[UGAF] Logo critique?

[Cory Maylett]

Ditto.

Simplify it down to the bare essentials. A logo is a symbol, an icon  
representing something bigger -- they aren't usually full-blown  
illustrations.

Imagine it half an inch high, in black and white, sent to someone via  
fax. Will it hold up or turn into a gray, blurry blob? Does it work in  
black and white? Does it work in grayscale. Does it work 30 pixels  
high? The intended purpose of the logo might make some of these  
questions meaningless, but first you need to define the parameters of  
what the logo is expected to do and accomplish. Then ask yourself,  
"Does it do those things?" Generally, simpler is better. It's not what  
you add that counts, it's the unneeded things you subtract that make  
the biggest difference.

Cory

On May 20, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:

>> I would suggest simplifying the whole thing down to a 2D image,  
>> simply
>> because if you look at a lot of well known logos they're not  
>> usually 3D or
>> very "photoshop" looking.
>
> I would strongly second this suggestion.
> _______________________________________________
>
> UGAF mailing list
> UGAF at ugaf.org
> http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/ugaf
> IRC: #ugaf on irc.freenode.net