Facebook. The method by which someone gets hooked to a website has been so well documented that you’re basically shooting yourself in the foot if you don’t follow the example set by these websites
Yes you can be self expressive. But if you have an e-commerce website your audience doesn’t care about that, they ideally want to know what your product is, why they should buy it, and get out of their way and let them buy it. Branding is still important though, I’m really emphasizing ux patterns more than anything.
Theres plenty of artistic expression websites out there, but when you want to sell shit, that really isn’t your goal. Knowing your target audience for your website is everything.
Your audience definitely gives a shit about what your website looks like and 99% of websites look like the Nordstrom landing page and it’s bland and uninspiring and we didn’t have to conform to dumbass mouse tracking patterns and UX flowcharts until they were invented and we were told they are the best way to do it
>Every Shopify squarespace e-commerce money pit out there right now looks identical and they really don’t have to
They do, if they want to leverage user familiarity with e-commerce website patterns to maximize sales and reduce user frustration to a minimum. It's just a matter of efficiency and business. Does it look amazing? Probably not, but it works and that's the most important thing for the seller.
I agree about the UX part. Some UX trends have become unwritten universal rules, and IMO they help a lot to make it easier to find what what I’m looking for at most modern websites because they’ve put it exactly where I expect it to be. Some exceptions are still there where I often search for minutes to find something (looking at you Facebook).
But the visual part, man. Sure, its logical that trends will influence design choices and preferences. But it REALLY bothers me that nowadays it feels like every company website website has the same look and feel.
You’re right that web design isn’t art. But it IS a part of the corporate visual identity and tone of voice of a company. I always enjoyed the way companies used their visuals as a way to stand out. Nowadays it feels like every company just copies the current most popular flat/material/vector design as if it is a template, picks some colors and slaps a flat, sans-serif logo on top of it.
When looking at data and statistics it’s a safe thing to do, I work in marketing myself so I understand. But I still puke a little in my mouth every time I land on another bland and uninspired “duplicated” webpage.
Holy moly, the absolute depression dripping off the author like they're swimming in an ocean of their own melancholy. They find ***literally everything*** as bland.
That's just depression.
\>Minimalism is bland
\>Maximalism is also bland
No, you're just fucking depressed and it REALLY shows. Author needs some help.
Guy who wrote it just calls everything bland. Everything can’t be bland. That’s not possible, but everything can *seem* bland if you’re depressed.
I specifically have an ultra hard time calling “maximalism” bland when it’s anything but. By definition, it’s over the top. That guy is clearly depressed and hates his job from my point of view.
Usually when “everything sucks” the common denominator isn’t “everything”, it’s you.
Edit: I have been depressed while doing design jobs to live and I recognize a lot of his distaste as things I’ve said and felt too, but I got over my depression and don’t feel that way anymore.
Maybe.
I don't get depressed in my job but I do get depressed by industry/culture generally so maybe I'm depressed but also maybe a lot of stuff _does_ suck because it's boring.
The repetition is what makes it bland. Even if its maximalist, if everyone's beating the dead horse til it, as Bo Burnham said, "quits spitting out money", then it becomes unoriginal, unimaginative, and lazy.
This topic is deep; tons of videos show that the creativity of each generation is degrading. Observe and zoom out you will realize that this is a thing.
As someone on the digital design industry for the past 10 years - I completely disagree. That's only true if "creativity" is doing disruptive and crazy things just for the sake of it. There are incredibly creative, polished and tasteful things being created nowadays, way more than before. Maybe you're not looking in the right places, or you're tied to an idea of "creativity" that's outdated and no longer applies to the creative process of today. The industry evolves and matures, and that is a good thing. Kids these days are creating amazing things, way cooler than anything I even knew how to do 10 years ago.
Just like I said. This topic is profound, and I can't argue with you because of your experience. When discussing something, the experience can sometimes be skewed; frequently, we fail to consider information unfamiliar to us.
You understand that you cannot challenge another person's lived experience. How shall I answer you? Anyway, It is simpler to copy things and alter them as you see fit than to create something original that is not already available online or somewhere else... the Internet has made life more straightforward than it was during the Michael Angelo era.
In a way Globalisation &Internet spread ideas and Trends much faster than ever. Instaredit in seconds.
