Need suggestions for this wordmark. I am
Shravan A S
Posts: 23
I am unsure about the weights in s/ compared to others + e/
Please give your feedback
Thanks
Please give your feedback
Thanks
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
overall, the weight of /s is not too bad, but contrast is slightly higher compared to the other letters imo. also, the terminals seem to taper down closer to the ball terminals while other letters feel fairly monolinear (compare to /e).0
-
The /s/ might just be a bit too small rather than too light? And I feel /r/e/ could use some kerning.
1 -
updated.
1 -
Looking good... just reduce the size of the "eye"
dots to 95%. Open up the spacing a bit between "si" and "or".1 -
I would squish to the /o.0
-
Alex Kaczun said:Looking good... just reduce the size of the "eye"
dots to 95%. Open up the spacing a bit between "si" and "or".
made those changes
What do you think?0 -
Looking much better now. I agree with Vasil to squish the /o a bit (a little wide looking with the /e). Otherwise, very nice.0
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.5
-
I would work a bit more on that overall wordmark. The slab serif is distracting too much compare to the /o,e,s. I think you used the typeface too litteraly, I wonder if should'nt chose a letter /o or/i for instance and give it something more schematic. To explain my point take a look those series of wordmark, look the work on the word HONEY for instance. Something else here too, there are good wordmark out there: SPLIT, SWITCH, RICE to name a few. Keep going.
0 -
Digging the updates —
- I agree with @James Montalbano about the tittles of your _i's_ (they're currently falling to the right too much. Increasing the weight will certainly be beneficial too!
- You could increase the length of the bottom slab serif on your _r's_ to consume that negative space a bit more.
- Could even make the arm of the _r_ slightly narrower to help with that negative space too.
- Another thing the logotype might benefit from is increased spacing overall. The _o_ and _e_ are drawing a lot of attention because of the open counters...spacing everything out just a bit would help.
- The _o_ does feel slightly wider compared to the _e_
2 -
I think overall the serifs could be a bit wider. Now it looks (almost) like a sans-serif with some slabs slapped on.1
-
Thank you so much everyone. All your suggestions were real eye openers.
However, I have taken your suggestions and corrected the wordmark. Here is the final wordmark with the logo lockup. Please give your suggestions. Thank you once again.
0 -
Here is a higher resolution version of the above. Also I would love your input on how it affects when it is scaled down. Thank you0
-
Looks good. Best of luck with the Apple lawsuit. ;-)0
-
0
-
in a wordmark, you have less of a family showing to carry the family resemblance. Looking at only ball terminals on the "s", I find it a bit lonesome. I would add a rounder terminal to the right arm of the "r" and the terminal of the "e" to pull it together more cohesively. Also, in the logo, the two "s" should be closer together. Reduce the space about half.The "s" in the logo is reverses to white and needs to be optically bolder to feel right with the rest.The s•s box sidebearings look a tad off. The left side looks a tad wider optically than the right. Too much top margin in the rounded box, slide it down a few units to balance better with the wordmark.0
-
Chris Lozos said:in a wordmark, you have less of a family showing to carry the family resemblance. Looking at only ball terminals on the "s", I find it a bit lonesome. I would add a rounder terminal to the right arm of the "r" and the terminal of the "e" to pull it together more cohesively. Also, in the logo, the two "s" should be closer together. Reduce the space about half.The "s" in the logo is reverses to white and needs to be optically bolder to feel right with the rest.The s•s box sidebearings look a tad off. The left side looks a tad wider optically than the right. Too much top margin in the rounded box, slide it down a few units to balance better with the wordmark.
I will try adding the ball terminals. Meanwhile I want to make sure I get this right - so the ss in the icon needs to shrunk a little so it's weight feels similar to the wordmark?
And
Do you mean to say there is more space on the left side of the ss than on the right inside the box?
0 -
so the ss in the icon needs to shrunk a little so it's weight feels similar to the wordmark?the SS in the icon, I would make just those two glyphs a bit BOLDER and leave the wordmark as is.It is optically, perhaps not by a ruler
Do you mean to say there is more space on the left side of the ss than on the right inside the box?
1 -
The user and all related content has been deleted.2
-
Thank you so much everyone. Your suggestions have been incredibly helpful!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 40 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 793 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 609 Type Business
- 443 Type Design Critiques
- 536 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 135 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 82 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 478 Typography
- 300 History of Typography
- 113 Education
- 65 Resources
- 494 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 161 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports