Hi Ben, I added LuzSans to the page for comparison. What I don't like about it is the angle bracket. Mainly that it doesn't line up with the letters.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Benjamin Schuster-Boeckler: > Molengo: The rounding of the "p" and "d" characters have different shapes, > disturbing the balance between these two letters. They have the exact same shape, rotated 90 degrees. If you take the d and rotate it 90 degrees, it is the exact same shape as the p. The only difference is that the "stick" on the d is a tiny bit longer, which makes sense. > Also, the point of Futura and LuzSans were their clean, minimalistic look, > whereas the "l" in Molengo has a curve ending which breaks that style. Heh. I actually *liked* that curve. The very small curves in Molengo are what I liked about it. I thought it looked interesting without being fuzzy or complicated. > Also, the vertical lines in the "p" and "d" are too fat and too short at the > same time. They are the exact same thickness as LuzSans Book (which is my favourite Luz variant). I tested it. LuzSans does have unusually tall letters. > FreeSans: It's better, but it lacks sophistication. If you compare it with > Futura, you'll see that the cirlces in "p" and "d" are narrower in FreeSans. > Also, the version you showed is too bold, a light face looks much better It seems odd to say that Futura is more "sophisticated" because it uses simpler shapes (the circles are more circular). > Sawasdee: The serif-like angled lines in the "p" and "d" just totally go > against the initial idea of the logo. Also, the ">" is much too fat You've mentioned the thickness three times. I think that we just have a different taste on how fat we like our letters. I purposely made Sawasdee fatter because I like it better that way. Likewise, I like LuzSans Book rather than LuzSans Light. I find the stronger contrast easier to read (I have poor vision). Maybe if I had looked for lighter fonts you might have liked the results better. But then, I would have liked them less :-) > Now, I guess this discussion is more suited to a Font forum :-) I strongly > believe a logo is a logo, and doesn't need to match any "corporate" font. If > we use Luz or Futura in the logo, and a different font in any printed > material, it's just fine and no cause for concern. I think that having the website or printed material match the logo is simply "nice to have". But I still think I have reasons to prefer a free font: 1. At a minimum, I want a font I can download and experiment with. So Luz beats Futura for example. 2. I am not a lawyer. Unless a lawyer tells me that using a proprietary font is not going to be a problem, I would prefer an open font. -- Intolerant people should be shot. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
