06/04/06
The New Logo
I’ve finally finished the replacement for the oh-so-common 3 leaf logo that moaned about before, and realigned and simplified the site a bit to suit the new style (clear out those caches!).
So (for the benefit of those reading this in their RSS reader), here it is:
You’ll get used to it.
Reasons, explanations and talk about the process I will leave for another time. There were a lot of rejected ideas that I’d like to show you at some point too.
As for the site, it will need further tweaking over the coming weeks. It’s a wider layout, and I want to implement a resolution dependant layout to accomodate those who browse narrower, as well update old stuff like the desktops. Again, living by the small steps mantra, rather than trying to get everything done in one go.
Update: Whoops. Turns out I’ve used the same typeface as Firewheel Design. I hadn’t noticed that they’d moved to Egret as well. If they didn’t have ‘design’ in their title as well, I’d tempted to say sod it, but I may have to rethink the type.
Previous
Download our vCard
Stuart Maynard-Keene said 772 days ago:
Hi Jon, congrats on the redesign. The type is lovely, I just hope the logotype grows on me :-(
David said 772 days ago:
Loving the new design … big fan of the logotype. The recent articles / link love / hickr at the bottom seems like it could be spread over the three columns though? But it’s none of my business and the whole thing looks lovely!
David M. said 772 days ago:
Interesting work—I’m really looking forward to reading what you have to say about the process, too.
Mihai Parparita said 772 days ago:
Hi Jon,
I wasn’t able to see the new logo in my RSS reader (Google Reader). You seem to be blocking image requests that have a google.com referrer. Perhaps you’d be willing to reconsider this for the sake of our users.
Mihai Parparita
Google Reader Engineer
Gilles said 772 days ago:
I don’t like the logo, I think it has something to do with the colors (which reminds me: aren’t you colorblind?). But then again, I may still be in shock about the boot camp anouncement…
I do love the typeface, though!
Chris McElligott said 772 days ago:
Hopefully it grows on me because at the moment I’m not so sure on it, perhaps the I’m having withdrawals… anyone got any leaf?
dandavies said 772 days ago:
Congrats Jon, a lovely redesign I really love the logotype. However, is the ‘50% less evil’ meant to sit behind everything? As at the moment it goes behind everything leaving just a tad showing.
Matt said 772 days ago:
I bet the logo looks wonderful in print. However, on screen it seems a little ragged to me. I always avoid circles in logos for the web due to jaggies at low res.
Northshore said 772 days ago:
Oooooooh maybe I’m picky but at first glance I actually read that squiggly bit as a C and thought it was Chicks Design…....and someone just asked why the o was underlined…its not an O its a g!
Jon Hicks said 772 days ago:
mmm, divisive this new logo is.
“I don’t like the logo, I think it has something to do with the colors (which reminds me: aren’t you colorblind?)”
I am, but I do check with a non-colourblind person (usually my wife who has great colour sense) before doing anything!
Remi Prevost said 772 days ago:
Is it the same typeface than Firewheel Design ?
Jon Hicks said 772 days ago:
Arse! It is! When did they change their typeface?!! Grrr
Brutal said 772 days ago:
Wow! Looking forward to see your finished site. Not sure about that logo, though.. Maybe it’ll grow on me.
Gilles said 772 days ago:
“I am, but I do check with a non-colourblind person (usually my wife who has great colour sense) before doing anything!”
And it wasn’t April, 1st when you asked her? No seriously, it just ain’t my cup of tea but I guess you cannot please everyone…
if only I didn’t clear the cache…
Jason Santa Maria said 772 days ago:
I am also anxious to hear your thoughts on this. From what I see here on a surface level, I will share a few things. The type is very cool, not in my tastes, but it has a lot of character. The thin strokes and edges are beautiful (though I think that + needs to be dropped a bit vertically :D).
As for the logo mark, it hasn’t really done it for me yet. From the get go, it seems a bit too ancillary for the logo and not nearly integrated enough. Almost like it’s some guy at a party who walks up to the group of letters that are already having a conversation… “hey fellas, what’s up?”. This is especially evident on the version used on your site. Things that it brings to mind: records, the 70’s, grade school (the colors), and slot car racing. The shape is just about interesting enough (though still not as solid as the leaves were); the colors are probably the biggest thing holding it back. The mix of so many primary shades makes a mark without prominence or hierarchy; everything is screaming for attention and it just turns into graphic noise. Also, seeing the variety of uses for the mark on your sites, it does seem to hold up better at smaller sizes. I love ya Jon and I love your design. I think this logo is close, but I don’t think it is quite there yet.
