My first instinct is that the tracking looks too tight for that type.
I think at smaller sizes this may hurt legibility.

Is this supposed to read as one word or two?

Thanks for the comment. I think you are right, it could benefit from a bit more breathing space between them. It is meant to be read as two words so I have augmented the space between the two.

You may want to experiment with one of the words in color (if that's an option) to help break them up a little more. I dont see a clear division between the two.

Is this a font or custom design? Something about that 'm' really bothers me.

Yes totally agree with colors, I would just like it to work in a single color for the moment. It is a custom made design, no fonts were used. The idea for the 'm' was that its angle would help divide the words. Perhaps it can benefit from a softer curve in the middle of the bottom section?

It looks like 2 upside-down v's. too wide.
May work better as it's own unique glyph, with 90 degree verticals.

Yes that is exactly what it is, maybe it was a bit lazy. I applied your suggestion for the verticals, I am not sure if it has lost some character

I like this better, but keep experimenting.
It reads as two separate words now.

Thanks, yes definitely I will try some alternatives. Ive streamlined the 'm' some more.

I would make try the shape of top of "a" similar to the bottom of "e". They differ too much. Actually "a" differs too much from other letters style too much.

Regarding the "m". I'd keep the first one but make it narrower. But just enough. You don't want it squashed and you don't want it too wide either (the way it's now. But as said I would keep the first design. Looks much better and it also matches "v" and matches other letters' style better.

"h" is too narrow compared to "u". "r" is MAYBE a very small bit too wide. "o" is almost definitely too wide.

Also "stabilise" "e" a bit more at the bottom, because it looks a bit too much off and is falling.

When changing "a" I would suggest you make the top and bottom match, but try making the middle line horizontal.

These are my suggestions.
___________
Robert Koritnik

Hi Robert, thanks very much for the comment and the insight.

I'm not too sure how to stabilise the 'e' as I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with it.

I have implemented your comments into this version. Although I am not a fan of how the 'a' looks with a middle horizontal line I really appreciate your comment on how to construct it using the 'e' as it give me some ideas which I quite like in the third version below. The 'h' was obviously too narrow, thanks for spotting that.

Your letters are waaay too tight. au is almost moulded together... "h" is probably much better but it's hard to tell since "u" is too close to "a". And maybe to "l" as well.

"m" looks too much like golden arches. You'll have to make inner lines inside it a bit more steep (different angle than outer ones). It will still have correct style but its own distinct look (not recognisable by hamburger fans)...

I like the middle "a" but upper line is too short and doesn't reflect the style of "e" enough. But it has exactly what I wanted to see: top and bottom line angle match. I like it but I may not be the best judge for it since it was something I wanted to see.

Can't say about the "o". Too tight letterspacing and no small size. But it may still be just a little bit too wide.
___________
Robert Koritnik

Thanks for the help. Here it is with less wide 'o' and 'm'; I didn't see the golden arches hehe; and a smaller size.

I really like the new logo reposted up top. Nice work.

Fun. The 'au', 'me', and 'di' pairs are too tight. The 'ha' might be too loose.

me still thinks the m looks wacky, and out of place ... but it's your mark

:)

----------
Paul Ducco
Graphic Design Melbourne

add a tail to the beginning of your "m" so that it appears lowercase, like the rest of the letters.

David

Thanks for the comments!

Miss Tiffany, I am not too sure I understand what you mean about the 'ha', could you please let me know what you mean by loose? I appreciate the comments and have incorporated it in this new iteration.

Paul, I am open to any suggestions on how to make it less wacky ;^)

David, something like this perhaps?

Hi

Just dropping by for the first time here and wanted to add the following.

Nice work so far. Great improvements, but I want to comment on the 'm'.
In comparisson to the rest the 'v'-style bothers me. You don't see this anywhere else.
I looks like it doesn't belong there.

You have an open type and at the 'm' it gets too tight. To me that is a big contrast not fit for the rest.

Otherwise, great type. Are you planning of making an actual font out of this?

Ray

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the participation. I see what you mean about the 'v' and the 'm' and have incorporated this into the current iteration. Ultimately I wanted some character in the letterforms, but this is perhaps at the price of homogeneity.

Concerning your question about making it a font, I have thought about it and something I have attempted before ( http://www.dache.ch/index.php/portfolio/typography/ ) but the technical aspects of making them are almost overwhelming and I have left them unfinished. I still enjoy drawing typefaces though.

In your previous version the 'ha' pair looked loose. But, now that you've adjusted the other pairs I think it works. If anything, the bowl of the lc 'a' is a little too big and too far to the left.

One could argue that the previous 'v' and 'm' did belong if one looks at the shapes as all being from neon or bent wire (for instance). I find the new 'v' and 'm' more out of line actually.

Thanks Miss Tiffany, I have reworked the 'a' now. I really like your thinking of bent wire and neons, very logical approach. It is not so much that they are out of line for me, more boring than anything else I feel :^)

Hi Dache

Had a look at your website and fonts.
Very interesting!

About this post:

I understand miss Tiffany's explaination, but to me it (the 'v'like shape) still feels somewhat odd.
I did liked your altered 'm' without the 'v'style shape.

In the end it is what you want. It is your logo. ;-)

Anyway, I do like the overall feel!

Very interesting, that goes for these feeds too.

Keep up the good work!

Ray

I agree with BobbyBobo that the overall feel is nice. But like many others in this thread I get stuck at the M (m) which to me is not in style with the other characters. The M with the vertical (90 degree angle) was you heading in the right direction.

//Toby

I love type!

I agree with Tiffany - I prefer the old V and M. They ad more character and I think I was on the 'bent wire' track too. The straight vertical ones do create complete symmetry with the other characters but I feel it looses a lot of it's originality and becomes a little too uniform.

In summary, I think you are pretty much there. Just down to your gut feeling on this and what you prefer.

The angle of the foot of the i doesn't fit with what the a, u, l, d, and a have set up. I would also put more space between the i and its dot.

ul still feels too close (compare di).

This has come a long way!

Dear all,

Thank you ever so much for your help with this project. It was great fun to create unique letters and with such support I think I will do this more often time allowing.

Craig, well spotted, I have changed the 'i' somewhat in the final version.

The project is now complete and the client extremely satisfied.

Thanks again!

Job well done. Congrat.
Will you share the final result with us?