Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Redesigning my engineering program's logo, need critique
- Thread starter Mushrooshi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would use a different font that is closer to engineering and architecture. The same applies to the wheels. They are too rounded to express the precision that an engineering software might want to be associated with. Get some inspiration from basic engineering books and plans.
If those are supposed to be gears, I'd make them look more like gears.
I read them simply as asterisks and didn't understand what they meant.
Three little gears would look very cute.
I read them simply as asterisks and didn't understand what they meant.
Three little gears would look very cute.
I didn't look too much into the typography, so I'll go and look through more fonts. I'd like to stick with lower-case sans serif though.
Ironically, I designed those asterisks on Autodesk Inventor
Very true
If those are supposed to be gears, I'd make them look more like gears.
I read them simply as asterisks and didn't understand what they meant.
Three little gears would look very cute.
They are supposed to be ambiguous symbols which could be represented as gears or asterisks. The gears aspect of it comes from how each 'leg' of the asterisks is like a tooth of a gear, in the way it is positioned. Could the look be more emphasized by dragging the shapes closer?
edit:
I moved the stars a bit closer so that, while still looking like asterisks, the gear behavior is more pronounced
If those are supposed to be gears, I'd make them look more like gears.
I read them simply as asterisks and didn't understand what they meant.
Three little gears would look very cute.
I agree with this and had the same perception regarding the asteriks, was unsure what they meant and read it as *** etc.
Also made me think a bit of of the group "Red Hot Chilli Peppers"
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...5DCBQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0
Why not use something a little clearer as suggested, like three little gears?
How or why does an asterisk represent "the computer aspect of ETA"?
Asterisk is often a symbolic operator in computer languages, but this use of them doesn't look like any use in any computer language. Therefore, it has little or no meaning for computer programmers.
And if it's intended to represent multiplication, dereferencing, etc. to people who aren't computer programmers, then they won't understand the reference, so it has no meaning for them.
I've been programming for a long time, and my first impression was "Wow, cheesy use of asterisks" followed by eye-rolling and thoughts of "overwrought" on reading the explanation. The interlocking gears look much better, and convey synchronized or meshed action, which is certainly an important aspect of computer programming.
If you have to explain it, then you've already failed the first-impression test.
The copy written for "Refreshing" is very poor. It essentially says it's newness for the sake of newness. And the "others are, we should, too" justification is herd-following, not exactly something a leading institution should admit.
Asterisk is often a symbolic operator in computer languages, but this use of them doesn't look like any use in any computer language. Therefore, it has little or no meaning for computer programmers.
And if it's intended to represent multiplication, dereferencing, etc. to people who aren't computer programmers, then they won't understand the reference, so it has no meaning for them.
I've been programming for a long time, and my first impression was "Wow, cheesy use of asterisks" followed by eye-rolling and thoughts of "overwrought" on reading the explanation. The interlocking gears look much better, and convey synchronized or meshed action, which is certainly an important aspect of computer programming.
If you have to explain it, then you've already failed the first-impression test.
The copy written for "Refreshing" is very poor. It essentially says it's newness for the sake of newness. And the "others are, we should, too" justification is herd-following, not exactly something a leading institution should admit.
I agree. I wouldn't set out to make a logo ambiguous.... just the opposite.
After a second look at the logo, if I had to stick with asterisks I'd try them in a lighter weight and different color (or gray if in B&W).
Right now the elements are too similar.
The mark could use a little more contrast.
I liked your first version but, when viewed from afar, it resembles a backwards facing arrow ( eta ). You should consider putting the gears on the right side facing forward.
The last revision you did with the gears jammed together looks fine blown up will look a mess at a small scale.
The last revision you did with the gears jammed together looks fine blown up will look a mess at a small scale.
In my opinion, there are 3 (or more) major things that are keeping this logo from working.
1. Not enough research. The OP is trying to force a concept that is not necessarily related to the meaning. In other words, the concept and execution is weak. Hint: most people doesn't think "computer" when they see asterisks.
2. By combining asterisks to represent gears is not communicating a strong message. When I first saw them, I didn't think of gears, and I had no idea what they represented until I read the description. But by changing them to gears, they risk become cliché (see #1). And besides, what do gears have to with computers?
3. The type face has little or no relation to the asterisks so it's not allowing the mark to be cohesive. A good design doesn't just slap on type - the type must have a relationship to be the most effective. Compare round shapes, angles, thickness, etc... Pay close attention to spacing, hierarchy, and position.