Looking forward to your write-up (and the abandoned concepts).
Jono Hunt said 772 days ago:
I like it, funky!
Erwin Heiser said 772 days ago:
I like it, it has a psychedelic 70’s feel to it. Hate to see the previous navigation go though…
Gerrit van Aaken said 772 days ago:
You shouldn’t do the Firewheel Design Logotype. Plus it look s alot like Veerle’s Blog’s headlines …
Marc said 772 days ago:
pointing at Jason What he said!
Btw a very good, well-written statement, Jason. Couldn’t have said it better.
Jon, I hope you take some minutes to refine the logo.
Greetings from Germany!
Jon Hicks said 772 days ago:
@Gerrit – I’m not ‘doing the Firewheel Design Logotype’, it happened to be the same typeface. Plus, I disagree, it doesn’t look like Veerle’s headings at all.
Nathan Pitman said 772 days ago:
I like it, it might not be to everyones tastes, but hey, you shouldn’t have to worry about pleasing everyone. It’s creative, it’s different, it’s triggered discussion, therefore in my book, it’s good. :)
Phil Balchin said 772 days ago:
Why is the ‘o’ so special that it needs to be underlined?
Nathan Pitman said 772 days ago:
Oh, and by the way Jon, don’t forget to update your gravatar. :)
Nathan Rutman said 772 days ago:
Hey Jon, thanks for keeping such an impressive blog and design site.
My take on the logo: The leaf had an attention to detail that the new mark seems to lack (both in its thick strokes and it’s bright colors). I’d be interested to see how it digresses, for environments that can’t render drop shadow or color. Also you’ve lost any iconic meaning. The leaf symbolized an organic “natural-ness” which I think characterizes your work well. I haven’t seen too many things from you that make me scratch my head and say, “weird.” It’s all self-evident design done with such a fresh [again, leafy] sense of style that it makes you really unique. I’m not sure the new mark has enough “you” in it (or at least “your work” since I don’t really know you). :-)
Of course, maybe you’re looking for something different, and not a product of who you have been but rather where you’re going. In that case, you’re probably the only one who can properly evaluate the new mark. But I wouldn’t be sad to see you take another stab at something that characterizes you a bit more.
A loyal fan,
-Nate
P.S. What do those colors look like in a darker color space (CMYK)?
Adam Schilling said 772 days ago:
I think it needs more … or maybe less … {grin!} Basically, I agree with Jason’s observations. And, I think the colours are what rattles me most. Still, if you want ‘stand out’ and ‘memorable’, then you’ve certainly got it going here.
I’ll probably adjust to this quicker than I think. My partner, Sapphira, on the other hand, is mourning the loss of your leaf logo, and your groovy-vertical-menu-header (she’ll be fine – she just needs some time). ;-)
Jon Hicks said 772 days ago:
“Oh, and by the way Jon, don’t forget to update your gravatar. :)”
I have! Trouble is, it has to be ‘approved’ first, so it may take a while :o(
Siobhan Curran said 772 days ago:
I think the one thing that’s bugging me about it, is how it doesn’t relate to a lot of other things on the page. The leaf reflected (or perhaps ‘initiated’) most of the rounded-corner elements – the comments, the sidelinks etc – and it’ll be interesting to see how you develop your ‘screen furniture’ to reflect the new logo.
Rob... said 772 days ago:
I like it. It definitely has a 70s feel which is fine with me.
Don’t forget your favicon though…
Siobhan Curran said 772 days ago:
(and of course, the second I post that, you change all your bullets and headers ;-)
Jon Hicks said 772 days ago:
@Rob – I have, but most browsers have very aggressive caches for favicons, especially Safari, so I don’t know how long it will be until you see the new favicon. Unless you delete all your icon caches, which I’m NOT suggesting you do!
@siobhan – they’ve been changed for ages, I think you’re cache has finally let you catch up!
Alisa Schadt said 772 days ago:
Hi! I LOVEDDDDDDDDD the leaf logo.
I really like the shape and colors of this one though-
very interesting and playful.
