!

[dpeters]

Hi guys and girls!

//WE WILL POST A DECISION IN 3-4 DAYS

We are after a neat logo design for our website. We have tried so many times to design one but do not succeed.

We offer ?40> to the winner!

We reserve the right to cancel this position if we do not find a suitable logo.

The webiste: http://www.thetechaven.com

Criteria:

//Want:>

Must go on a NEAR BLACK background, so please allow a transparent background if possible.

Must fit where logo on site is at the moment, can be maximum 70px high.

Artistic

Flare

Dark and Light

Round (if possible)

We like the idea of a white haze for what a haven might be.

INSPIRATION: www.electronicarts.co.uk for design style not interactivity.

//Don?t Want:/b>

Long

Boring (duh)

Flat

DO NOT/b> want it to look like the logo on the site at the moment, this is NO WAY/b> our idea of a good logo!

We reserve the right to cancel request of logo if none appeal to us, if we spot someone?s design style, we may ask you to try again.

Will pay VIA PAYPAL

GOOD LUCK!

Edited May 18, 2006 by dpeters

[y0sh]

No, it's not just a symbol. And no, unequivocal, you're not stupid.

It is meant to say 'Th' for "Tech Haven".

If you take into account a little artistic liberty, and an abstracted depiction of the words, you'll see the 'Th'. The backbone of the T and h are joined. The '7' figure represents the T and the rest is the H.

Thanks, Pox, but my first attempt is very unrefined. The tweaked version has far better shading, gloss effects, aesthetics, uniformity, versatility, etc. It's more professional, and if it were an assignment in a graphic design class, it would have received a higher grade than my original. Think of it as a version 2. Or, amateur vs. professional.

[Pox]

more effects != more proffessional. Take the text out of the first one, and I personally think it is more professional - but that's just personal preferance. I think having the gloss subtle is a better idea in a case like this.

[y0sh]

Lol, you seem to have centered down onto 1 of 5 qualities I mentioned, Pox.

Ask a professor that teaches Graphic Design, and he'll tell you #2 is more professional/usable.

#1 looks like it was done by an amateur. The first rule of image professionalism, is that one should not easily see a way of recreating said image. This is why you would laugh if you saw Microsoft using simple Photoshop filters or blending options in their designs. My first mock-up is basic. You can see badly used strokes, drop shadows, etc. Just screams the "I can use a photoshop filter, therefore I am already a graphic designer" kind of mentality to me.

[DG55]

Eh? Im not sure exactly what your getting at.

Are you just saying that the more complex a logo, the more professional it is?

Im going to be the first to say disagree here. Its not about that at all. Im really not sure here, but are you suggesting that adding glossy effects all over the shop is going to improve professionality?

A good logo should still look good in its simplest form, no matter how much bling you try to stuff it with.

I agree with the others, and I only have a slight representation of what its trying to say after you told me what it is. It just seems to abstract, and im not sure if a unique visitor to their website is really going to make the connection between that logo and the brand itself.

[cybadelic]

The first rule of image professionalism, is that one should not easily see a way of recreating said image.

No offense, but your Professor was wrong then. The best logos in history are exactly the ones that are really easy to recreate. There's a simple reason for that: You remember them. And I don't even need to prove my point, just look at almost every single famous logo. BP, Nike, Samsung, LG, JVC, Reebok, adidas, VW, Audi, BMW, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft, Apple, Mitsubishi, Honda, McDonald's, Texaco, Shell, Pioneer. The list is endless.

[Pox]

No offense, but your Professor was wrong then. The best logos in history are exactly the ones that are really easy to recreate. There's a simple reason for that: You remember them. And I don't even need to prove my point, just look at almost every single famous logo. BP, Nike, Samsung, LG, JVC, Reebok, adidas, VW, Audi, BMW, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft, Apple, Mitsubishi, Honda, McDonald's, Texaco, Shell, Pioneer. The list is endless.

THANKYOU.

[andrew_f]

I think everyone has gone a bit off topic... lets just help dpeters yeah?

[Bioshadow]

y0sh's logo is in the front line, it's the best but i'll try to make one anyway, if i have time :)

A good logo dont need to be simple, especially a logo wich will be used on digital supports.

[Vice]

Yosh's is kind of confusing I cant even make out what it says.. two symbols or shapes? It's sound graphically but not a good logo in my opinion.

