I forgot about the Discourse version of the icon, that was redrawn as well.
Its common to do the miniature raster version seperately from the big vector version to get the details to scale down nicely (esp. For the favicon which is just a bunch of pixels)
I think the original logo is pretty good although small detail isn’t usually a good idea for obvious reasons. The black type version isn’t as nice i think we should stick to having just red logo and type on white background (no square) or white logo on a red surround for banners etc. Also means we could screen print the logo easily and use a vibrant spot color red for any branding material.
Is that a preview of the new website on the top post ? Looks like it needs some nice big appealing photos perhaps ? I can help with that once the space gets more busy with different projects
“Wider slightly” means 2 whole pixels if you want to keep the slot centred. And that makes the downstroke of the V lose its underside, which either looks weird, or nicely streamlined. Not sure.
(unless you had a higher number than 64 in mind when you originally said “pixel aligned”
I think you’re right about Dosis Light - at small sizes it disappears, and when cut out it’s all spindly.
However, I think the logotype should remain 2-tone rather than 3. So much easier to cut out, paint, etc.
My gut feeling about Gotham is that the light typeface just feels a little “wide”.
Yes, this is obvious, but it doesn’t work even at medium size, thats the problem with the original redrawing, and why we should redraw it.
Honestly thats a more radical shift that I am proposing, the red box with white icon is what we’ve been doing for a while and it’s core to the new website and poster, and I don’t agree that red logo on white background looks good, it feels a bit like Tesco Value to me, however I agree the black type isn’t working, but it was meant to be a suggestion that we should try other stuff out.
I have screen printed it with huge success in the past…
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unknowndomain/14528515353/in/pool-southlondonmakerspace/
@peter_hellyer This works better (ignore the stupid margin on the right) because the type is all the same weight, and with more places identifying with the term Makerspace than previously it’s not realistic that we are just called Makerspace, or is it?
@tomnewsom remember when I suggested we should be London Makerspace?
I quite like that, do you have a vector so I can do some implementations. I guess the V also now looks a bit thin because it’s a different width, also the dot seems low as if it should be centered on that diamond bit.
yeah, I agree, the mix of light and bold is the right way to go, I think. just the justification of the light face feels a little off (it almos certainly isn’t) but the contrast makes it feel odd.
Maybe that’s just my dodgy eyes though. I’ll get back in my box.
Eh? they are both regular…
it was Dosis Extra Light and Regular before.
Every time I type our website address, I remember.
Ah yeah I didn’t pick up the dot.
The legs are 12px and the V is 10.2
I’m working in autocad, so will this do?
logo pixelgrid2.dwg (99.0 KB)
Or even this? (winces)
logo pixelgrid2.dxf (219.1 KB)
1 Like
This is why I hate autocad files…
How is this continuous path, not kept as a continuous path AutoDesk crap.
The screen printing argument was more against using two colors.
Regarding the box it doesn’t seem integral to the M so I’d be inclined to lose it as it seems little more than decorative (same goes for any lines around the type). I feel simple is best and a good logo doesn’t have anything more than it needs. We have it in inverted colors as our discourse logo and it doesn’t look naked without the box.
But i agree it looks better on a big red fill.
My fault for drawing with a mix of lines and plines 
Let me close the paths
logo pixelgrid2.dwg (99.3 KB)
I can understand the desire for minimalism, however like you it looks better inverted and we’ve already started implementing it that way so I don’t think we should change that.
I have been meaning to update that for ages to a red box.
Red box the same size as the M? Or white M same size (38px) with red background via CSS? (I just had a fiddle with the inspector and it looks pretty easy)
Might look a bit tiny with a 40px red box and a 32px M
Something like this but I haven’t played with it.
Exactly what I had in mind
I’ll have a go at the CSS
As someone who cannot draw to save their own life and is very bad at design in general I have to say that my opinion is whatever you guys decide I am fine with. That being said I really liked the breakdown history of the logo so thank you for taking the time to post this.
1 Like
What rules should this follow ? Do we keep the box around the M if we lasercut the logo on ply ? Was going to tinker with a tool caddy design with all the branding on it and perhaps brand some small tools too (the mallets can be laser engraved for example) so we can keep personal & space tools separate
you should read the Makerspace History it’s actually really interesting… http://southlondonmakerspace.org/history