:o)
ben williams said 772 days ago:
Nice, reminds me of the following:
Target,
70’s Scaletrix Track
Infinity.
All of which say great things about you. Probably. Sort of. Er Maybe.
Oh alright it just looks cool.
Jon Hicks said 772 days ago:
“Nice, reminds me of the following:
Target,
70’s Scaletrix Track
Infinity.”
Yeah! Thats it! :D
Brutal said 772 days ago:
Soo.. When you say you “may have to rethink the type.” – does this mean that you’ve wasted 69 dollars?
James AkaXakA said 772 days ago:
Hmm…hope it grows on me..
(Sorry!)
oneighturbo said 772 days ago:
nice work. reminds me of Frank Stella
i get a bit lost on the heirarchy of the page, very similar weight on white.
Benjamin Reece said 772 days ago:
To be honest, I am a little disapointed. I love you work and your blog. I think I am just disapointed in the creativity.
Just a type face (that my eyes are not very fond of)
And a kind of cute logo (cute, but not retro, or stunning, and besides it looks pixalated and bleeding)
Love you man, just trying to help out!
Ben
Dave Simon said 772 days ago:
I think that Mr. Santa Maria put it very diplomatically.
Perhaps the new logo will grow on me. I actually prever it in the smaller version (such as the preview pic down in the hickr section.)
Perhaps my opinion will change when the rest of the site changes a bit to match. The comments and such just remind me of the old site.
As a fellow colorblind person, the colors are definitely bright! :) I just wish that there was a way to do circles without jaggies. I mean other than Flash…
Jacob Harvey said 772 days ago:
Well I like it, but it reminds me of the seventies. :)
Marc Köhlbrugge said 772 days ago:
To be honest, At first I thought it was some April 1st joke. I really liked your previous webdesign + logo. But I really don’t like the new stuff. Anyway, I’m looking forward to see you abandoned ideas.
Graham Sanders said 772 days ago:
I see you kept the nice leaf gravatar.
Not fussed on the new logo at all sorry, reminds me of the cyclops character from Monsters inc:
http://www.filmha.com/pictures/monsters_inc/monsters_inc_pic_02.jpg
Clay Preheim said 772 days ago:
I’m pretty surprised by all of the overly critical feedback… The logo is beautiful and has character. It’s unique. And, thank god, it’s not another plant/flower, which is so beyond played out at this point, as so many others seemed to follow your early lead.
The image works great with the typeface (yes, I realize you’ll probably change that) with all of the circular elements. To my eyes they go hand in hand. I won’t be surprised if a year from now we see five other logos that remind us all of this one.
Great work!
Warren Parsons said 772 days ago:
In a nutshell, I hate it. Further explanation follows for those who care…
I’ve never thought of your work (or you, from what little I know) in the “hipster” or “change for the sake of change” gestalt. Maybe that’s not spot-on for what I’m trying to convey, but it’ll do.
On the contrary, I’ve always appreciated what I perceive as a very “genuine” quality to your work. It shoots straight, if you will, and that speaks to me.
This, on the other hand, seems over-stylized. Ornament done for the sake of ornamentation, rather than identity. And this just doesn’t fit with my personal conception of your work or the man behind it.
I’m also a firm believer in never changing your logo/identity unless it truly stinks. So what if other people have used logotypes with leaves in them? Yours is still innately you... And it most definitely does not stink.
I hope you understand that I’m writing this out of respect and admiration for you and your work. I’m writing because I think this logo isn’t worthy of you.
Joshua Bryant said 772 days ago:
Jon, it looks awesome. The only think I noticed is that in the bottom circle, underneath the outside blue ring on the top I can clearly see some “purple jaggies.” It looks like it should be a perfectly round circle, but it looks as if there are a couple pixels that got in there some how that shouldn’t be.
I zoomed in on them here:
http://joshuabryant.com/temp/hickslogo.png
Joshua Bryant said 772 days ago:
Oh yes, and also one more thing, the bottom half of the same circle is much more properly aliased, i.e., I see no jaggies there. You could just do a quick copy on that part, flip and paste maybe?
Love the look though, awesome to finally see it!
Dave Simon said 772 days ago:
I think part of the reason the purple antialiases so poorly is that it goes from a dark color to a light color. Or colour, as it were. :)
But, on the bright side, the new logo is now in my favicon slot, so I think Safari let the new one take over…
Mike D. said 772 days ago:
I think I told you once that if the foliage king were to abandon his foliage-loving ways, I would picket.
