Logotacular Fontasticness

[denny]

Today we will mostly be trying to decide between almost identical fonts. Help?


1.

2.

3.

4.

4b. See comments :)

5.


ETA: We seem to have acquired an option #4b - see image in the comments, and I guess vote for 4 if you think 4b is the winnar. :)

Poll #670 Fontastic

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 15

View Respondents

The version I like bestest is...

View Answers

#1
5 (33.3%)

#2
2 (13.3%)

#3
2 (13.3%)

#4
4 (26.7%)

#5
2 (13.3%)

Helen says to tell everyone that she is still working on the atom thingy and hence it is not yet to be criticised :) Personally I think it looks cool.

Comments

[simont]

The curves in #1 are a bit too square (especially the s). The d in #2 is just a bit too silly. #3's letters are a bit too big for their spacing, or too close together for their size, and the low ratio of ascender to x-height doesn't help matters. #4 feels a bit too heavy, and as much as anything else, the curl on the right of the a doesn't fit the otherwise generally no-serifs-here aesthetic of the rest.

That leaves #5, and although something about the curve of the y isn't sitting quite right with me, it isn't making me feel as much wrongness as the other four.

[denny]

Very detailed analysis, thank you :)

We hadn't actually noticed that the 'a' in #3 and #4 was (for no apparent reason) serif, but you're entirely right. Helen has just made a fixed version of #4 with a sans-serif 'a' (constructed from a copy of the 'd'), and we're quite fond of that - what do you think?

[simont]

Not bad. I think I still slightly prefer #5 due to the lighter weight, but this new one definitely beats the other four for me.

[pooloftrees.livejournal.com]

Personally I don't like this 'd', and consequently the 'a', but the text does have the shininess that was lacking or not clear in #2 and #3 and I find it preferable to #4.