Brand & Visual Vocab - Apple Logo
One of the most recognizable logos in technology is the Apple logo. As a longtime Apple user (I was using an Apple II E at the age of 3), I have followed the evolution of the Apple logo through the years. One thing that makes the Apple logo work is the obvious fact that it is a picture of an apple, and therefore easily recognizable and memorable. It is also easily scaleable as compared to a logo like the Yahoo! logo, which loses its meaning once it becomes too small to read.

Yahoo's solution is to use only the distinctive "Y" and "!" from their logo (adding a smiley) for use in a smaller form, which isn't nearly as instantly recognizable as an Apple logo of any size.

Apple's Logo also has the advantage of being based completely on shape rather than color. This allows apple to change the color as an indication of a new version of software or hardware. Compare this to Microsoft's logo, which would be nearly unrecognizable if it weren't for its colors. Also note that two of the colors are red and green, which a good percentage of the male population cannot see due to color-blindness.

Apple's logo is also placed strategically on every piece of hardware they sell, which is by the number of glowing Apple emblems on the backs of laptops one sees whenever one walks into a Starbucks. It is interesting to note that in the Powerbook G3, the glowing Apple logo was right-side up when a user had it closed and facing them (closed), but was upside down from perspective of anyone facing it while open.
It is interesting to note that in the next generation of Apple laptops, all of the Apple logos were oriented so that those facing the user could see the logo. This is interesting because Apple is indicating that it is more important for others to see the Apple logo oriented correctly (as one rarely looks at the back of the laptop when it is open) than for users to see it "right-side-up" while it is closed. Apple is banking on the fact that its users want to show off their equipment, and want others to know that their computer is an Apple.

Wikipedia.org, along with all wiki's, present many design challenges. Because a wiki's content is primarily provided by users, the design must be flexible and dynamic enough to accomodate a broad range of both information and media. Wikipedia's site has a "barebones" feel, which can probably be attributed to its non-profit nature. While critiquing wikipedia's design, one must keep in mind that their bandwidth is limited, and because of its poplularity is often very slow during peak times. Thus, one must count out large graphics files and any other design feature that might slow down the site or make it less accessible to its international clientele.

The front page is fairly sparse, and serves its purpose as a portal to its "main page" written in each language it supports. It does not use any sort of flag to denote the languages, which could make it slightly easier to navigate (though too many graphics may serve as a strain on the server).

The front page of Wikipedia.org features the logo surrounded in a circular fassion by each of the primary languages it is composed of. The logo is a great reflection of the intent of the site itself. It combines the elements of a globe, characters from different languages, and pieces of a puzzle, of which a few are missing. Together, these elements do a very good job of describing the role of Wikipedia. The globe sends the message that both the content and the authors of the material are culled from all over the world. The interlocking pieces of the puzzle convey how the articles are linked together, and the puzzle is incomplete to convey how the wiki is an ongoing, never finished work. Letters from various foreign languages fill in each puzzle piece, denoting the diversity of languages in which the wikipedia is written, and the diversity of the subjects for which it has articles. Cleverly, the smaller version of the icon rests in one of the puzzle pieces.



This distinctive "W" can also be found as Wikipedia's icon when used as Firefox's built in search bar option, and to the left of the URL.

While the concept of the wikipedia logo is great, I think it can be taken farther. While I can imagine a more interactive logo that has hotspots and changes states according to mouse-overs, this type of thing may detract from the message neutrality and simplicity displayed across the rest of the site. As encyclopedias are often thought of as dry, boring docuements, the lack of color in wikipedia's logo doesn't do much to make one think differently about this one. A few distinctive colors such as red and yellow would make the logo more eye catching, and more memorable as well. The characters inside the puzzle peices could be written in the same set of colors so that they would be more eye catching. Indeed, choosing just one color other than black and white would allow the logo to remain simple, yet make it more memorable and less bland.

Wikipedia's main page is probably where the designers intended most users to start a visit, as it has a new featured article each day that keep visitors interested in checking in often. Interestingly, the design on the main page (and most of the rest of the site) is different than on the language portal page. At the top edge, we see a grey and white sunburst design that seems to orignate from the middle of the page. This design is found throughout the site, and is probably intended to serve as a neutral background for its wide bredth of articles.

At the top of each of the articles are several tabs that pop seemlessly out of the document. These are well placed to catch the eye, and are intuitive to use. However, they are in plain text and could be spruced up and made easier to see if they were turned into colorful text or textured buttons.

The left column has a similar aesthetic, and is composed of "Navigation", "Search" "Toolbox", and "Other Languages" sections in that order. Wikipedia is a highly search intensive site, yet the "search bar" seems burried under much less frequently used features in the "Navigation" list. I would suggest putting search bars at more prominent locations at the top and bottom of each page instead, as it doesn't seem to belong with the other links on the sidebar. While turning eacher category into a rollover image that expands to show links may not be an option, I would at least spruce up the links that are there. The links in the sidebar are in plain text with the same dull blue-green bullet point next to each of them. I would color code each of the bulletpoints based on category, and when possible have a small icon next to each of them to give a visual clue. One example would be to put a $ symbol next to the "Donations" link.

One of the wikipedia's largest design shortcomings is its inconsistency in look and feel before and after a user logs in. (note: to see a page in the "logged in" state, one must first sign up for a free account at wikipedia. The functional difference of being "logged in" is that the user has three new sections of links available on the side-bar: "context", "my pages" & "special pages".
However, the look and feel of the page completely changes when one logs in.

The list of languages (written in their own characters) is moved from the bottom of the side-bar to prominent positions at the top and bottom of the page in the "logged in" version. I can see the point of putting these lists of languages on every page, as I can imagine being rescued from a page written in Mandarin with an "English" link. However, it seems logical to tuck this list away at the bottom or bottom left of the page, especially once a user has logged in (and presumably did not arrive there by mistake).

The "logged in" version of the page also completely does away with the wikipedia logo, and replaces it with a hastily thrown together top-bar, whose blue awkwardly matches that of the links on the page. The "WIKIPEDIA" heading is written in a plain font rather than the distinctive one that accompanies the logo on the not-logged-in page, and I am hardpressed to find any similarity near the top of the page aside from the name wikipedia itself.

One thing the "logged in" version got right is the placement of the "search bar", which is logically placed near the top left. Despite being billed as the prefered way to edit, gone are the tabs for "article", "discussion", "edit this page", and "discussion", which are instead scattered among the poorly organized new categories on the side-bar. I can see why a few of the new links on the side-bar are necessary for those who are logged in, but they could have easily been incorporated into the already decent design of the not-logged-in page. It seems the designers thought it would be confusing to have more than one place to click "edit", arguably one of the most important features of wikipedia, yet decided to take up much of the screen with foreign language links. Thus, the design fails miserably in its "call to action".

Perhaps the reason that the designers chose such a different look for the "logged in" page was to visually set it apart from the regular page. This does seem like a good idea, as otherwise one might become confused as to why the links are different or whether the posts one makes are anonymous or not. Instead of completely changing the design, I would suggest a more subtle change such as changing the background color from grey to light red or green, thus hinting to the user that the mode is different while still keeping the layout consistent.