I’m having signs produced right now. If you see a group of people outside your house tomorrow morning, you will know my people have arrived.
Manuela said 772 days ago:
Although I liked the previous version of your logo a lot, I think this one is far more unique. The colours are very strong and therefore for me the contrast to the white background of the pages is very strong as well. I know I’ll get used to that. The most important thing is that the logo works for you and that you are happy to go with it.
FSFunky said 772 days ago:
That looks great. You should get into the graphic design business.
Phil said 772 days ago:
I like it! First time I saw it though I thought of the Lemon Jelly album lemonjelly.ky
Gilles said 772 days ago:
“You should get into the graphic design business.”
I second that ;-)
FatBusinessman said 772 days ago:
I’m going to come down on the side of not liking the logo as well. Had I posted this two hours ago, I would have said I hated it, but I like to think I’ve calmed down a little since then.
My complaints about it are really the two main ones that have already been made: first that I find the colours downright garish, to the point that it would make me think twice about asking you to develop a brand for my site or company. I appreciate that I am no graphic designer, but the logo just doesn’t please my eyes.
My second problem with the logo is that it isn’t you. When I think of Jon Hicks, I think of a cheery, easy-going guy with a pint of ale in one hand, a plate of cheese in the other and a hearty laugh. The last logo, combined with the tree backgrounds, reminded me of that guy. This logo doesn’t.
To close, I echo Warren’s point: this logo just doesn’t seem Hicksworthy.
John Handelaar said 772 days ago:
I like it, but I’d like it more if you fixed the jaggies on the dark blue rings.
Matt said 772 days ago:
Ah ha! Jaggies removed. Love it.
Andrea said 772 days ago:
OK, I have to say that it is a shock, but I love it.
It reminds me of the 70’s, infinity, records, and those orange tracks for Hot Wheels cars. It reminds me of my childhood. It is playful yet sophisticated, which really does say “Hicks” to me, after having spent some time with you in Austin.
I really like the colors because they are unique. There’s no rule against using bright colors on the web if they work well. I do think the lines are bleeding a little and look a bit jagged in places. I also think the horizontal version is working better than the stacked version.
But overall I like it, and I liked the previous version too. I also have natural and playful sides to my personality, so may I just get it easier than some…
Congrats on the new identity!
jared said 771 days ago:
hey jon i really like the new logo… the favicon is a bit pixelated though. maybe if you used the altered smaller version that’s next to”my riffs” and “sidenotes” the favicon would look smoother?
but don’t take advice from me. you’re a design genius and i’m just a kid. i have no right to suggest anything to you.
i’m not worty… i’m not worthy… =)
G. Hinckley said 771 days ago:
Oh, ewwwww.
Patrick Haney said 771 days ago:
I’m not really a big fan of it to be honest, but I’m also not a hater. It’s just… meh… for me. Maybe it’s the overload of color that reminds me of the ‘70s (not that I was alive for much of that decade) or the non-exciting race-like loop shape.
That said, it’s definitely a step away from the norm. The leaves were getting overdone and you needed to do something different, which is exactly what this is. So it works in that sense.
Northshore said 771 days ago:
Well I think I’ve put my finger on my ‘unease’ with it – for want of a better word – and it isn’t to do with colour etc etc. It’s more to do with whether it is Hickensian ( :O) ) enough for me! The leaves were part of the overall Hicks brand and to my mind conveyed exactly what you were about and perhaps what you could expect design wise from you.
The new logo though – and you can’t knock the quality of it – if you showed it unnamed to 10 people, 9 would probably guess it was done by Denis Radenkovic who I think produces some of the most distinctive identities – based around curves and smooth lines.
So there you go – I originally thought Denis had done a job for Hicks, as you have to admit, it fits in quite nicely with the 38one logo – so I think it actually dilutes the Hicks brand somewhat in that your key visual identity actually looks like it has been produced by someone else. But hey, its only an opinion.