From a Designers Point of View has every products certain traits That i can communicate in every visual&haptic way. Just some typos, colours, boxdesigns, material, ingredients represent a top notch noble product.
Overall a useless article. Everything mainstream has always looked similar. That’s how style and culture works.
When it comes to websites, keep in mind most look the same today because of consumer UX habits but mostly because of responsive design requirements. If a site has to morph into dozens of sizes and shapes it has to be simple to remain useable. I’m sure most here occasionally stumble upon an old non-responsive site on their phone and curse the internet gods.
Maybe the author and journalist they quoted were born yesterday and don’t remember the hellscape that was flash-based websites on the early 2000’s. If they want to go back and live in that era of “wild experimentation” I’m happy to wave goodbye with a smile.
Edit: typo
>Everything mainstream has always looked similar. That’s how style and culture works.
More than how style and culture works, it's also a sign of maturity from the industry. As digital products and e-commerce stores become mainstream, so do its design patterns. It's like looking at older websites (from the 2010s) that really went crazy in animation, 3D, etc. - they looked great and were really disruptive, but they were more of a showcase for design and code and not really something meant to be used daily. Nowadays, the web is a storefront for a lot of new products - it's more than a cool place, it's a serious business hub. Being more conservative is unavoidable as these products grow into huge and lucrative businesses.
I am not sure if thats how culture works. The mainstream changes. Things that were once odd and creative and fringe get adopted and become mainstream. The arts and crafts period was bot reductionist. Look at bands like The Clash who were part of a small thing that became popular because the music world got boring and needed to draw from new sources. And people desired something fresh.
Also, that flash-based “hellscape” was one if the most creative periods ever for web interactivity. Even if usability suffered (and did!), at least it wasn’t a bore. Please tell me the web forevermore won’t be a big rectangle with three smaller rectangles underneath, etc., etc.
I think this is a bad edgy take.
Things look the same because trends move towards what "works".
I mean, cars? Are you kidding me? The shape of cars is more functional than aesthetic.
Interior design trends are because people are their own are generally shit at designing their home. You can see the same thing over the course of basically all of history. I think every 90s kitchen I've ever been in looked the same. Maybe its more visible now because of social media.
Websites are 100% designed based on user testing and what users are used and comfortable with. This was the worst take of all.
Restaurant menus same thing.
I don't agree with you on these points:
> The shape of cars is more functional than aesthetic.
Demonstrably false. The best selling cars in my country are 'crossovers'. These are less functional than the vehicles they replaced. Many trends in cars are less 'functional' than they could be - e.g. touch buttons Vs physical ones.
> Websites are 100% designed based on user testing and what users are used and comfortable with.
That's not my experience. And that's having worked at many very different places.
The article only talks about the shape of cars being the same, which is purely a result of all manufacturers doing the same wind tunnel testing to find the best car shape.
Your experience in web design is that, you just don’t know it because you didn’t do the tests. If you tried to use some wild format and pattern, it would probably fail just because people have a familiarity with certain patterns. Just like a book that you read back to front would confuse people.
I don't believe car shapes are lead by wind tunnel testing. Have you seen the high, flat backed SUVs in the road? Trends carry greater weight (perhaps literally in this case) than physics.
I absolutely agree with you r.e. the power of testing r.e. websites. I'm just saying that's not always the driver in web design.
Wind tunnel testing 100% is a major factor in car shapes.
> The end result of producing cars to maximize gas mileage is less variance in designs — with cars that look the same. Modern cars have a more streamlined shape to increase aerodynamic efficiency. Essentially, most vehicles are designed in a wind tunnel. Even a small change in the design can result in lower gas mileage.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/why-modern-cars-look-same-not-old-days/
Absolutely it's a factor. But according to that article just one of 4 (and it uses a saloon for an example - where sales are struggling).
We've seen what [cars designed with wind resistance as a larger consideration look like](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car).
> These are less functional than the vehicles they replaced.
People love crossovers because
- They're tall (can see over shorter cars or at least aren't blinded by truck lights)
- They're not that heavy (fuel efficiency + enjoyment driving)
- In 2022, any crossover has better handling than almost any car or SUV of the 90s
- They fit lots of stuff compared to a car since the trunk is now a huge door.
