- This topic is empty.
June 3, 2014 at 11:45 am #171679
So, my name is Joe and I’m a freelance web dev. I created a logo some months ago that was my name:
I actually kind of liked it but everyone told me they couldn’t read it. Literally everyone thought it said “doe” and not “Joe.” Whatevs. If a logo doesn’t work… it doesn’t work.
So, I spent awhile casually trying to reconfigure my name. For whatever reason, I really wanted to use my name for a logo. I wasn’t really successful though. I went the custom script route… hated it. I trid to do a monogram… hated it. I guess I just don’t think my name looks cool written.
Then, a light went off and I decided that a symbol was perfectly fine. I could always write my name right beside it and symbols are great because they conjure up an emotion that would take several, several words to accomplish. And… the words would NEVER have the primal effect that the symbol does.
So, here is my new logo:
It’s a building block obviously. Errr… maybe not obviously? I want to conjure up feelings of childlike creativity… feelings like anything is possible because with the web… it is! I also wanted to convey the message that everything I build is flexible and modular. I enjoy building things and hacking things to make them work in new ways. I think this logo perfectly sums up what I’m all about.
I may tweak it a little but for the most part, it’s done. I wanted something that was one color and negative space. That’s it. I accomplished that. I wanted something that was reasonably square. That has been accomplished… although it’s not a perfect square (dimension wise) because I didn’t really like the way it looked that way. So, I struck a compromise. And it’s pretty close. The aspect ratio is 12:11.
This is the original sketch:
Here is a little variation:June 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm #171687
It’s a building block obviously. Errr… maybe not obviously?
It conjures everything you describe, except (for me, anyway) “child-like.” I know it’s a children’s toy, but something about the sharpness of the lines and exactness of the orientation conveys something more grown-up. Like designing toys. Thinking-oriented toys.
This is not a negative observation, in any way. (And I love the “I ◈ WEB” concept!)
The only thing that rubs me wrong about it is that it’s an orthographic drawing. It makes it seem like the top (back) corner is too pointed …adding a little bit of perspective could be a good thing. But this is a very minor issue (and I’m probably in the minority of “people who would ever notice”).June 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm #171692
I’d be a little careful of it looking like a Logo piece!
Trademark struck down in the EU:
There is precedent in the US Supreme Court that trademark protection would not extend to functional aspects of a specific product (which is the basis of the EU ruling as well):
“It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, after which competitors are free to use the innovation”.
—Qualitex v. Jacobson Products Co, (93-1577), 514 U.S. 159 (1995)
The design patent has expired:
Further, it’s not like your product/ services have anything to do with blocks, or even toys of any kind. And Lego seems to be focusing its efforts on the original brick design, which is 2×8, not 2×2.
tl;dr: I don’t think you need to worry about it. However, it is an interesting read.June 3, 2014 at 12:46 pm #171693
a Logo piece!
just caught that… pun intentional?June 3, 2014 at 1:38 pm #171702
something about the sharpness of the lines and exactness of the orientation conveys something more grown-up.
This is definitely what I was going for. It’s like… the excitement you had as a kid but more grown up and refined. It’s sort of how car companies will incorporate “super car” elements that speak to everyone who played with Hot Wheels.
It makes it seem like the top (back) corner is too pointed …adding a little bit of perspective could be a good thing.
This is sort of intentional. I think the lack of perspective works slightly better for a logo and I kind of feel like logos don’t need to be bound by the laws of physics. Like for example. Technically, exactly half of the cylinders should be white. If the light source is lighting up the left side of the block, the left side of the cylinders should be white. But it somehow doesn’t look as good that way.
Also, this is somewhat of a statement I’m trying to make. The web is not bound by the same laws as the physical world. Perhaps the non perspective is a bit of a subtle statement that many won’t notice or care about but I kind of do.
Thanks for the feedback guys.
Oh… and I am aware of this:June 5, 2014 at 9:05 am #171937
fiction was a very nice hands health
Come again?June 5, 2014 at 10:46 am #171964
(edit: nevermind.)June 11, 2014 at 10:14 am #172438
@Josh Thanks man. I really liked the old logo too but the court of public opinion has spoken. Not even just on this site… like many other designers I know were like “I can’t read it dude.”
I personally have NO problems with letters that go slightly outside the norm of what they’re supposed to look like but apparently other people really do.
And, sometimes I forget that the main goal here is to make money. If a business isn’t profitable… it’s a hobby.
So, in light of that, I went in a different direction.June 11, 2014 at 5:13 pm #172468Kasey BonParticipant
Hi there! Personally I’m with Josh, I like the first logo better but I also understand how it was confusing people. Have you considered making the J look more like a J, like this? (Sorry not quite sure how to embed an image in these posts)June 11, 2014 at 7:53 pm #172470
I really like the first logo… I don’t know. I’m torn. Thanks for your suggestions. @traq LITERALLY suggested the same thing… it just feels unbalanced to me. Plus, you loose the implied loopty loop effect.
Here is how you embed images:
<img src="yourimageurl.com"/>June 11, 2014 at 8:43 pm #172473
I understand I’m suggesting you go back to the drawing board… hopefully that isn’t a depressing option :P
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Unfortunately it is. I thought creating would be my favorite part of this job… turns out it’s not. At least not creating for myself. It’s daunting.July 6, 2014 at 7:21 am #174800mmcgu1966Participant
why not do the ‘doe’ logo but as ‘joe’ by not having a full circle on the first letter. Does it NEED to be a circle? Alternately, if you really want to get on LEGO’s good side, you could have ‘joe’ in small letters in the middle of each block-pip.July 9, 2014 at 9:23 pm #175114sarawootyouParticipant
Nice! Logo ^^July 9, 2014 at 9:30 pm #175115July 13, 2014 at 4:58 am #175321Craigw14Participant
These are really nice, clean and not overwhelming.
- The forum ‘Design’ is closed to new topics and replies.