[UGAF] Logo critique?

[Dustin Davis]

I guess I'll go against the grain and say that 3D's logo's are okay. It's
now web 2.0, you need something glossy and high class for your website. But
your logo should also have a 2D version and a gray scale and a black white
version. Look at the evolution of the Apple logo and the DIRECTV logo for
example.

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Cory Maylett <rht at maylett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> UGAF mailing list
> UGAF at ugaf.org
> http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/ugaf
> IRC: #ugaf on irc.freenode.net
>