> > For one - a snow hat misses the idea of a snow drift completely, and I > dislike too vague topical hints in a logo. Same would be true for a > snowflake or a snowman.
Agreed actually. > > I also see issues with scalability. It becomes increasingly hard to > maintain a good "snow" feeling at small sizes while also keeping up > legibility. Covering the top part of an S makes it much harder to read > than covering the bottom, too. Agreed as well. > > I don't want to sound too dogmatic, anybody can come along with a > candidate that proves me wrong. To me these reasons are just compelling > enough to not go and try for my own. > No problem, that's understandable. > >> It's just that people even recognizing it as an "S" if they haven't seen >> any other meaning will bring up "what's that S for?" instead of "what's >> that logo I don't recognize?" (the latter is hard for people to discuss >> referentially). Again, just some thoughts to consider, not certain about >> these being fundamental. > > ... > >> I think there's a concern about the latest proposed Snowdrift.coop logo >> that it doesn't make the S easy enough to see. It's something you don't >> get from a quick glance. > > > The two identical nested "S" characters may not instantly be recognized > as such, but once you see them (especially next to the name) they remain > even more recognizable than any "standard S". It is one of those things > that can't become unseen - I like how that plays out in our favor. > > I'm not sure everyone will experience that, but some will, and I think it works. I don't dislike the new logo myself. I find it appealing, iconic, professional… it has lots of good qualities. The issues were mainly fit, and meaning. But since we can't be perfect… well, we seem to agree on what is good or not-so-good about the new logo, and I will defer to you about which balance is right for the logo. You think the iconicness is more important than the inclusion of snow or other meaning. I don't disagree, I'll take your word for the priorities. I do think the new logo can be interpreted as a cyclical, on-going, and cooperative symbol, which is all positive. Furthermore, it's reminiscent of the new co-op logo with intertwined o's. >> >>> B. You also address the appropriateness concerning sharp edges and the >>> overall "corporate bank style", which misses the "lighthearted, >>> whimsical, fun, approachable, and human" side of what Snowdrift.coop >>> represents. I may put more effort into finding a way to make it more >>> approachable from a non-corporate perspective, but can't promise too >>> much unless it gets decided that we need to ditch my current suggestion. >>> >> >> FWIW, I'm more okay with the mismatch than with the idea of making >> everything more hard and corporate looking. I also don't really mind the >> mismatch as much as my wife did. I'm sure people would get used to it >> either way. >> > > I'm not necessarily saying the "hard" style needs to be brushed over > everything. I just said that *if* there was a connection between page > and logo it should always be logo->page not logo<-page. > > Okay, but let's accept some mismatch rather than make the page hard-edged where it works better to be softer and more organic. I don't really mind the mismatch myself. I am ready to agree on my part to consensus around the newest logo. I just want a blog post and outreach to others so we get wider perspectives before we go ahead with finalizing. Cheers -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