I'll close with saying that the logo doesn't have a strong identity; it is very generic. It would be just as effective on the side of a general contractors pickup truck, or as a logo for ACME widget factory. Just add the phone number! And I also agree with what another poster said when he thought the description of the logo was "generalizing". The descriptions are very weak and trying to justify the design! I especially hate the section "refreshing" with the cocktail. It's just terrible. I suggest the OP look up "Style Guide" with Google and take a look at what others do to sell/describe their mark. Maybe Intel or Cisco?
1. Not enough research. The OP is trying to force a concept that is not necessarily related to the meaning. In other words, the concept and execution is weak. Hint: most people doesn't think "computer" when they see asterisks.
2. By combining asterisks to represent gears is not communicating a strong message. When I first saw them, I didn't think of gears, and I had no idea what they represented until I read the description. But by changing them to gears, they risk become cliché (see #1). And besides, what do gears have to with computers?
3. The type face has little or no relation to the asterisks so it's not allowing the mark to be cohesive. A good design doesn't just slap on type - the type must have a relationship to be the most effective. Compare round shapes, angles, thickness, etc... Pay close attention to spacing, hierarchy, and position.
I'll close with saying that the logo doesn't have a strong identity; it is very generic. It would be just as effective on the side of a general contractors pickup truck, or as a logo for ACME widget factory. Just add the phone number! And I also agree with what another poster said when he thought the description of the logo was "generalizing". The descriptions are very weak and trying to justify the design! I especially hate the section "refreshing" with the cocktail. It's just terrible. I suggest the OP look up "Style Guide" with Google and take a look at what others do to sell/describe their mark. Maybe Intel or Cisco?
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna
Op, you might want to avoid the asterisk and the colours red, green and white with that perhaps unfortunate name of your programme; otherwise you could potentially be confused as a supporter of ETA, the Basque group considered a terrorist group in the EU (France and Spain, in particular). If colour were used improperly with your asterisk design it risks confusion with the Basque flag. NTTAWWT.
I'd suggest using a lowercase eta if you wished to avoid the political minefield and connote a stronger tie to engineering. Just a small idea.
Op, you might want to avoid the asterisk and the colours red, green and white with that perhaps unfortunate name of your programme; otherwise you could potentially be confused as a supporter of ETA, the Basque group considered a terrorist group in the EU (France and Spain, in particular). If colour were used improperly with your asterisk design it risks confusion with the Basque flag. NTTAWWT.
I'd suggest using a lowercase eta if you wished to avoid the political minefield and connote a stronger tie to engineering. Just a small idea.
I understand where you're coming from with regards to a logo refresh, but I can tell you out of experience you're missing the underlying concept that is adding value to the brand. IMO you've also mixed up branding with design, branding is not just a logo but the underlying philosophy that makes an organisation special, like Volvo isn't just a blue logotype rather the concept of saftey personified into a car
Yes a refresh is a good idea, but don't get into the realm of tooling or "cargo culting", lets do it because others do it. If you are rationalising the general concepts of good logo design you might be missing the mechanics of the brand and the overall business purposing/values.
You will only ever refresh a logo if the branding is strong and is fading or if you need to re-establish positioning of the logo in the marketplace. Although a light concept no-where have you mentioned the concept and purposing of the value in investing time, money and effort of updating the logo.
Also I would be interested to see the competitors logos, in simplifying you may be "greying the logo to the environment", in otherwords making the design appeal bleed into the field not stand out. You may have nailed it, or it might need a different treatment that is also the value of a competitive analysis before design a logo.
I would recommend more research and talking about adding tangilble value to the brand.
Yes a refresh is a good idea, but don't get into the realm of tooling or "cargo culting", lets do it because others do it. If you are rationalising the general concepts of good logo design you might be missing the mechanics of the brand and the overall business purposing/values.
You will only ever refresh a logo if the branding is strong and is fading or if you need to re-establish positioning of the logo in the marketplace. Although a light concept no-where have you mentioned the concept and purposing of the value in investing time, money and effort of updating the logo.
Also I would be interested to see the competitors logos, in simplifying you may be "greying the logo to the environment", in otherwords making the design appeal bleed into the field not stand out. You may have nailed it, or it might need a different treatment that is also the value of a competitive analysis before design a logo.
I would recommend more research and talking about adding tangilble value to the brand.