[cybadelic]

i'll try to make one anyway, if i have time :)

I might be wrong, but isn't this request over?

[y0sh]

Lord, please forgive me for what I'm about to do..

(and I don't even believe in God)

Are you just saying that the more complex a logo, the more professional it is?

Im going to be the first to say disagree here. Its not about that at all. Im really not sure here, but are you suggesting that adding glossy effects all over the shop is going to improve professionality?

I agree with the others, and I only have a slight representation of what its trying to say after you told me what it is. It just seems to abstract, and im not sure if a unique visitor to their website is really going to make the connection between that logo and the brand itself.

+

No offense, but your Professor was wrong then. The best logos in history are exactly the ones that are really easy to recreate. There's a simple reason for that: You remember them. And I don't even need to prove my point, just look at almost every single famous logo. BP, Nike, Samsung, LG, JVC, Reebok, adidas, VW, Audi, BMW, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft, Apple, Mitsubishi, Honda, McDonald's, Texaco, Shell, Pioneer. The list is endless.

Both of you: My mistake, I'm sorry. I should have clarified that a logo is meant to be simple, but a graphic shouldn't be easily recreated. The blob, after all, is a graphic. The logo is simply the middle shape. How much more simple can you get? Monochrome + right-angled.

However, the logo is placed in a graphic, much like EA's logo is placed in a graphic on their site. The actual EA logo is merely the text, 'EA'.

"not sure if a unique visitor to their website is really going to make the connection between that logo and the brand itself."

..and Nike's tick screams out "Nike"? Mitsubishi's triangle screams "Mitsubishi"? Please think.

I think everyone has gone a bit off topic... lets just help dpeters yeah?

You are right, Dan did ask everybody's help in creating icons. Has anybody PM'd him?

y0sh's logo is in the front line, it's the best but i'll try to make one anyway, if i have time :)

A good logo dont need to be simple, especially a logo wich will be used on digital supports.

Actually, a good logo does need to be simple. The reason why logos are traditionally kept simple is due to printing costs on merchandise/property, etc. Can't get more simple than squares.

Yosh's is kind of confusing I cant even make out what it says.. two symbols or shapes? It's sound graphically but not a good logo in my opinion.

I suggest you broaden your artistic horizons. There will be countless pieces you won't "make out" if you're not able to create an abstract mental picture. This is, after all, what I have done - abstracted TH.

Also, care to read further up? I did explain.

Actually, here, I've made it idiot-proof:

I might be wrong, but isn't this request over?

Yes, it is.

Edited May 20, 2006 by y0sh

[DG55]

The fact that you had to actually spell it out in an image demonstration proves that its just too hard for the average joe to figure out what it is, as soon as they see it. You might argue that people have to think about it for a minute just to see what it is, but if they have to do that then you've clearly failed in the aim of creating a suitable logo. People rarely think about the logo they see, its more of a mental association between that logo image, and the brand.

I never implied that your logo had to literally scream out "tech haven". Nike does infact portray the brand, not because it physically says the words "nike", but because people recognise that 'tick' logo and associate it with the brand; Nike.

With your logo, however, it just looks like a bunch of lines and boxes in no particular order, and if it isnt recognisable as "Th" then nobodys going to see it as anything else, thus everyone more often than not wont make the connection between the brand and the logo.

Therefore, your logo just isnt simple for that very reason; its not understandable and people wont remember it. You used Mitsubishi as an example earlier; which i'll use too. Theirs is what I mean by a simple recognisable logo, it doesnt scream out mitsubishi at any level, but it is extremely simple and people will associate "the three diamonds" with the brand. Do you think that people will see your logo in the same light, even in a situation where Tech Haven is a world wide brand? Theres no chance, i'll challenge you to prove how the average joe will recognise, oh what is it, the "bunch of slanted boxes"?

You also mention the EA logo, but the ea logo is actually comprehensible, and their slanted visual style allows you to associate the letters with "the games company" and not somthing else, unless of course a company with the EA initials creates a logo with the same style, but thats just plagurism.

I appreciate your flair to be artistic and abstract, I sure love making works to this characteristic too. But you've got to remember that your not creating somthing which is going to be open to interpretation, your creating a logo. Logos are not somthing which the audience is going to stare at for tens of minutes pondering over what the artist intended by its creation. You want somthing simple and recognisable, somthing that is going to be associated with the brand quickly and easily, a visual cue for the brain.

