

https://www.dropbox.com/home/01%20Dise%C3%B1o/GAKKO?preview=gakko.jpg
tylerdurden wrote:Seems hard to read. Opposite the idea of a logo, IMO.
Maestral wrote:"Hard to read" does not necessarily means that text is not legible. You`ve used so many variables and made letters which are not consistent nor coherent.
Imagine typical movie ransom note - it is legible, but that typographical approach is not quite advisable for logo.
honest opinion wrote:Braun. That's a consistent, legible logo.
Coca-cola. Fancy, still coherent for a "few decadces".
Samsung.
And then there are those based on Helvetica, from BMW to IBM.
None which would use a stroke around the lettering.
None of which would imply the existence of a stroke in negative space, messing with your recognition when looking at.
None of them use the impression of z-ordering, one character overlapping an other one, no 3D whatsoever.
(Well IBM and CNN are doing something fishy.)
ǤâΛV˄○
That is by definition not a legible logo. Arguably would hardly work in practice, though I know that a straight "better throw it away" kind of response is hard to recive.
Why should I bother anyway? Logos carve into your unconscious. Along with ads, big brands mass program ideologies far from the human nature to promote the interests of self chosen demi-gods exploiting the planet.
brynn wrote:This is older topic, and I'm not sure if the tutorial is still around. But you might be able to find, with a little research. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=943
Somewhere in this forum is a really nice message about what makes a good logo. I haven't been able to find it, unfortunately. The message is old, although the advice still applies....if only I could find it. Maybe someone has a link? I remember the message was quoted and/or referenced a few times, before it faded out of circulation.
Even if you don't want to edit this version, maybe you could try a different version, keeping everyone's comments in mind. Just a thought