Live London Fashion Week SS16

Arguably the best show from BURBERRY WOMENSWEAR SPRING/SUMMER 2016 – The full show


Google finds its G-Spot!

Initially apologies to those who have arrived inadvertently here by (ahem) mistake. Our post is simply an appreciation of the new Google logo family and typeface together with a reiteration and update of the small is beautiful axiom!

We really like the new “softer/ smoother” Google logo which owes its sleekness almost entirely to the newly designed Product Sans typeface.

For a more comprehensive appreciation of its qualities and certain variants that Google have included in the initial version,  so as to speak here is their taster (Produfct Sans pdf). This includes Cyrillic Greek and Latin examples and also teasing a variant typeface, Noto Sans, which will “… bridge the gap by providing a broader set of 30 international scripts”.

It doesn’t look as if Product Sans is commercially available yet to download but we are sure this will come in due course.

For a detailed look at some of the updated icons in case you are not yet familiar with them SlashGear have a couple of articles worth a look:

Google themselves have  a worthwhile article on the overall redesign and of course their obligatory video.

Now then onto our recurring theme of small is beautiful vis a vis, inter alia, domain names!

So Google for the very basic reasons of space necessitated by the comparatively small screen sizes on smartphones tablets and increasingly wearables have reduced  their name from Google to G in these environments.

We increasingly believe that our sister domain is “probably” the smallest short domain, ……..roll on drums, in the world!

Using the Product Sans typeface I is clearly the smallest letter in the alphabet both upper and lowercase. It’s only real competitor is L which loses out on area in lowercase and width in uppercase.

The other country code top level domains with the shortest short, ie one letter, domains are we believe .co and .de. Using the product sans typeface d, e and o are approximately 20% wider than both u and k. c is 10% wider than both u and k. So there you have it.

So our question is whether, in the interests of clarity and space, in the not too distant future  Apple = i?