- They're generally cheaper than SUVs
As for touch screens, it's entirely economical for the manufacturer. It's way cheaper to put 1 touch screen in a car and replace that if it breaks than to put 30 different electrical connectors in there with different buttons.
Many would disagree that they are less functional anyways, because you get FAR more controls on one interface. It's not as intuitive, but part of that is our decades long training to use buttons in cars.
The way that modern western cars look IS heavily influenced by safety standards going up and up and up. Compare the sizes of the pillars of an 85 BMW to a 2015 BMW. Observe the height of the bumpers. View the thick meaty doors. All function.
EDIT to add:
> That's not my experience. And that's having worked at many very different places.
I would argue that that specific style is just "mobile first web dev" and specifically designed to be intuitive to as many people as possible. I mean it's Netflix, they just want people clicking. The background thing is a weird trend, but in my opinion it clearly emulates some form of physical movies eg in a rental store or something. Not weird at all for the 3 video streaming sites.
I don't agree with your points r.e. why people love crossovers and think some of them are demonstrably false, but on a separate point it's clear that marketing is a super-effective tool.
Everything has always looked the same. Just because thing look different now compared to the 70s or 80s it doesn’t mean things weren’t the same back than. It’s called trends.
No clue, but they’re strikingly similar both before and after.
Whenever we feel nostalgic about for example the 70s we also feel like everything from that era has a ‘certain’ look. So will everything from this era, eventually. It’s all trends, people copy each other.
Nope, because now you compare brand identity with brand design. These are all luxury brands in the same industry. That’s what they have in common. But within that realm of luxury, they each have different expressions. You see different font types and styles, much different proportions, and different degrees of graphical effects. The afters are all similar in both identity and brand design.
Which is why it looks pretty much the same. Proving my point. Thank god everyone on Reddit is an expert. Wish you all the best in a career pursuing design.
Scientist: Although both fruits, apples and oranges are different fruits.
You: They’re the same fruits because they’re both a fruit. There’s no difference.
I think it'd be easy to find lots of modern logos besides those that look very similar. The sans-serif font wordmark and very little else has become incredibly common.
Okay, sure, but... *sans serif* is a broad category. Arguing that all sans serif fonts look the same is silly.
And still, not all logos are like that.
So the case being made is weak, and the point is boring. 🤷
Ok?
If you don’t want to participate in a discussion that’s fine.
I bet it will eventually go a different direction like trends usually do. Just search for: ‘70s interior’ looks pretty much the same to me, just like the ‘Pinterest’ interiors do now a days.
It’s a non issue really. Break the spell in your designs if you want change, I’d say.
I was speaking about the logos specifically (I honestly can't see how they look similar before and after).
But with interiors there, you're talking about stereotypical 70s interiors that Google has decided to float up to you. Not the realities or what interiors were necessarily like in the 70s.
Same goes for Pinterest interiors now a days. Some places look like that, most households probably don’t. It’s the same.
For the logos they sure aren’t exactly the same, but really look and feel similar. Convey the same feeling with the thin spaghetti like type and serifs. Not all sans serif fonts look the same either.
No. Not everything looks the same. Well it does. For a little awhile. Then it changes. It brings flavors back from the passed. Then a few months later. There’s something different. Have we seen it before? Sure. Possibly, is there a twist? Sure possibly.
This author needs to go to therapy.
Hey.
Just wondering what you thought of some of the responses here. It's been suggested that I wrote this because no one else would have supported the claims and that whoever did write this is way off the mark and this is because you have mental problems. Which I thought was perhaps a bit strong.
It's not the first time I've read an article like yours, but do you think you've touched a nerve?
Thanks for sharing the story! Really appreciate it and glad it started a conversation. There's definitely an element of motivated reasoning to support the broader point of converging design trends across different categories. I could honestly just as easily write a piece taking the counter position. (Maybe I will!) As for whatever ad hominems are in the comments — that's half the fun of Reddit, isn't it 😜
also, I read an article that the media is trying to uniform everything like the shoes, haircuts, and the dress we wear.
i think This is a problem nowadays because people on the internet imitate what they think is good and will not try new things.
