4 ms·
>>This isn't basic sans serif at all, I quite like it. It's distinctive while also feeling trustworthy. Fascinating! If we assume that a logo is not targeted
by NikolaNovak 3y ago
>>This isn't basic sans serif at all, I quite like it. It's distinctive while also feeling trustworthy.
Fascinating!
If we assume that a logo is not targeted to expert professionals, but consumers at large; do you think you can help me as a somewhat nerdy but otherwise average consumer understand in which way it is not a basic sans serif at all? I'm not even remotely a font geek, yet even so have probably paid slightly more attention to fonts than anybody I know in real life and I haven't a clue in which way this is not basic, or is distinctive. I'm asking with genuine curiosity - much appreciated!:)
- Brendinooo 3y agoIt has a bit of stroke contrast, which is less typical of popular sans-serif fonts. Optima was a popular example of this in the 90s. It has a pretty tall x-height too which is probably made with "small print of logo at bottom of ~shampoo~ pill bottle" in mind; it helps mitigate the problem the mark being much wider than it is tall. But your reply is why I said what I said originally - I see those differences, crazygringo sees those differences, but I'm sure most people don't.
- jgtrosh 3y agoI guess the "&" is quite distinctive, and the letters are have different vert/hori stroke widths, and a few minor other details. But still, in comparison, the normal logo is way more distinctive and ... pretty, imo