Artwork update

[jmak]

On 12/21/06, Vincent <imnotb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/06, jmak <jozmak at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/21/06, Vincent <imnotb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/21/06, jmak <jozmak at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 12/21/06, Vincent < imnotb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > They look very cool, just too bad the logo is plain again, I liked
> the
> > > > > glossy one...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The logo was kept simple intentionally to contrast with the text part;
> > > > the opposite how it was with edgy; there the logo image was glossified
> > > > the text part was simplified.
> > >
> > > Why does it have to contrast with the text? Is there some usability
> > > reasoning behind that or do you just like it?
> > >
> >
> > Normally, there must be a hierarchy behind the various compositional
> > elements. If visually everything is on the same level, it becomes
> > confusing. This is just a basic compositional principle.
>
> Ah, right.  But can't the logo and name be looked at as one?
>

The best example is apple. They have tons of variations of their logo,
but what you see is either the image or the text logo (currently, they
 play mostly on the letter X). You hardly see the two together. If you
do, you mostly see the apple image stylized with a plain black text
underneath.  That's how it was with edgy. Now, it is the reverse.

-- 
2007 Calendar, Great Xmas gift
http://www.lulu.com/content/512622
http://jozmak.googlepages.com/