They were loosely modelled on the W3C HTML validation logo, which is comparable, in some ways, in what it is trying to do. See:
http://www.unicode.org/consortium/newcomer.html
My third was that I probably ought to say it anyhow. Maybe they will will take a look at other large organisation's logos and see how to make the Unicode.org logo as snazzy.
Well, it is a "Unicode Savvy" logo, not a "Unicode Snazzy" logo. ;-)
And one of the design goals was to make it small (but recognizable), so that it wouldn't burden the loading of pages that might want to use it. The snazzier you make it, the more you make people pay (in time and bytes) for loading the snazz.
I disagree, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. OK, here is what I meant.
1) Pink or grey? It's almost a "yukky pink" or a "boring grey". Color change isn't likely increase byte size any more than it will decrease it. SURE, it is the same pink your website uses, however a color may look right or wrong depending on the other colors about. On the rest of your website, it looks OK. In the logo, it doesn't.
2) The spacing on Savvy doesn't look right. Its too wide, and the font should be a snazzier font. The red letters I really don't like. I'm not sure when red lettering is good, in fact. Red looks like the crossing outs that a teacher might give. It's often used for comment coloring in developer IDEs, meaning like "not here", or "ignore". I don't think that's the right image.
3) Why not go for a blue "savvy" or a green? Blue and green suggest more like "in harmony", and savvy is about being in harmony.
4) In fact, why not skip the word "savvy"? W3's logo doesn't use it. It doesn't really have a pleasant ring to it. I'd say even "Compliant" sounds better. Or even just the tick is better.
5) I do like the "Unicode" lettering, however there appears to be whitish pixels around the letters. Especially noticable on the pink logo. Some extra white space is needed, also because the letters are too compressed and harder to distinguish.
6) The tick isn't quite right also. Its WAY too short on the long stroke. It looks a bit stunted and unhealthy. The box behind the tick actually gets in the way and is superfluous. It really clumsifies and awkwardifies the image. I know W3's tick is a right angle, but why not a more flowing graceful tick? That really implies elegance. Or is elegance something your company isn't about? (Some people who complain about the decomp/comp mappings might say it's not).
Why not put up a call for Unicode logos? Instead of asking for an inhouse one to be made, I'm sure you'd get more logos offered than you could know what to do with. At the worst, you could have a design to learn from.
Some of my logos were made with suggestions from other people. I did the work, I did most of the design, but important elements came by other people's ideas. This way I own what I do and it is "in house", but still I am open to external improvement.
Hey, if you can give me a tiff of the "Unicode" word (in it's large original format) which is the part that I actually did like, I could re-do the rest for you in PhotoShop v6 format, and submit as a suggestion.
--
Theodore H. Smith - Macintosh Consultant / Contractor.
My website: <www.elfdata.com/>