By the way – Hickensian….you can have that for free :o) Nearly as good as Oxtonian!
brian warren said 771 days ago:
Depends on when I look at it. I love it sometimes and other times I think “hm…. i think it will grow on me.” Stan’s comments are good. I think you could probably improve it a bit – i liked the idea of having a bit more value hierarchy. The type – It’s beautiful, not sure it goes w/ the logomark but eh, I dont know. The whole look is really spunky and not what people are doing these days design-wise, despite that you and firewheel found the same typeface. I can’t wait to read your write up about the whole thing. As for the new site layout, it’s fun, simple and functional. I like it, though I miss the horizontal tree. ;-)
Buzz Andersen said 771 days ago:
I like it—a lot!
Pat Collins said 771 days ago:
Great minds think alike sometimes, unfortunately.
I was searching for fonts myself today and found this one . It looks quite good with your name.
Thomas Arie said 771 days ago:
Personally, I like your “leaf” version more. Sorry John.
About the “circle”, if we change the “fire”-color (red, orange, yellow?)... And put it at Firewheel… it is still great!
Anyway, I still put the content as the point of interest, not the logo. ;)
John Oxton said 771 days ago:
I love it Jon (but I don’t love you.. just for the record! ;)), it’s distinctive, it’s in your face, it’s retro, it’s funky, it’s FUN!
Fun.. fun.. fun.. fun
Jon Hicks said 771 days ago:
@Pat – Yes I’ve been looking at Glitterati (same designer as Egret) as well as House Industries Chalet. Egret was the one I wanted to use though!
The thing I find very interesting is that people think leaves were ‘me’, and this ‘isn’t me’. Very odd….
BTW Its hell to get decent ant-aliasing on those curves! Maybe I need to do it in Flash?!
Matt Thomas said 771 days ago:
Not too crazy about the colors of the new logo, but I will say that it is very unique. There are just too many “leaf” logos.
Alexis Gallisa said 771 days ago:
I think you’ll still have trouble with the aliasing in flash as well especially on LCDs. I think keeping it as a bitmap you probably have the most control over what its going to look like. Not sure if you created the icon in photoshop or illustrator. I’ve always found that using paths for the web I end up remaking most of them in photoshop and then “kerning” them. Simply exporting from Illustrator does not really do the best job. Example for those who have no idea what I am talking about. Make a box shape layer in photoshop and zoom in. Chances are the edges are not going to perfectly solid. Half the time you need to actually select the corner points with the “Direct Selection Tool (A)” for each side and nudge them until the edges actually make a perfect square pixel edge.
Joseph Derrier said 771 days ago:
The favicon (which Safari just noticed) is really buzy and pixily. Perhaps you can just use the simple “target” like the ones used for the recent articles title for the favicon.
Pat Collins said 771 days ago:
Jon: I love Chalet. If you’re gonna go for that then go for 1970. Tre chic, man. Not a bad deal, either.
BB said 771 days ago:
I like the general design. However, the colors are garish, and it looks pixelated.
I’m a sucker for the mobius strip—even one with a beer belly. ;)
jared said 771 days ago:
Jon, I went to an art museum today, and by coincidence I saw a piece by Richard Jackson that really reminded me of your new logo. Thought I’d share it with you. Is it nice to known that you’re thought of randomly in museums 9,000km away?
jared said 771 days ago:
sorry, it would be:
Cienfuegos said 771 days ago:
dios mio no!
i will consider this an attempt against nature. where are the trees? the leaves? the imaginative navigation?
i do remember the first incarnation of your last design, and didnt like it, only for you to turn around and present your second rendition which i and the rest of the world (yes the world!) loved. so i will not freak out just yet. bring back the leaf or racetrack logo gets it!
Paul Lloyd said 771 days ago:
Whilst not to my tastes, I still quite like the new logo (thou not so sure about the typeface so gald to hear that may be changing!)
In terms of your site, I’m really not so sure. I now that time is tight, but it does feel a bit like a hurried job. I can’t wait to see what your next ‘from scratch’ site looks like, and how the new logo influences that from the start.
Maaike said 771 days ago:
Some people here say the logo doesn’t suit Jon. Here’s something I don’t understand: he designed the logo himself and HE thinks it suits him, so how can anyone disagree? Surely Jon is the one to judge that?!
What I like about this logo is that it’s different from the general web 2.0 / web standard geeks style. Different colours, no 3D effects. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but at least its something new. Which is good :-)
Michael G said 771 days ago:
I totally agree with Maaike, no one can really say if this logo suits Jon or not. Like many others I’m eagerly waiting to read the thought process and reasoning behind this logo and to see the discarded runner up’s, I’m sure many will have a different view once this has been explained.
