I presented my first four logo design paths on InDesign to an audience and my lecturers. This is a crucial grading point in the Visual Communication module.
Using InDesign I exported a PDF and showed my digital sketchbook progress thus far. My thorough research was shown, along with my current logo design routes. I haven’t finished all the planned routes yet, as secondary source animals haven’t been explored fully. Along with this I need to draw more secondary source in my physical sketchbook.
The presentation went well. I showed confidence and spoke about my work fluently in detail with reasons for every important decision I made. Afterwards I recieved feedback from my Lecturers. I’m going to cover the feedback said.
To start, my presentation format is good, along with my voice and personal skills to reinforce this. The research was fairly extensive and covered what I needed to and more. They said to not include the placeholder text if it was placeholder.
For outcome one, the gradients and stroke size don’t work. They also didn’t favour the font usage, especially the bevel and drop shadow usage in the later developments. The overall aesthetic didn’t convey shoe shop. I could develop this by using a more common Sans serif font, along with a solid fill frog experimented on further.
For outcome two, the broken up effect was nice as well as the rectangle orientation. They felt the experimentation could have been more elaborate, as well the mark making. For the outcome, they liked this one best out of the four. To improve and further develop they asked to make the lines more symmetric and less random. I agree that some of the lines don’t look as effective as others in the outcome. Adjustments will have to be made to ensure it all looks visually correct with no harsh grouping of closure or similarity. I next need to consider if my company name will work well with this design too. My current name composed is Leap Forward. I like it, however the Lecturers said more consideration should be put into it. Another suggestion was to have more than one frog in the logo, showing the life cycle of the animal from tadpole to half frog – to convey baby to teens which is my target audience.
Outcome three consists of a lizard development. This was my personal favourite route, as the outcome was smart, effective and has a cute element to it. The development process was appreciated by the Lecturers, however the legibility of the lizard wasn’t conveyed in the outcome. They thought it was a mute or tadpole. To improve, I need to work on the composition of the lizard with the text. A frame could be formed from the lizard in multiple renditions. There is a lot of potential for further development.
Below shows outcome four. This is my least favourite route, as it was slightly rushed. The Lecturers agreed the outcome wasn’t strong, due to the little development experimentation and the imagery itself. They believed the hand/ foot image wasn’t a good symbol to work with, in which I now agree with. composition was hard to play with, and the gradients/ colour usage look naff, along with the poor font used once again. I completely agree that this was the worst route of development, therefore I will no longer continue this path and focus on the others and new secondary source ones now.
All the feedback recieved was very beneficial. Things I didn’t notice were brought to my attention, giving me a clearer path to work with. To continue the module, I will further develop outcomes two and three, as they have the most potential for more outcomes that are relevant to my business. I already have a few ideas.