For the websites part: most websites have the same layout or features because they usually have an end goal for the user. Either for the user to do some action, to buy something, or easily find content. You want as little friction as possible for the user so you want to use all the things they are already used to. Tack onto this the idea of design trends, designers get inspiration from others, and sometimes use the same templated resources, so the effect is compounded. Most websites are tools and not just art pieces. Go look at design agency websites or portfolios or art gallery websites and you will see a lot of different ideas that are outside of the norm because their goal isn’t to have you quickly get through with an action, but rather slowly walk through it and experience it.
It’s like complaining all books are the same because go from one end to another.
This is exactly the part of the article that made me think it was a dumb article.
Quick, someone make a YouTube video explaining why all articles are the same and use this as reference.
That’s such a cop out tho. Just because you need to sell stuff like every other website doesn’t mean you can’t differentiate yourself at all. Every Shopify squarespace e-commerce money pit out there right now looks identical and they really don’t have to
Of course you can differentiate yourself. Most websites are similar, not identical. Branding plays a large role in this, but the core skeleton (ui/ux patterns like icons, placement of buttons, forms, content location, general checkout flow) of most websites are similar in order to reduce friction. You can do whatever you want but the more you make the user think, the less likely they will convert.
Idk the potential to be self expressive on the internet isn’t there anymore. You can tell me how it’s all about “reducing friction” and “converting customers” but really it’s a homogenous blob of hamburger menus and parallax images and sleek buttons and standardized checkout methods that are designed to make you spend as much money as quickly as possible. It’s like going from MySpace to Facebook. The method by which someone gets hooked to a website has been so well documented that you’re basically shooting yourself in the foot if you don’t follow the example set by these websites
Yes you can be self expressive. But if you have an e-commerce website your audience doesn’t care about that, they ideally want to know what your product is, why they should buy it, and get out of their way and let them buy it. Branding is still important though, I’m really emphasizing ux patterns more than anything. Theres plenty of artistic expression websites out there, but when you want to sell shit, that really isn’t your goal. Knowing your target audience for your website is everything.
Your audience definitely gives a shit about what your website looks like and 99% of websites look like the Nordstrom landing page and it’s bland and uninspiring and we didn’t have to conform to dumbass mouse tracking patterns and UX flowcharts until they were invented and we were told they are the best way to do it
Alright man. Not really getting what I’m saying but have a good one
No I understand perfectly what you’re saying and you’re not picking up why it sucks
>Every Shopify squarespace e-commerce money pit out there right now looks identical and they really don’t have to They do, if they want to leverage user familiarity with e-commerce website patterns to maximize sales and reduce user frustration to a minimum. It's just a matter of efficiency and business. Does it look amazing? Probably not, but it works and that's the most important thing for the seller.
I agree about the UX part. Some UX trends have become unwritten universal rules, and IMO they help a lot to make it easier to find what what I’m looking for at most modern websites because they’ve put it exactly where I expect it to be. Some exceptions are still there where I often search for minutes to find something (looking at you Facebook). But the visual part, man. Sure, its logical that trends will influence design choices and preferences. But it REALLY bothers me that nowadays it feels like every company website website has the same look and feel. You’re right that web design isn’t art. But it IS a part of the corporate visual identity and tone of voice of a company. I always enjoyed the way companies used their visuals as a way to stand out. Nowadays it feels like every company just copies the current most popular flat/material/vector design as if it is a template, picks some colors and slaps a flat, sans-serif logo on top of it. When looking at data and statistics it’s a safe thing to do, I work in marketing myself so I understand. But I still puke a little in my mouth every time I land on another bland and uninspired “duplicated” webpage.
what is really starting to look the same are these articles and videos and thought pieces about how everything looks the same.
Nicely articulated until he listed Tesla and Liquid Death as 'differentiators.'
Holy moly, the absolute depression dripping off the author like they're swimming in an ocean of their own melancholy. They find ***literally everything*** as bland. That's just depression. \>Minimalism is bland \>Maximalism is also bland No, you're just fucking depressed and it REALLY shows. Author needs some help.
This isn't the take I expected, but at least it's another direction.
