Seems good, but the letter i is kind of disconnected to the other letters, like a bar | instead of an lowercase i. The c uper end is to curved compared to the lower end and the lower end could be extended a little. I think the o could be a little more rounded, more like the original sketch of the logo.
Generally speaking, a critique requires knowing what this logo is for exactly. Fancy /C/ might work for one case, but would create an absolutely inappropriate vibe for another. Though I suspect you know that.
Don't like the last version at all. It's out of style and I also think you should keep things simple.
What's the name? it semiotics, itsemiotics, or semiotics? If you have the choice choose the latter, it's complex enough. Or maybe go for semiotics with an pay off talking about it.
I kind of mis a sharp curve in the s like you have in your e.
Maybe you could also tuck the tip of the c a bit to the left.
You probably need to resolve exactly how someone should read this. I had a bit of a time parsing the letters into something pronounceable. If I.T. is an acronym for information technology, then maybe distinguish it a bit more. I am not too familiar with that field, but the name doesn't immediately sound like a brand - more like the name of a sector of that industry.
/c/ feels too wide - maybe try something more like your original sketch.
The latest /o/ is nicely improved.
The thinking behind the latest changes to /it/ is good but the execution doesn't work.
/s/ leans backward and feels a bit too imprecise for what I am inferring that you are trying to communicate.
The flag makes me think of golf. Is it meant to be a play icon? Maybe try your old /m/ in there too? The initial /it/ seems too dark almost becoming an icon.
It was not meant for an icon, the company name is itsemiotics and I tried to create some contrast between it and semiotics. for Luma, what I do to make it less dark? less bold?
What I meant was that /it/ is becoming a little abstracted from letters. It is moving toward becoming a symbol, something like π. The boldness, ligature, and flag contribute to that. Whether this is a good thing or not is a question you will have to answer yourself, but I was assuming based on your initial sketches that it should be read as a phrase: "I.T. Semiotics".
11 Nov 2012 — 3:26am
Seems good, but the letter i is kind of disconnected to the other letters, like a bar | instead of an lowercase i. The c uper end is to curved compared to the lower end and the lower end could be extended a little. I think the o could be a little more rounded, more like the original sketch of the logo.
11 Nov 2012 — 3:51am
Thanks any suggestion to improve the 'i'?
11 Nov 2012 — 4:42am
Top version looks like a tweak of Sansantion.
Generally speaking, a critique requires knowing what this logo is for exactly. Fancy /C/ might work for one case, but would create an absolutely inappropriate vibe for another. Though I suspect you know that.
11 Nov 2012 — 6:02am
Logo is for an IT company.
I'm not creating whole set of typeface. Just these letters
*actually I didn't tweak or inspired by sansation. I followed my sketch and my eyes. Maybe there is sansation in my subconscious mind.
11 Nov 2012 — 6:42am
I like the "e".
hhp
12 Nov 2012 — 10:27pm
more rounded 'o', added ligatures and extended lower end 'c'
13 Nov 2012 — 3:58pm
Don't like the last version at all. It's out of style and I also think you should keep things simple.
What's the name? it semiotics, itsemiotics, or semiotics? If you have the choice choose the latter, it's complex enough. Or maybe go for semiotics with an pay off talking about it.
I kind of mis a sharp curve in the s like you have in your e.
Maybe you could also tuck the tip of the c a bit to the left.
I like the overal feel. :)
14 Nov 2012 — 6:29am
You probably need to resolve exactly how someone should read this. I had a bit of a time parsing the letters into something pronounceable. If I.T. is an acronym for information technology, then maybe distinguish it a bit more. I am not too familiar with that field, but the name doesn't immediately sound like a brand - more like the name of a sector of that industry.
/c/ feels too wide - maybe try something more like your original sketch.
The latest /o/ is nicely improved.
The thinking behind the latest changes to /it/ is good but the execution doesn't work.
/s/ leans backward and feels a bit too imprecise for what I am inferring that you are trying to communicate.
14 Nov 2012 — 7:08am
I guess I'll just use readymade typeface and customise it like this.
any problem with the customisation?
14 Nov 2012 — 8:32am
The old "e" was the best thing about it. :-(
hhp
14 Nov 2012 — 9:44am
well the client didn't like it :(
*Probably someday I'll learn how to make font and complete the whole set :)
14 Nov 2012 — 12:25pm
The flag makes me think of golf. Is it meant to be a play icon? Maybe try your old /m/ in there too? The initial /it/ seems too dark almost becoming an icon.
14 Nov 2012 — 8:24pm
It was not meant for an icon, the company name is itsemiotics and I tried to create some contrast between it and semiotics. for Luma, what I do to make it less dark? less bold?
15 Nov 2012 — 6:16am
What I meant was that /it/ is becoming a little abstracted from letters. It is moving toward becoming a symbol, something like π. The boldness, ligature, and flag contribute to that. Whether this is a good thing or not is a question you will have to answer yourself, but I was assuming based on your initial sketches that it should be read as a phrase: "I.T. Semiotics".
21 Nov 2012 — 1:52pm
If the name is one word you should stick to on font weight imho.
I would probably refine your original concept.