BTW - their current site is at:

www.unicon.net

No takers??

Haven't been on for a little bit. I like the colors and the cant on the top of the U shape.

The flat bottom of the mark kind of bugs me though. Could it be rounder on the bottom like it is in the U of Unicon? Or could you change the typeface to match the mark?

I'd lose the reg. symbol if at all possible.

Am I correct that you're showing these three as variations of same for different layouts and applications?

Sativo,
I like the U, but
i would shoot for a more distinctive type treatment.

is that Myriad?

Jon, I was thinking the same thing about the mark. Making it rounder at the bottom. And yes, these are variations of the same for different applications. One of the requirements is to stay flexible. The have a product UI, web site, print, etc. It needs to scale well too.. which it seems to do.

bj, I really liked the myriad. What else do you recommend?

> bj, I really liked the myriad. What else do you recommend?

I could say, Myriad is super-duper, just go with that I guess.

But that would be doing you a disservice.

I would opt for a little more time spent either:
a) creating something distinctive yourself
b) modifying Myriad to make it more distinctive
c) perusing some foundries with great type underused in the U.S. (linotype.com, for example)
d) look at some indie foundries, such as Mark's

www.ms-studio.com/

You found typophile, so you are on the right path.
I would go further to say that it behooves any logo
designer to follow the type industry closely, be aware of new releases,
and learn about big and small foundries and the type of type they offer.

And if you have time, do something distinctive.
Using an Apple System Font, no matter that it

My two lincoln cents: the U mark looks like something created for a paper company. I don't feel its Academic, maybe its the colors. The typeface is forgettable. I like the Caps and small caps version of the old logo better. I think you have a ways to go. Maybe its time to go away from the computer (paper and a pencil, come up with a look you like then find a way to make it on the computer)

how about a lowercase u for unicon?

I think it works. The Colors and the "U" mark all seem quite resolved. T'd stick with the U/lc type treatment - all lowercase id very fashionable now, but more appropriately reserved for projecting the kind of self-conscious humility yhat multi national corporations crave these days. Initial caps and lowercase seems more formally suited for an educationally-oriented venture.

The selection of typeface should, of course, be more considered.

Anyway, it's tons better than this:

Here's an update. Thanks for the feedback. It's helped a lot.

As far as lowercase/uppercase.. I decided to stick with the uc U because of the emphasis on the letter U in the mark as well as other campaign related issues that tie into their market.

For example, they deal with Universities so the promenent U makes sense for them.

Myriad was the favored typeface because of its close resemblence to Frutiger, which was initially appealing due to its clean / symmetrical strokes and its classic nature. But since Myriad is a bit more friendly, it worked better for their messaging.

I wasn't comfortable really changing it because sometimes you can't improve on perfection. Also, I think uniqueness and memorability can be achieved through orientation, in this case the mark, colors, and layout of the logo.

I would still like to hear other views, so please share your thoughts to help me make whatever improvements I can before this goes live.

I think you need to seperate the "n-i" ever so slightly. It seems to be just a little tighter than the rest

hi sativo

your first post reminds me this



sometimes when we work with simple forms we are risking to look like others.

anyway, when the work is honest it don't matters to me. i think that your recent update has nothing to do with the unilever logo. i find it better than your first post, but i do think that the union between Unicon and the logo needs work

good work

CG

I'll play with the kerning a bit more on monday. The files are on my work machine. Thanks for the input.

Cristian, can you elaborate on your last suggestion? How would you recommend making a stronger connection between the mark and type?

BTW: I increased the vertical scale of the mark just a bit after I posted this version. I think it helped. I'll post when I get in on monday.

Thanks again for everyone's feedback!!

I think Scott is right in his last comment. Looking forward to the finished result.

Jon

sativo... is just a change of proportions and ubication.

the dot of the "i" bothers me, and push up the isotype from the word, i think that you should try "Unicon" in a lighter weight, trying to match with the white stroke of the "U" in your isotype.

It's really small stuff but it realy matters when your finishing a work.

anyway, i hope i make mi self clear.

good luck
CG

Cristian,

Thanks for the comments. I'll make a few changes today and post later.

As far as the weight of the stroke, I actually changed it manually to be a bit heavier then the original. I was going for more of an optical balance between the white stroke that seperates the U in the mark and the overall weight of the mark. Besides, having it any lighter looks odd in print -- just too thin. You disagree?

I think Chritian might be right. It would seem that either the logo mark and logo type need to be connected somehow (maybe some alternative positioning) or their needs to be some unifying element (maybe the suggested weight association, I don't think the color is enough to do the trick here). If you do try to optically match the weight of the white stroke and the type, then it could probably most successfully be accomplished by a combination of lightening the type weight and decreasing the overall typesize. As it appears right now, the mark and type are competing a little for attention, rather than combining to make a strong logo. You are fortunate to have a typophile like Christian to catch this, because I was too blind to see it at first.