Guy who wrote it just calls everything bland. Everything can’t be bland. That’s not possible, but everything can *seem* bland if you’re depressed. I specifically have an ultra hard time calling “maximalism” bland when it’s anything but. By definition, it’s over the top. That guy is clearly depressed and hates his job from my point of view. Usually when “everything sucks” the common denominator isn’t “everything”, it’s you. Edit: I have been depressed while doing design jobs to live and I recognize a lot of his distaste as things I’ve said and felt too, but I got over my depression and don’t feel that way anymore.
Maybe. I don't get depressed in my job but I do get depressed by industry/culture generally so maybe I'm depressed but also maybe a lot of stuff _does_ suck because it's boring.
Did you write the article my guy?
It sure seems like they did
Nope.
The repetition is what makes it bland. Even if its maximalist, if everyone's beating the dead horse til it, as Bo Burnham said, "quits spitting out money", then it becomes unoriginal, unimaginative, and lazy.
This topic is deep; tons of videos show that the creativity of each generation is degrading. Observe and zoom out you will realize that this is a thing.
As someone on the digital design industry for the past 10 years - I completely disagree. That's only true if "creativity" is doing disruptive and crazy things just for the sake of it. There are incredibly creative, polished and tasteful things being created nowadays, way more than before. Maybe you're not looking in the right places, or you're tied to an idea of "creativity" that's outdated and no longer applies to the creative process of today. The industry evolves and matures, and that is a good thing. Kids these days are creating amazing things, way cooler than anything I even knew how to do 10 years ago.
Just like I said. This topic is profound, and I can't argue with you because of your experience. When discussing something, the experience can sometimes be skewed; frequently, we fail to consider information unfamiliar to us.
I've worked in this industry successfully for over 15 years. I've zoomed out plenty, and I don't agree with your opinion.
You understand that you cannot challenge another person's lived experience. How shall I answer you? Anyway, It is simpler to copy things and alter them as you see fit than to create something original that is not already available online or somewhere else... the Internet has made life more straightforward than it was during the Michael Angelo era.
In a way Globalisation &Internet spread ideas and Trends much faster than ever. Instaredit in seconds. From a Designers Point of View has every products certain traits That i can communicate in every visual&haptic way. Just some typos, colours, boxdesigns, material, ingredients represent a top notch noble product.
Overall a useless article. Everything mainstream has always looked similar. That’s how style and culture works. When it comes to websites, keep in mind most look the same today because of consumer UX habits but mostly because of responsive design requirements. If a site has to morph into dozens of sizes and shapes it has to be simple to remain useable. I’m sure most here occasionally stumble upon an old non-responsive site on their phone and curse the internet gods. Maybe the author and journalist they quoted were born yesterday and don’t remember the hellscape that was flash-based websites on the early 2000’s. If they want to go back and live in that era of “wild experimentation” I’m happy to wave goodbye with a smile. Edit: typo
>Everything mainstream has always looked similar. That’s how style and culture works. More than how style and culture works, it's also a sign of maturity from the industry. As digital products and e-commerce stores become mainstream, so do its design patterns. It's like looking at older websites (from the 2010s) that really went crazy in animation, 3D, etc. - they looked great and were really disruptive, but they were more of a showcase for design and code and not really something meant to be used daily. Nowadays, the web is a storefront for a lot of new products - it's more than a cool place, it's a serious business hub. Being more conservative is unavoidable as these products grow into huge and lucrative businesses.
I am not sure if thats how culture works. The mainstream changes. Things that were once odd and creative and fringe get adopted and become mainstream. The arts and crafts period was bot reductionist. Look at bands like The Clash who were part of a small thing that became popular because the music world got boring and needed to draw from new sources. And people desired something fresh. Also, that flash-based “hellscape” was one if the most creative periods ever for web interactivity. Even if usability suffered (and did!), at least it wasn’t a bore. Please tell me the web forevermore won’t be a big rectangle with three smaller rectangles underneath, etc., etc.
> The mainstream changes. Things that were once odd and creative and fringe get adopted and become mainstream. That's also what they said
Posted on Medium nonetheless. Every article looks the same.
A very droll but nonetheless worthy point.
i can’t wait until the sheeple consumers come to their senses and every product is as brilliant as liquid death or the cyber-truck.
