Hi Trevor,

I’d probably suggest using something a little understated compared to Chalet. Have you seen MVB Verdigris? (But, I guess I might see Caecelia being used too.)

As for you logo. I don’t mind the change to the lowercase u, but the serif on the lowercase a isn’t smooth enough. In addition the u serif seems more rounded while the a is more attached.

Hey Trevor,

I agree with Miss T. There’s a lot going on the mark already, so choose something simple. In fact I’d be inclined to stick Chalet, but one of the less ornate cuts.

With the logo itself, I’d probably lose the gradient fade in the separating line, you don’t need it. And yep, the little hair flip on the a needs a little smoothing.

Thanks for the input. It’s hard to find good constructive criticism these days :)

I hadn’t heard of Verdigris, and it looks like another contender. I’ve done a few quick tests with Caecelia, and it seems to go quite well with the logo type. It’s my current favourite.

A lot of my content will be web-based, so that’s definitely a concern when choosing fonts. I’m happy to use SIFR for headings and very brief paragraphs.

I’ll take a look at implementing those logo improvements.

Attached is one of the Caecilia tests:

I think Caecelia works. However isn’t Caecelia a Linotype font? Their EULA doesn’t allow for web embedding. What about Adobe’s Chapparal?

Caecilia is Lino, yeah. I wasn’t aware SIFR would violate their EULA. This is their section on embedding:

1.5 Embedding of the Font Software into electronic documents or Internet pages is only permitted under the absolute assurance that the recipient cannot use the Font Software to edit or create a new document (read-only). It must be ensured that the Font Software cannot be fully or partially extracted from said documents.

There’s so many flash-based websites that feature commercial fonts. I would’ve assumed SIFR is no different, unless of course all those flash sites have broken the EULA too :)

It turns out I have Chapparal (does it comes with the Adobe apps?). It looks good, but not as nice as Caecilia. The bold weight is also way too heavy.

I’m consulting Mr. Google for some clarification on the licensing thing.

EDIT: I was just comparing Caecilia and Chapparal a bit more. Caecilia is definitely the winner. Even if I don’t use it here, I’ll keep it in mind for other projects. It’s quite impressive.

Do you think Freight Micro (book) would be an option? In a world without Typophile, that’s probably what I would’ve ended up choosing. It’s so expensive.

Freight Micro could be a nice choice. Since you seem to be interested in humanist slab serifs, take a look at the ones I posted in this thread. Silica is my personal favorite out of them, although the lack of an italic may make it a no-go. TheSerif is probably the closest you can get to Caecilia without being Caecilia.

Well now there is a hole in my research. Where did you find that information?

The colour scheme and shape of the mark immediately made me think of the Firefox logo.

- Lex

Miss Tiffany:
Here it is: http://www.linotype.com/2061-20496/licenseagreementforfontsoftware.html I’m assuming that’s a correct/current EULA. Personally I wouldn’t hesitate to use any fonts I own in flash files. If a foundry wants to get fussy and send me a letter, I’ll happily switch to another font/foundry. I asked a few designers and they agreed that flash is flash, regardless of whether it’s a spinning logo or SIFR ;) Obviously, I’ll still take every reasonable precaution to ensure people can’t rip the fonts or characters.

Auricfuzz: Thanks for that. I like Silica too, but it doesn’t seem to mesh as well with Chalet. TheSerif looked nice, very similar to Caecilia.

Lex: To some extent I agree, but I believe the concept is different enough that it should be fine. A large selection of my clients helped choose the logo from several options. I’m still working on ways to build a brighter/happier looking site around it. I don’t want everything appearing too dark and dreary.

A quick experiment with colour: