On Thursday, each of my team members brought in their logos for critiquing.
The consensus was that his images were more suitable for cartoons or mascots rather than logos due to the detailed and action-oriented nature of his images.
We found the cloud-like object around his neck to be slightly ambiguous. It could be clouds in which he had jumped into or it could be water that was neck-level. It is a bit complex for a logo.
This cheery fellow is reminiscent of Pokémon, but once again was less suitable for a logo.
The muscular-looking frog above reminded some people of the Ben 10 series. It appears the frog is wearing some cool goggles and would make more sense as a mascot for a sports team.
Jessica’s artwork was overall quite adorable and used a composition of geometric shapes to create clean logos.
We found this piece to contain one too many details. The roundness of the character contributed to a friendlier feel of the character. The “WoW” at the bottom didn’t quite align with our team name. A few fixes were proposed including just having the head, but that would lose our “web”bed foot identity. Another was to only include the foot, but that could be hard to identify. Lastly we played with the idea of rearranging the body or perhaps removing it to keep our web concept without confusing our name.
This little box was found to be a little hard to identify as a frog. Some proposed to add a tongue. Others considered altering the hind legs to make it more identifiable. While other considered making it 2D with only the front face. The face of the frog itself was also found to be a bit too straight and could use a bit of a smile.
Similar evaluations as the previous, the pac-frog is somewhat unfrog-like. However, it is simple and scalable with the added detail of 0’s and 1’s that are being eaten. Some proposed to include webbed feet to show more identity.
The polygon frog (poly-frog get it?) had an interesting transformational concept, but once again was slightly out of character of a frog. Some suggested some webbed feet, but that seemed to make it look like a bird.
We come at last to the cute octopus that we all secretly need. The concept was thought up from the webbed nature of the octopus legs viewed in collection. Unfortunately, the name of our team includes frog, making this a bit less viable as a logo.
Lastly we come to the geometric version of “P” and “F.” Its simplicity is appreciated, although a majority of group members found the two letters to not be obvious enough.
Full disclosure, this is me. The main issues with these logos stemmed from a lack of identity.
The leafy thing was found to be too nature-like for our identity. The leaf was preferred to be slightly more rounded, perhaps removing the stem of the leaf. Then growing the frog foot a bit.
This was a slightly more polished and logo-like version of the previous. It was suggested that webs should be added to include our identity, the legs should be shrunk to show more P. Some liked the Yin Yang concept of the cognitive science and computer science blend of our team. Unfortunately, it seems to be similar to other logos.
This geometric P reminded people of the constellation and didn’t have much frog or web for that matter.
Kevin’s images were found to be beautiful in their simplicity.
The top left hand corner stacking frog came from the ideation that poly = many. To some there were too many lines form the arms and legs. It lacks the web concept of our identity. However, there seems to be potential in the possible arrangements of the three frogs.
The upper right frog was found to be too simple with no much to comment on. Clearly it is a frog.
The bottom frog is simple and obvious that its a frog. However, there was too much focus on leaping, which brings to mind the educational toys company LeapFrog.
Troy’s logos were all grounded in different aspects of our identity and included the process to the final logos.
The root idea stemmed from the web idea. It’s simple, but feels like a outdoors company name and can be slightly ambiguous in identity.
This clearly came form the web idea with all the early drawing that led to a beautiful looking web. Not much was said given its deviation from the frog part of our team name.
This was the most viable of all. It clearly incorporated our webbed feet and frog concept. Some people found the leg that connects to the foot a bit hard to see, but without would make it slightly difficult to see as a frog foot.
Similar to Troy, Won had clear and different inspirations to each of his logos with a different art style for each.
This came from Tuesday’s discussion of associating our web idea with the social aspect, which evolved into ant colonies with their intricate tunnels and social cohesion. This brought up a discussion between networks and the web. We concluded this was too much network and not enough web.
Closely tied with the concept of networking and the pipes that are associated with them, we concluded that it was once again divergent from our identity.
Lastly we have the tree root design similar to Troy’s inspiration with the detail of T for tree. The nodes at the ends of the roots were also connected with the network concept. It seemed a bit busy for a logo and too much art instead of design.
Unfortunately, we ran out of time and were unable to do ideas brainstorming. This we did over with google docs and survey monkey.