From: Theodore H. Smith (delete@elfdata.com)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 08:22:17 EDT
> They were loosely modelled on the W3C HTML validation logo, which
> is comparable, in some ways, in what it is trying to do. See:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/consortium/newcomer.html
>> My third was that I probably ought to say it anyhow. Maybe they will
>> will take a look at other large organisation's logos and see how to
>> make the Unicode.org logo as snazzy.
>
> Well, it is a "Unicode Savvy" logo, not a "Unicode Snazzy" logo. ;-)
>
> And one of the design goals was to make it small (but recognizable),
> so that it wouldn't burden the loading of pages that might want
> to use it. The snazzier you make it, the more you make people
> pay (in time and bytes) for loading the snazz.
I disagree, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. OK, here
is what I meant.
1) Pink or grey? It's almost a "yukky pink" or a "boring grey". Color
change isn't likely increase byte size any more than it will decrease
it. SURE, it is the same pink your website uses, however a color may
look right or wrong depending on the other colors about. On the rest of
your website, it looks OK. In the logo, it doesn't.
2) The spacing on Savvy doesn't look right. Its too wide, and the font
should be a snazzier font. The red letters I really don't like. I'm not
sure when red lettering is good, in fact. Red looks like the crossing
outs that a teacher might give. It's often used for comment coloring in
developer IDEs, meaning like "not here", or "ignore". I don't think
that's the right image.
3) Why not go for a blue "savvy" or a green? Blue and green suggest
more like "in harmony", and savvy is about being in harmony.
4) In fact, why not skip the word "savvy"? W3's logo doesn't use it. It
doesn't really have a pleasant ring to it. I'd say even "Compliant"
sounds better. Or even just the tick is better.
5) I do like the "Unicode" lettering, however there appears to be
whitish pixels around the letters. Especially noticable on the pink
logo. Some extra white space is needed, also because the letters are
too compressed and harder to distinguish.
6) The tick isn't quite right also. Its WAY too short on the long
stroke. It looks a bit stunted and unhealthy. The box behind the tick
actually gets in the way and is superfluous. It really clumsifies and
awkwardifies the image. I know W3's tick is a right angle, but why not
a more flowing graceful tick? That really implies elegance. Or is
elegance something your company isn't about? (Some people who complain
about the decomp/comp mappings might say it's not).
Why not put up a call for Unicode logos? Instead of asking for an
inhouse one to be made, I'm sure you'd get more logos offered than you
could know what to do with. At the worst, you could have a design to
learn from.
Some of my logos were made with suggestions from other people. I did
the work, I did most of the design, but important elements came by
other people's ideas. This way I own what I do and it is "in house",
but still I am open to external improvement.
Hey, if you can give me a tiff of the "Unicode" word (in it's large
original format) which is the part that I actually did like, I could
re-do the rest for you in PhotoShop v6 format, and submit as a
suggestion.
--
Theodore H. Smith - Macintosh Consultant / Contractor.
My website: <www.elfdata.com/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 09:05:15 EDT