Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board

Logo competition at Design Outpost

Following Monads post about logo redesign, and the thumbs-up from several people regarding Design Outpost, our company has set up a competition at the respective WebSite.
As you are all aware, the JoS forum readers are in a class of there own, so any quick feedback from people here would be very gratefully received. Dont spend any longer than a couple of minutes on it --< might make a good coffee break distraction. Even "I like Bill's entry" with no explanation why (replace "Bill" as necessary) would be useful (though the explanation would be nice!)
Heres the link
If the link doesnt work --> --> Forums --> Logo Competitions --> "do IT fluid"

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Mar 19 2004, 09:16 PM
Too busy

Mar 19 2004, 10:03 PM
Too dull (and, with the text duplicated, too much text)

Mar 20 2004, 08:06 AM
How about using just the last of the 6 lines?

Mar 20 2004, 10:34 AM
Graphic is a bunch of grapes, not a fluid.

Mar 20 2004, 11:17 PM
Better that pennyln's previous entry

Mar 21 2004, 07:02 PM
Eliminate the whitespace that separates the words?

Mar 22 2004, 10:42 PM
I like this one because it's relatively simple: I can understand it

Mar 23 2004, 01:42 AM
I like dragon as an idea, but not this one: too stylised (it's in no way a *real* dragon) and also too busy (eye is stuck on the graphic junk for too long before scrolling right to see the text; perhaps any graphic would be better on the right that on the left).

Mar 23 2004, 04:15 AM
I prefered the previous colours

Christopher Wells
Tuesday, March 23, 2004

> I prefered the previous colours
If you want "stronger colours" for this logo, perhaps the crimson and green from the flag, instead of dull red and purple.

Christopher Wells
Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Thanks for the very useful feedback Christopher.

You're right --< it looks like a bunch of grapes (or, someelse said a "medical condition"!). We like the concept and 60's stylisation hes used though. We've asked for a more "fluid" (and less grape!) like revision --> looking forward to seeing it.

Have also asked for the font to be tidied on the "eliminate whitespace" logo.

The "relatively simple" entry is interesting because you say "you can understand it" This is a reply I was worried I would get :) I often put "cool" before "it makes sense". I wonder how important that is in a logo. You are definitely right --> the original colours were better.

Good idea about having the graphic on the right with the dragon one. Kind of like eating your carrots before the roast potatoes! Would also hold the logo. I shall post a request for a revision along your lines.

Thanks again --< that was very appreciated.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

> We've asked for a more "fluid" (and less grape!) like revision --> looking forward to seeing it

My grandmother (who lived in Wales) painted waterfalls, which are a perfectly lovely example of a fluid; a collection of marbles is a red herring IMO. A minimalist representation of a waterfall is just a couple of curvy lines ... but I digress. dynagirl's swirls-in-a-single-marble does say "fluid" to me.

> I wonder how important that is in a logo

I read once (in the context of 'branding') that people tend to be able to recognise (have memorised) 1000s of logos: IBM's horizontally-striped 'IBM' logo, Nike's swirl, McD's arches ... I don't recall any that are complicated in appearance. Pick any logo at random (e.g. and ) and you'll find that it's easy to understand, to take in ... they're logos which you can absorb: <art_critic>which is the opposite intent to the lightboxes images that you posted, which are entrancing art and which absorb you (i.e. in which you lose yourself)</art_critic>.

Christopher Wells
Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Thanks for the insights into Logo design Christopher. I have been coming into this from the angle of "an image that absorbs you" --> as you quite spectacularly picked up from my lightbox.
At the start of the competition, I was worried by the lack entries. Maybe your observation is the reason why some designers have stayed away --> the "absorption" is the wrong way around!
Images that you absorb as opposed to images that absorb you.... For someone a bit "arty" like myself, that is probably the best single sentence piece of advice about logo design I have heard.

I will put it into action when I hold the WebSite competition on Design Outpost, and see what difference it makes.

BTW, loved the Welsh links! I wish I was painting waterfalls now myself!

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

None of them seem to bring across a feeling of 'IT' or software development.  I keep thinking of an oil company or something.

Happy to be working
Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Thanks for the feedback. What you say is interesting because we are trying to actually get away from saying "software" in the logo. Now, that might be a very bad thing to do, only time will tell. However, our business model is to target businesses with none or very little IT infrastructure. And these people tend to be suspicious of IT and men in suits with laptops. Hence as well the emphasis on the Welsh flag elements.

Funnily enough, the locals around the farm initially thought dIf was the result of  "local farmer strikes oil"! Maybe that has influenced us more than we knew.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

doItFluid sounds vaguely sexual.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Bob :) Funnily enough... we actually chose a company name that had something "vaguely sexual" within it. Not that in anyway is dIf an "adult" company --< but its on most peoples minds for enough of each day to help get the company name remembered. Its a balancing act though --> not sure we could get away with anymore.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

I like the pennyln #1

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

I think the entry submitted by beatz (especially the right-most image on the second row) is the most visually appealing.

As part of my software development work, I do a lot of visually oriented work (GUI design, web page design), because it's something I take a lot of pleasure from and I like to think that I'm reasonably good at it.

This background has given me some firm views on logos:

1) Corporate logos should generally be fairly simple - and should almost always include the company name (the sole exception is cases where the logo itself very clearly communicates the company name - for example, the Apple logo).

2) They should look good in monochrome as well as colour.

3) Colour: Be very careful about the use of colour in the logo. Unless you have a good understanding of colour theory, don't assume that you know enough to pick the right colours. Don't use more than two colours (not counting black and white). Colour theory is pretty straightforward, and is an interesting topic in itself.

4) Make sure it looks good at smaller sizes as well as large sizes. A simplified version of the logo might be a good option for cases where it needs to be smaller. Experiment with using the logo in letterheads and other common usages to make sure that it can be used sensibly. For example, can the logo be positioned anywhere on the page, or is it a "centered" logo that forces you to put it in the center of the page? Avoid logos that impose constraints on it's position on a page.

If you pay attention to all of these basics, you'll be much happier with the result in the long term.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

I'm glad I'm not the only one, Burninator. I think I would want to make those blobs a bit more "drip" like, but other than that it is my favourite too.

What about just making the initials of the company "fluid like" in appearance and just using that? "d" is quite easy I think (just a drip shape with the "tail" drawn up to a vertical). Make the dot on the "i" a droplet. Then something or another with the "f" (maybe a long tail that drains off into a small pool under the lettering). Don't ask me to draw the bugger though!

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home