It does use similar concepts to produce an effect that makes for dynamic tension throughout the design yet animates the design in a positive way.

There’s a fine line between copying and being similar but different. This comes close but, in my opinion, does not quite cross it.

That’s just my opinion, however.

http://www.gradiente.com

I also like the flat version more, while I don’t know what to think of the “3D” version still. If Adobe did a logo like this how would designers react?

Once again I’m amazed by the depth of negative feeling that Quark’s engendered amongst the creative community. Quark has made strides the other direction but, as I’ve had occaision to note more than once during Quark’s evolution, it takes ten ‘atta-boys’ to make up for one ‘oh, hell!’. Quark has worked up a whole lot of “oh, hell!’s.

I still think the new new logo is an improvement, but I can’t say that the criticism against it is wholly wrong. While the bevelling and lens-flare look good to me, I can allow as to how they may look like someone’s ‘trying too hard’; I’ve seen more than one comment comparing the ‘full’ version to the ‘flat’ version, saying that the ‘flat’ version looks great on its own. This could be a clear case of overdesign.

My point of view is comparing it to the “new” logo. Compared to it, the new^2 logo is about as close to the epitome of originality that Quark has done lately.

But, putting it out to an audience that had already been driven to apathy and cynicism by Quark’s other moves…maybe they’d been better off sticking with the new^1 logo (which was seeming to gain traction) and worried about the upcoming V7 release, which is going to have to fight its own battles.

Sam, seems that designers over at the HOW forum they are not quite enthusiastic with the logo.

Do you agree? I don’t know what to think. I honestly didn’t expect that kind of response to this second makeover. Though I don’t know what I expected…