Edited May 20, 2006 by DG55

[y0sh]

The fact that you had to actually spell it out in an image demonstration proves that its just too hard for the average joe to figure out what it is, as soon as they see it. You might argue that people have to think about it for a minute just to see what it is, but if they have to do that then you've clearly failed in the aim of creating a suitable logo. People rarely think about the logo they see, its more of a mental association between that logo image, and the brand.

I never implied that your logo had to literally scream out "tech haven". Nike does infact portray the brand, not because it physically says the words "nike", but because people recognise that 'tick' logo and associate it with the brand; Nike.

With your logo, however, it just looks like a bunch of lines and boxes in no particular order, and if it isnt recognisable as "Th" then nobodys going to see it as anything else, thus everyone more often than not wont make the connection between the brand and the logo.

Therefore, your logo just isnt simple for that very reason; its not understandable and people wont remember it. You used Mitsubishi as an example earlier; which i'll use too. Theirs is what I mean by a simple recognisable logo, it doesnt scream out mitsubishi at any level, but it is extremely simple and people will associate "the three diamonds" with the brand. Do you think that people will see your logo in the same light, even in a situation where Tech Haven is a world wide brand? Theres no chance, i'll challenge you to prove how the average joe will recognise, oh what is it, the "bunch of slanted boxes"?

You also mention the EA logo, but the ea logo is actually comprehensible, and their slanted visual style allows you to associate the letters with "the games company" and not somthing else, unless of course a company with the EA initials creates a logo with the same style, but thats just plagurism.

I appreciate your flair to be artistic and abstract, I sure love making works to this characteristic too. But you've got to remember that your not creating somthing which is going to be open to interpretation, your creating a logo. Logos are not somthing which the audience is going to stare at for tens of minutes pondering over what the artist intended by its creation. You want somthing simple and recognisable, somthing that is going to be associated with the brand quickly and easily, a visual cue for the brain.

Don't put words in my mouth, now. I have never implied that you have to stare at the image. If you didn't get it, then I, infact, pity you if anything. Those who recognize it, will. If somebody doesn't, then it is a shape to represent Tech Haven, just like Nike's tick is for Nike. There are no rules as to what that shape can be - be it diamonds shaped as a triangle, or some slanted boxes.

About my reference to EA, it was merely that the EA 'logo' on the website is actually a logo within a graphic. That's what I was saying, as it reflects my graphic. I was not talking about the visual clarity, so please do not use my words out of context.

And just so you know, it's plagiarism.

Another thing, creating something that clearly said "TH" would be creating a typeface. I am not doing anything related to typography. If you all think your "TH" is far superior, let me tell you that you have just created a typeface, and you've broken numerous uniformity laws of typography. That is why, what I have created, is neither a symbol nor a typeface.

If it is not recognizable, tell me, how is it that Dan (dpeters) recognized the symbol as "TH"? Keep in mind that I did not explain what the symbol was. I fail to comprehend this fact: On one hand, it is incomprehensible, yet somebody has managed to understand it. So, how is it possible? Isn't there something wrong with this equation?

Also, do tell me, what you would like me to do?

The 2 founders of Tech Haven have approved my design. They accept it as a valid logo for the venture they own. What would you like me to do about it? I have no say in their choice. I came to this topic with the sole intention of winning, hence my initial arrogant words, "Let me show you how it is done". I have succeeded and the founders are happy. What else is there to do? If you deem my work as a failure, you'll have to live with it. I can't help you, I'm sorry. My work here is over.

Edited May 20, 2006 by y0sh

[DG55]

I've already stated clearly a few times in my last post why your logo doesnt work in the same way as Nike or the like.

I didnt use any of your words about EA out of context. Again, I dont think you've understood my original post. I used it as an example for my own arguments, not related to yours.

Reading a logo in this situation isnt the same as if it were out there on the market, I also stated readability partly in my last post too. Dan isnt an example of the average joe. Maybe Its just me who doesnt immediately recognise it, then thats fair enough, although I strongly doubt that its just me.

