Well, I'll just say that wars have been started over lesser things :-) I guess we should leave it to the people of PDLonia to decide. Or settle it with swords. Whatever is easier.
Ben On 21 Jul 2010, at 12:03, Daniel Carrera wrote: > 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. -- Benjamin Schuster-Böckler Frundsbergstrasse 23a 82064 Strasslach Deutschland _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
