Need suggestions for this wordmark. I am

Shravan A S
Shravan A S Posts: 23
in Type Design Critiques
I am unsure about the weights in s/ compared to others + e/ 
Please give your feedback
Thanks
Tagged:

Comments

  • Rafael Saraiva
    Rafael Saraiva Posts: 31
    edited July 2020
    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).
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 1,988
    The /s/ might just be a bit too small rather than too light? And I feel /r/e/ could use some kerning.
  • Shravan A S
    Shravan A S Posts: 23
    updated.
  • Alex Kaczun
    Alex Kaczun Posts: 163
    Looking good... just reduce the size of the "eye"
    dots to 95%. Open up the spacing a bit between "si" and "or". 
  • Vasil Stanev
    Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
    I would squish to the /o.
  • Shravan A S
    Shravan A S Posts: 23
    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". 
    Hey 
    made those changes
    What do you think?
  • Alex Kaczun
    Alex Kaczun Posts: 163
    Looking much better now. I agree with Vasil to squish the /o a bit (a little wide looking with the /e). Otherwise, very nice.
  • André Simard
    André Simard Posts: 186
    edited July 2020
    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.
  • Scott Biersack
    Scott Biersack Posts: 76
    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_ 
    Excited to see where this ends up!

  • Jasper de Waard
    Jasper de Waard Posts: 641
    I think overall the serifs could be a bit wider. Now it looks (almost) like a sans-serif with some slabs slapped on. 
  • Shravan A S
    Shravan A S Posts: 23
    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.

  • Shravan A S
    Shravan A S Posts: 23
    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 you
  • Simon Cozens
    Simon Cozens Posts: 752
    Looks good. Best of luck with the Apple lawsuit. ;-)
  • Shravan A S
    Shravan A S Posts: 23
    Simon Cozens said:
    Looks good. Best of luck with the Apple lawsuit. ;-)
    hahha. gotcha 

  • Chris Lozos
    Chris Lozos Posts: 1,458
    edited August 2020
    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.
  • Shravan A S
    Shravan A S Posts: 23
    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.
    Thank you so much for this feedback. 
    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?

  • Chris Lozos
    Chris Lozos Posts: 1,458
    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.

    Do you mean to say there is more space on the left side of the ss than on the right inside the box?
    It is optically, perhaps not by a ruler

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Shravan A S
    Shravan A S Posts: 23
    Thank you so much everyone. Your suggestions have been incredibly helpful!


Categories