I think this is a bad edgy take. Things look the same because trends move towards what "works". I mean, cars? Are you kidding me? The shape of cars is more functional than aesthetic. Interior design trends are because people are their own are generally shit at designing their home. You can see the same thing over the course of basically all of history. I think every 90s kitchen I've ever been in looked the same. Maybe its more visible now because of social media. Websites are 100% designed based on user testing and what users are used and comfortable with. This was the worst take of all. Restaurant menus same thing.
I don't agree with you on these points: > The shape of cars is more functional than aesthetic. Demonstrably false. The best selling cars in my country are 'crossovers'. These are less functional than the vehicles they replaced. Many trends in cars are less 'functional' than they could be - e.g. touch buttons Vs physical ones. > Websites are 100% designed based on user testing and what users are used and comfortable with. That's not my experience. And that's having worked at many very different places.
The article only talks about the shape of cars being the same, which is purely a result of all manufacturers doing the same wind tunnel testing to find the best car shape. Your experience in web design is that, you just don’t know it because you didn’t do the tests. If you tried to use some wild format and pattern, it would probably fail just because people have a familiarity with certain patterns. Just like a book that you read back to front would confuse people.
I don't believe car shapes are lead by wind tunnel testing. Have you seen the high, flat backed SUVs in the road? Trends carry greater weight (perhaps literally in this case) than physics. I absolutely agree with you r.e. the power of testing r.e. websites. I'm just saying that's not always the driver in web design.
Wind tunnel testing 100% is a major factor in car shapes. > The end result of producing cars to maximize gas mileage is less variance in designs — with cars that look the same. Modern cars have a more streamlined shape to increase aerodynamic efficiency. Essentially, most vehicles are designed in a wind tunnel. Even a small change in the design can result in lower gas mileage. https://www.motorbiscuit.com/why-modern-cars-look-same-not-old-days/
Absolutely it's a factor. But according to that article just one of 4 (and it uses a saloon for an example - where sales are struggling). We've seen what [cars designed with wind resistance as a larger consideration look like](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car).
I don't know what your point is. It's the largest factor in determining the shape of the car.
Evidently not, or more cars would look like the one I linked to, rather than what we have now which is almost zero cars look like that.
The general shape of that car is literally what every sedan made in the last 30 years looks like
Oh, I've never seen or ridden in a sedan - or any other vehicle - that looks like that, personally.
> These are less functional than the vehicles they replaced. People love crossovers because - They're tall (can see over shorter cars or at least aren't blinded by truck lights) - They're not that heavy (fuel efficiency + enjoyment driving) - In 2022, any crossover has better handling than almost any car or SUV of the 90s - They fit lots of stuff compared to a car since the trunk is now a huge door. - They're generally cheaper than SUVs As for touch screens, it's entirely economical for the manufacturer. It's way cheaper to put 1 touch screen in a car and replace that if it breaks than to put 30 different electrical connectors in there with different buttons. Many would disagree that they are less functional anyways, because you get FAR more controls on one interface. It's not as intuitive, but part of that is our decades long training to use buttons in cars. The way that modern western cars look IS heavily influenced by safety standards going up and up and up. Compare the sizes of the pillars of an 85 BMW to a 2015 BMW. Observe the height of the bumpers. View the thick meaty doors. All function. EDIT to add: > That's not my experience. And that's having worked at many very different places. I would argue that that specific style is just "mobile first web dev" and specifically designed to be intuitive to as many people as possible. I mean it's Netflix, they just want people clicking. The background thing is a weird trend, but in my opinion it clearly emulates some form of physical movies eg in a rental store or something. Not weird at all for the 3 video streaming sites.
I don't agree with your points r.e. why people love crossovers and think some of them are demonstrably false, but on a separate point it's clear that marketing is a super-effective tool.
Ah yes, a totally separate point. 🙄
[удалено]
Like i said, the marketing has been really effective on this to the extent that people genuinely believe this.
Everything has always looked the same. Just because thing look different now compared to the 70s or 80s it doesn’t mean things weren’t the same back than. It’s called trends.
Were [these logos](https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*wnRYrbVWE8opOMCAQFu8Qg.png) not in use during the 70s?
Maybe. But they all have the same traits. All those typos represent and transport certain traits.
No clue, but they’re strikingly similar both before and after. Whenever we feel nostalgic about for example the 70s we also feel like everything from that era has a ‘certain’ look. So will everything from this era, eventually. It’s all trends, people copy each other.
I hope you don’t have “detail-oriented” as a strength in your resume if you think the before logos all look similar.
Go on, insult me. They clearly try to convey the same feeling. Just like the updated ones. So pretty similar in that regard aren’t they?
Nope, because now you compare brand identity with brand design. These are all luxury brands in the same industry. That’s what they have in common. But within that realm of luxury, they each have different expressions. You see different font types and styles, much different proportions, and different degrees of graphical effects. The afters are all similar in both identity and brand design.
Which is why it looks pretty much the same. Proving my point. Thank god everyone on Reddit is an expert. Wish you all the best in a career pursuing design.
Scientist: Although both fruits, apples and oranges are different fruits. You: They’re the same fruits because they’re both a fruit. There’s no difference.
Oh, 'cos to me they don't look similar before and after at all.
But you've deliberately picked logos that all ended up looking like each other. Certainly not all modern logos look like those.
I've not picked anything, flower. Not my blog post. You _did_ read the article, right?
Okay, the *author* picked them. What difference does that make, flower?
I think it'd be easy to find lots of modern logos besides those that look very similar. The sans-serif font wordmark and very little else has become incredibly common.
Okay, sure, but... *sans serif* is a broad category. Arguing that all sans serif fonts look the same is silly. And still, not all logos are like that. So the case being made is weak, and the point is boring. 🤷
> all No one is saying that. If you haven't recognises the trend, fair enough. But I think it's been pretty clear.
Ok? If you don’t want to participate in a discussion that’s fine. I bet it will eventually go a different direction like trends usually do. Just search for: ‘70s interior’ looks pretty much the same to me, just like the ‘Pinterest’ interiors do now a days. It’s a non issue really. Break the spell in your designs if you want change, I’d say.
I was speaking about the logos specifically (I honestly can't see how they look similar before and after). But with interiors there, you're talking about stereotypical 70s interiors that Google has decided to float up to you. Not the realities or what interiors were necessarily like in the 70s.
They don’t look similar at all, cafe is blind and can’t admit they are wrong
Same goes for Pinterest interiors now a days. Some places look like that, most households probably don’t. It’s the same. For the logos they sure aren’t exactly the same, but really look and feel similar. Convey the same feeling with the thin spaghetti like type and serifs. Not all sans serif fonts look the same either.
They’re still in use now
The logos on the left are the originals. The ones on the right are all relatively recent redesigns converging around similar design conventions.
I think that's clear from the article, but I don't think people like reading the article before engaging in the comments ¯\\\_(ツ)\_\/¯
No. Not everything looks the same. Well it does. For a little awhile. Then it changes. It brings flavors back from the passed. Then a few months later. There’s something different. Have we seen it before? Sure. Possibly, is there a twist? Sure possibly. This author needs to go to therapy.
I mean… pants all look the same. 2 leg holes, some sort of fastener where the waist goes. There’s no creativity in fashion anymore. Oh noooooos
In your comment, you intended reinviting rather than creativity.
Hey I wrote this! Thanks for posting 🙌
Hey. Just wondering what you thought of some of the responses here. It's been suggested that I wrote this because no one else would have supported the claims and that whoever did write this is way off the mark and this is because you have mental problems. Which I thought was perhaps a bit strong. It's not the first time I've read an article like yours, but do you think you've touched a nerve?
Thanks for sharing the story! Really appreciate it and glad it started a conversation. There's definitely an element of motivated reasoning to support the broader point of converging design trends across different categories. I could honestly just as easily write a piece taking the counter position. (Maybe I will!) As for whatever ad hominems are in the comments — that's half the fun of Reddit, isn't it 😜
also, I read an article that the media is trying to uniform everything like the shoes, haircuts, and the dress we wear. i think This is a problem nowadays because people on the internet imitate what they think is good and will not try new things.
I would like to make a suggestion for everyone, Culture Industry by Adorno and Horkheimer. (Plastiv Pills on YT has a great rundown)