I really it. The X is balanced which I know can be a little tricky.
If I have to say something: I'd be tempted to see how the T would look if the "serifs" on the bar were assymetrical, what I have in mind is the left serif being wider, I wonder if something like that will make the logo a little more animate.
Also you see how your R if you remove the leg it's basically a P, meaning the corner of the outside curve where it meets the Leg is lined with the bottom horizontal. Well try bringing that corner up, this will reduce the amount of ink in that area.
But honestly it looks good like this so...

I really it. The X is balanced which I know can be a little tricky.
If I have to say something: I'd be tempted to see how the T would look if the "serifs" on the bar were assymetrical, what I have in mind is the left serif being wider, I wonder if something like that will make the logo a little more animate.
Also you see how your R if you remove the leg it's basically a P, meaning the corner of the outside curve where it meets the Leg is lined with the bottom horizontal. Well try bringing that corner up, this will reduce the amount of ink in that area.
But honestly it looks good like this so...

Good call on the R! That's a great refinement (for what is probably a common blunder). I also increased the thickness of the bottom of the E, ever so slightly to give it a more solid feeling base.

I'm not sure about the asymmetrical T, though. I gave it a shot, but I don't know that it adds that much. Performing that little experiment did, however, lead me to realize that my original T was too narrow. I definitely prefer it wider.

> One of the requirements of the project
> is that it work well on a waistband.
> I took this to mean that...

Your guess about what they meant sounds reasonable, but just the same it might be wise to ask them to explain further exactly what they meant.

Many times I've tried to guess what a client meant by a vague comment, only to find out later that they meant something else. Sometimes this is because a client is so familiar with their company's product that they tend to talk in verbal shorthand and just assume everyone knows what they're talking about.

I guess I could have phrased that better. It was agreed upon that the logo should be wide, rectangular and stretchable, but you have a good point. Non-graphics folks definitely struggle with articulating their ideas. Heck, graphics professionals struggle with it, too.

Have you tried the X with one heavy and one light stroke? That seems like it would continue the contrast you have in the other letters.

/X/ looks lighter than others anyways... And also doesn't share the same stylistic add-ons as other letters do with those serif like terminals.

I also agree with Luma Vine that /X/ should have similar stroke contrast as other letters do...

But on the other hand I must say that I like letter /X/ the most because it seems the most original with wedge strokes. Maybe try a wedge stroke variation on other letters as well? It could turn out to be very nice and special.

Okay, so I've attempted to implement a few more suggestions here to see how they work.

First off, I increased the contrast of the X in an attempt to keep the same overall design, but make in feel like it has similar thick/thin proportions to the rest of the font, without actually making one stroke lighter. It seems like it might be a tad to heavy now, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Next, I tried incorporating the "wedge" idea further, but without radically changing the design. The R seems like a logical place.

Just for kicks, I tried a design direction (that I had previously abandoned) and made the whole thing more "wedgy." Granted, it's a far cry from a balanced bit of type, but I can already see that it's threatening to be a kitschy sci-fi font. I think there's a reason I didn't go down this road the first time I thought of it.

Finally, I gave a true thick/thin X a try. I turned out better than I anticipated, but I'm still very taken with the other one.

Any thoughts?