I would prefer the words to be legible as in your last option - but the contrast need not be that great - perhaps using a bold for yaletown design would be sufficient. A lot depends on the familiarity of the word yaletown ..oh I just realized the other word is 'software'!

If you keep using it people will definitely recognize it. How about slanting the whole thing say at 5 degrees (as much as the italic tilt) - that would make it even more unique.

Check the UNIQLO logo which is on two lines - I do not know what it means but it is instantly recognizable.

I've got no problem with the general concept, but the length of the name plus the unorthodox break point (not between syllables) makes it difficult to decipher.

The third version -- which you've achieved via blind-pressing but could also be done with ink colors or screen tints -- is the most readable since it provides more visual clues.

its a great concept or idea to split the words but the execution is tough. this might not be the best set of words because of the preposition in the word software ("of")

Maybe try Vladamir's idea of a 5 degree tilt with just the word "software" while yaletown - design" is level.

or:

For some reason, the typeface you are using does not immediately scream software design to me.

> this might not be the best set of words
> because of the preposition in the word software ("of")

Yeah, it looks like "yale towns of tware design"

> It is to be primarily used for the stationery...

By the way, keep in mind that blind embossed elements disappear when a document is xeroxed or faxed. Probably not a concern in business cards, but maybe a concern for invoices, letterhead, etc.

I like the way the words play with you to make you read them, though not sure whether generally people have that sort of patience with a logo. I'd also agree the typeface doesn't click with software design, so maybe selecting a different style would help the eyes parse the words with less effort?

Thanks for the comments, guys.

@Vladimir - "Oh I just realized the other word is 'software'!" - Bingo! This Oh is exactly what I am aiming for. This is what effectively defines the logo and makes it memorable. Rotating the logo is a nice idea, but IMO it will be overdoing it for a software company. Rotated version seems more fit for a clothing line manufacturer or similar.

@Bendy - Totally valid point regarding the patience, Bendy. I do intend to address it by using the logo in the context that has the word "software" sitting somewhere next to the logo.

@iamcorey - With regards to the typeface - the point of using HighTower was to make the logo more visually interesting and stress the design part. The previous iteration used Trade Gothic, but it was somewhat Blah looking to me. If you have any suggestions or ideas, I am all ears.

@Matt/James - I would rather not make it easier to decipher. Using different weights, colors or hinting with kerning (as in previous version) seems to detract from the logo. It makes the logo visually more complex, but at the same time it also trivializes the concept. The grand idea is to make the logo memorable through making it unusual. To make the viewers "WTF", pause and think :) And my assumption is that present version does just that.

Alex, I respect your point of view, but I noticed that your Yaletown Software Design homepage says "the most complex software ... can be made simple and intuitive". Seems to me that your logo should represent that "simple and intuitive" philosophy, rather than being a logo which most folks seem to have trouble figuring out.

If you have any suggestions or ideas, I am all ears.

If your are looking for designy wordmark inspiration, take a look at the logos below from 100 Brands of Interest III.

http://www.helveticbrands.ch/blog/100brands3/

@iamcorey - Yes, I know of David's compilations. I meant specific typeface suggestions if you had any.

@James - That's an excellent and valid point indeed. I have a simpler option - http://typophile.com/node/73678. How would you say it fares in comparison?

> @James - That's an excellent and valid point
> indeed. I have a simpler option - > http://typophile.com/node/73678.
> How would you say it fares in comparison?

That older version is a good starting point, but the all-caps, centered layout is a little dull, and I don't feel the heavy rules above and below add anything.

The lowercase serif you've used on this page is more elegant & visually interesting, so in those respects I think it's an improvement. But the readability problem we've discussed bothers me.

Wish I had some brilliant idea to offer, but at the moment I'm drawing a blank. My only thought is that Yaletown and Software both have 8 characters, so maybe some kind of solution involving a grid might be worth exploring, like 3 rows of 8 boxes each, and grids vaguely make me think of the structure of programming. I know "Design" is only 7 characters, but maybe a workaround could be found using a dingbat character or solid box or whatever to make it 8, too. This grid idea is just a top-of-my-head thought and it's probably a lousy idea; it's just a thought.

I love that design, a very creative and beautiful idea just as is.

I finally got a chance to try the version from the top post in real application, and it does not work. It is too hard to tie it to a technical nature of the company, e.g. the content of the website and such.

Keeping the idea, but changing a typeface, I now have these three options.

Which one (if any) best captures "software, light, simple, technically sophisticated, polished, elegant, convenient?"

This is my own company, so I am my own client. And, no, I don't want to hire a professional designer and, no, this is not a design by committee :) Just need quick subjective opinions.

Thanks

I’m not sure it captures “software, light, simple, technically sophisticated, polished, elegant, convenient” best, but I think first one works better (whatever “sof” and “tware” may be ;-)

The color difference of number one reads better and easier than the weight difference of two and three. Try that technique with the type of number two all the same weight.

Although I still think the design is confusing, your latest tweaks are a definite improvement, and I prefer #1.