Be nice to see the ident in print
giuliano said 771 days ago:
the design is cool, original and the logo too (maybe cause some dizziness looking at it too long :) ) i think it represent more “you” John than the web agency Hicksdesign, but this is cool for me, it’s corageous and probably help give a feeling of “i’m a kind man not a cold design corp”
what i don’t understand is the choose of colors (due to my ignorance of color theory)
Jon Hicks said 771 days ago:
@ Brutal “Soo.. When you say you “may have to rethink the type.†– does this mean that you’ve wasted 69 dollars?”
A bought font is NEVER a wasted font!
Jakob Heuser said 771 days ago:
Thank you Jason for making me spit soda onto my LCD. In all honesty though, that seems amazingly appropriate for the quirky and fun nature of hicksdesign. I actually really like the subtle drop shadow where the logo passes under itself; it’s like the circle got all twisted up. I’m not too crazy about the colors, but they are certainly memorable. (And thanks for adding the image inline for those of us in feederland.)
Denis Radenkovic said 771 days ago:
I actually like the logo very much and don’t really understand all the negative feedback. It’s very different from what you had untill couple of days ago, but it’s unique and fun. I can imagine a lot of great things this logo will allow you to do in print as well as on the web site.
I’m looking forward to replacing the old logo on my site as son as I get the chance! :-)
boere said 771 days ago:
I like the logo, not sure about the colour though it may grow on me.
I see you’ve put the logo on the top-left, that’s definitely coming into fashion now
Nick Day said 771 days ago:
I’m a fan, good work Jon!
Martin said 771 days ago:
No red telephone boxes, no morris dancing, no trees, no ale, no portly publicans with bristling moustaches, no rosy-cheeked children, no bad teeth, no incomprehensible locals, no cheese?
My world has turned upside-down!
How can this logo say Jon Hicks?
;)
Fergus said 771 days ago:
NIce … now we’ll all have to start changing our logos from leaves to swirls.
David Barrett said 771 days ago:
I have to say, I’m digging the typeface you replaced Egret with. What is it?
Personally, I’m still in shock that you got rid of the tree on the right… it’ll take me a while before I can look at the new logo with fresh eyes :)
JaX said 771 days ago:
I know you are capable of making a stronger logo. Your illustraitor skills are unmatched. This design needs more of the Hicks magic we all know and love.
Jon A said 770 days ago:
Ok bit of a shock as not been here for a while! Do like it though. First impressions were well 70’s. Whoever said Scalextrix (sp?) was on the button.
Also got a vibe of tomorrow’s world and whatever that spoof tomorrow’s world prog was recently on BBC2.
As for someone who is well in an industry that talks typeface all the time I actually love it. Oh and what are the odd’s that someone would ‘not’ have the same typeface?
Overall me liking!
Andrew Creek said 770 days ago:
Jon it looks like you need to update your favicon file the leaf is still lingers.
Alexis Gallisa said 770 days ago:
Nice, the logo looks nice and crisp now. That weird little aliasing hump on the yellow was killing me for a while. I like it John.
Alexis Gallisa said 770 days ago:
Jon
Dan said 770 days ago:
I think I’m one of many who are waiting for it to grow on them. It looked a bit better at work but that was on Firefox and a CRT so smoothing out any anti-aliasing issues and also sans any Safari caching trouble.
I definitely agree with those who said it reminds them a bit of Scalextric.
That and, for me, memories of Jamie and the Magic Torch.
Come on, Wordsworth.
Pat said 770 days ago:
too many colors [6] for my taste. maybe 3 or 4 would be tolerable…
Lowell Wood said 770 days ago:
“Some people here say the logo doesn’t suit Jon. Here’s something I don’t understand: he designed the logo himself and HE thinks it suits him, so how can anyone disagree? Surely Jon is the one to judge that?!”
I think nobody can say that the logo doesn’t “suit” Jon Hicks, because he likes it just fine. But, I think what people mean when they say stuff like “It isn’t Jon Hicks style” is that it doesn’t reflect the brand that Jon has built up over his career. And I totally agree with that.
To me, the Jon Hicks (and Hicksdesign) brand is one of tasteful finesse and attention to detail. And this new logo has none of that. It is bold and loud with glaringly different colors.