Good luck!
Scott

I see what you guys mean now. Thanks, I'm going to work on it. Still haven't had a chance today as I've been swamped.

But this is great feedback!

Okay.. here's what I've come up with. The changes are very subtle as I didn't want to move to far away from where it was at.

With Option 1 I played with the kerning and scaln o he mark with the type to give it better proportion.

Option 2 slopes the U in the type.

Option 3 uses a slightly ligher stroke on the type.

Option 4 is just a different layout.

PS: Sorry about the typeos. My keyboard is on the fritz!

I like 3.

The angles at the top of the U's stems are interesting in Option 2, although I think the angle is a little too severe. I'm guessing that it is mathmatically equal to the angle at the top of the mark, but optically it doesn't match up. I'd be interested in seeing angles on all of the verticals (U, n, i, n)

i completely agree with scott, i think that a lighter version wont harm nobody. the solutions with the angles is very clever, you should make the optical match in the as scott sugested and keep the others just how they are.

good job

CG

The client wasn't too keen on the slopes. Personaly I felt that it had technical merit, but made the piece look a bit less classic.

Here's the last round. These variations should reflect the feedback around the stroke width.

Let me know.

Also, if you like the thinner version, could you explain why. I'll need to communicate this to the client. One thing they wanted, as a departure from their current logo, is something with more strength and dominance. Haveing too thin of a stroke reverts back to a subtly more elegant look, and that's not what they're going after.

I like option 2.

I think it's a matter of contrast. You've got this thick slabby U above. It gives interest and interplay between the element rather than having each fight for dominance.

Randy

I agree with Randy.

>something with more strength and dominance
So with the lighter stroke is it less strong and dominant than their current logo? Maybe you've already achieved that and don't need a heavy type.

Option 2

"Strength and dominence" is not only achieve through bold type. Depending on the industry, "strength and dominence" may be achieved through various elements. In this case, developers of "enterprise software for the academic/education industry" would be served well if their logo was a beacon of refinement. I don't think this option is "elegant", but rather a little more sophisticated relative to the other options. I believe if you pitched this design as refined and sophisticated, it would demand attention

congratulations, option 2 is clearly the winner

i agree with Scott, sophisticated is the concept you should sell to your client

well done

CG

Thanks for all the feedback guys! It's really helped drive the refinement of this thing.

So much in fact, the when I began to take a close look, I realized that there were some inherent balance issues with the symbol and the type. The symbol also wasn't very flexible when arranged in a different position other than presented.

So what I went back the drawing-board. I have a couple of variations here which I think make a cleaner evolution of the existing logo (www.unicon.net).

Please let share your thoughts.

I don't think the circle adds anything. Why did you add a circle?

I really liked where you had ended up before the circle phase.

If you are hooked on the circle or have already sold it upstream then I would choose option 1 but no TM. I am assuming all logos shown in option 1 are variants. If I were to choose 1 out of option 1 I would choose Bottom Row first Logo.

TM on option 1 but not 2? I don't know if I understand.

Jon

I like the typeface in option 3, but just because I don't like the other typeface (Myriad?).

Don't skew the U.

If I buy Unicon I dont want the stock to topple.

3 is best.

i def. like you first concepts better, i am not a fan of the later ones with the circle and italicized type. I think also that it might be very valid to see if you cannot incoporate all the letters so that they combine somehow, like using modified serifs to attach all the letter to each other. This might give a little bit of play on the company name, being as all the letters would be acting as a sinlge word, unified, rather than individual letters, not unified. It might now work, you might have already tried, but I think its an idea. I like your concept, and execution, and I think this logo has great potential.

ooo I like option 3 - it looks "established" which is probably something your going for.

the first ones don't really say anything - in a way they kind'a look like every other logo to come after year 2000 - although design wise they are "nicer", but personally I wouldn't give it a second look. However, if I saw option 3 - I'd look and wonder...who are they, how come I havn't seen them before, how come they're so well put together - it has quiet confidence while the others look like they are striving to be something, or need investors.

Cacelia is definately a good choice, a favorite of mine.

Hildebrant.

I think you should back up and forget about the typeface until you get a logo that they can live with for years to come. To me the image says fabricated metal or formed plastic. I would work on that, throwing away a lot of sketches, and challenging them all by the dawn's ugly light next day. You'll get it. The simpler it is, the longer and harder you have to work. Remember, they want strong, approachable, and classic. That's a tall order. Good luck.

tray smal caps ore jsut "u" for text adn perspectif sems litl of, but that depends what you ment