Opinions dont work on equations. Maybe you mistook my opinion for somthing else. It is simply my "opinion" that your logo is not comprehensible. If you'd like to change my mind somehow then fire away, im open to discussion here. My opinion could be wrong or differ to others.

Finally, I wouldn't like you to do anything, im not telling you to do anything. What i've said throughout this discussion is a pointer at what I'd change if I was designing the logo myself. Again, its my personal opinion though, and the founders of Tech Haven obviously have a different view on what they want from it.

Generally I dont think you've thought much about what I've said, or what anyone else has said for that matter. Fine, your obviously protective over your work, but these are just some pointers from my point of view. I didnt deem your work as a failure, I suggested that if its not recognisable enough then it will be one, for the exact points I made in my original post.

[unequivocal]

Reading a logo in this situation isnt the same as if it were out there on the market, I also stated readability partly in my last post too. Dan isnt an example of the average joe. Maybe Its just me who doesnt immediately recognise it, then thats fair enough, although I strongly doubt that its just me.

No I pretty much still don't understand it; I understand what he's going for I just don't know if I really "get" the final product. It looks good, but maybe I'm old school and still like my branding to be less artsy and more sensible and identifying. I think the only part that catches me off guard is that it's obviously supposed to be a TH (I can see the T) but it doesn't fit together to make the full image...does that make sense?

[dpeters]

I find this thread rather pethetic now.

[Pent]

This thread delivers.

[Vice]

I suggest you broaden your artistic horizons. There will be countless pieces you won't "make out" if you're not able to create an abstract mental picture. This is, after all, what I have done - abstracted TH.

Also, care to read further up? I did explain.

Actually, here, I've made it idiot-proof:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/996/exp...umbasses9fm.jpg

Touchy aren't you. Your logo looks nothing like a TH, you need to get over the fact that your logo looks more like a Chinese symbol or a squiggle then 2 letters. Logo's need to be clear and easy to read, not a Soduko puzzle. ;) It's Constructive criticism not a dig, and if you want to be in the design game you need to learn to accept, allot of people in the thread agree, I didn't even enter the competition I have nothing to gain by criticising your attempt.

That is all.

[JoeC]

Theres no chance, i'll challenge you to prove how the average joe will recognise, oh what is it, the "bunch of slanted boxes"?

Well, I'm called Joe, I consider myself to be pretty average, and if anything, I see "7i" in it.

[gigapixels Veteran]

The fact that the right leg of the "h" is disconnected really makes it a lot harder to determine what it is.

It does look more like "7i" than "Th", as JoeC said above.

[ccuk]

I don't see Th...

The logo you produced y0sh whilst technically competent, isn't a very functional logo from my point of view.

[jackwanders]

for what it's worth, I think y0sh's logo is good, and I think dpeters made a sound decision (although i liked mine too :D)

and logos don't need to be "clear" and easily understandable. Logos need to be easily recognizable. What does a swoosh have to do with a sportswear company? What does a lightning bolt have to do with a sports drink company? Logos can be abstract, if they work.

And y0sh's logo works. who cares if you can see the 'th'. Just because a bunch of us did the 'TH' thing in our logos doesn't mean that the logo TechHaven uses needs to have the TH. If people see it, great. If not, who cares?

Good lord.

[y0sh]

End of discussion, in my opinion. Thank you, Jack.

For those who still wish to critique/comment/discuss, please take it up with the owner and judge of the logo (Dan).

[chema]

I don't know why people have to criticize the winner's logo. I think it is a very well executed logo, it is eye catching and at the same time it can be simple , if you can't see the Th it might be because you don't want to see it, because I certainly do and I love the creativity behind it. Although the inner shadow effect in the final logo bothers me a little because it doesn't let the Th stand out as much as the first one, I REALLY like the final product. Good job and don't listen to the haters y0sh haha :pinch:

[cybadelic]

Hey y0sh,

After reading through this whole thread, comparing answers, and judging your logo for myself (I really like it, both technically and visually), my very own conclusion is: Great logo. It obviously works, people talk about it, some love it, some hate it, some don't know. Design isn't a straight line, it isn't meant to please everybody, because that's just impossible. But you achieved a great logo people will remember.

I personnally see the "Th", and saw it straight away, but that doesn't mean anything, because the whole thread was about creating a "Th"-based logo.

Anyway, as I said, I like it, and people will remember it, or at least this thread about it.