If Jon’s intention was to go a different way with his brand, then choosing this as the new logo was a good idea, but I believe that this new logo does nothing to further the already established (and recognizable) Jon Hicks/Hicksdesign brand.
James Kahlin said 770 days ago:
I like the new logo overall. I think it is mainly the colors that are bugging me specifically. The red, blue, and orange I like. The yellow, green, and purple on the other hand… I think they detract from the overall effect. Perhaps if you were to try some different shades for the yellow, green, and purple? If you got those colors in line then I think the overall logo would be perfect. That’s just me though.
I’m just trying to supply some (hopefully) useful criticism. I know I’m no match to your talents so I don’t have any room to talk but I thought maybe adding my .02 cents might give you some help.
Geoffrey said 770 days ago:
I like the logo. It’s bold and colourful—bucks the trend of pale, pastel colours that are in fashion at the mo.
Kitsimons said 770 days ago:
Retro infinity. I already like it and it’s growing on me.
Kishore said 770 days ago:
Well, I have always believed that intepretation of logos and colors are very much influenced by personal tastes, and as such, I can’t say much about whether it suits Jon or not.
While some others have expressed that the colors act as a negative point, I however, feel that the bright colors definitely give it a very prominent look.
I think it needs a little getting used to after all the greenery that we have seen here. In fact, even now, the title posts appear in a tinge of green that reminds us of the old logo and sub-consciously we crave for the comfort of seeing something we are already used to seeing.
Ben said 770 days ago:
I’ve gotta give you credit, it’s completely different and having popped back every few days, it’s growing on me (just as you said it would, ha!). What’s more, it seems that you’ve finally cracked the anti-aliasing which did grate against me on day one. Looks much nicer now that the curves are smoothed off (and in the favicon too, excellent).
Whilst I’ve never been a fan of red and orange butt up against each other, I appreciate the bright colours and ultimately, I think it works. Others have suggested tweaking the colour combination and I don’t doubt there are others that’d work too but for the time being at least, you’ve got a logomark that’s all your own.
That said, I do now have an incredible urge to go home and unpack my childhood Scalextric.
Brian said 770 days ago:
I’d have to agree. I don’t agree with Pat. It doesn’t have that Hicks feel about it. And my wife is sad about your website. She liked its clean simple form before, and she misses that header. I’m sure all of this is still a WIP for you as I do the same thing, however you go, I’m sure I’ll still frequent your site. Its a great read.
Justin McGonigle said 770 days ago:
Why did you change the g? Before it looked so different and clever and designerly, but now (not that it looks bad) it doesn’t have the same impact as before….just my 2 cents
ivan raszl said 769 days ago:
I’m sorry, but i don’t like the logo. The logotype is something I’ve seen many times before. And the symbol is just meaningless to me. I don’t understand… Is it an assimetrical infinity symbol? Is it a doll? The colors are the worst. It’s a mess. It’s so bad it’s unique. I have to give it some time. It would be interesting if it can grow on me. Sorry bro. I’m just being honest. Delete if you feel like it.
Jon Zuck said 769 days ago:
Jon, what happened? I loved the old design. In my opinion, it was the coolest design on the Web. Honestly, the only change I like is the right hand side columns. I’m right-handed as are most people, so to me having navigation or clickable extras on the right seems natural, though many disagree.
Whether there were too many leafs out there or not, YOUR leafs were the bomb. And the beautiful navigation in the header was distinctive, original, and crazy-beautiful. And Jon, the colors here remind me of Fisher-Price toys. I’m sorry. Jason Santa Maria said it much more tactfully than I.
steveoco said 769 days ago:
The only thing that I think it could loose would be the shadow. I think it makes it less dynamic, and kind off drab in that area.
It would also be easier to work with as a vector file, not needing any real thought into managing the the shadow re print etc.
Just my 2c
Besides that the colours are unique and the bands and shapes welcome.
joel said 769 days ago:
I, also, am not so sure about the colours on the logo. They are all very saturated and reminds me of children’s toys and candy.
I love the form, and I’d generally keep the colours themselves (purples, oranges, greens, etc) but I’d consider different tints and shades.
Wodge said 769 days ago:
Great redesign. I like the new logo.
Jon Hicks said 768 days ago:
Right, its high time I closed comments on this.