This is the celebrated journal of Mr. Simon Collison A.K.A Colly

Standards logo: you decide

29th June 2005

OK, you decide. Yes, the badger was a dirty joke. Democracy was requested, so democracy you get. Here are all 64 logos for the Simplified Standards website. Remember, the watchwords are simplicity, standards and bloody good design.

Voting is simple. Start your comment with the number followed by your reason for choosing that particular logo (in the format #1: Explanation…). The logo that is deemed most popular (and is not crap) will win. Any piss-take votes will be discounted. You’ve got until 30th June 9pm GMT to decide. Go for your life…

Note to the boys on the SpyMac forum: This was a competition - I did not design any of the logos, and the clip-art one was a joke entry from a colleague. Thanks.

01.

image

02.

image

03.

image

04.

image

05.

image

06.

image

07.

image

08.

image

09.

image

10.

image

11.

image

12.

image

13.

image

14.

image

15.

image

16.

image

17.

image

18.

image

19.

image

20.

image

21.

image

22.

image

23.

image

24.

image

25.

image

26.

image

27.

image

28.

image

29.

image

30.

image

31.

image

32.

image

33.

image

34.

image

35.

image

36.

image

37.

image

38.

image

39.

image

40.

image

41.

image

42.

image

43.

image

44.

image

45.

image

46.

image

47.

image

48.

image

49.

image

50.

image

51.

image

52.

image

53.

image

54.

image

55.

image

56.

image

57.

image

58.

image

59.

image

60.

image

61.

image

62.

image

63.

image

64.

image

Responses

# Dan Mall responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1: Typographically, it seems to be the only one that gets the point across.

(#36 has a misspelling.)

# Peter G. responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#54: Because it’s simple and clearly shows that it has something to do with web markup without being clich™ (e.g. #29).

#27: A close second, but to me doesn’t show that it has much to do with standards.

# Roger F. responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#55: To me points out that there should be a real science to the standards, not just “here are 50 ways to do a two column layout”.

# Phil responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Implified Tandards for life! (#41)

# Kenzie responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1: As above, it really is th only one that says “simple” to me (in a good way). #54 a close second.

# Ged responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I like #1. it’s probably the most simple one there, although i do quite like #14. (the SS in the background needs to stand out a bit more…)

There are some really good logo’s out there, like #42. - but most don’t ‘fit in’ with the theme / specification.

# Jeff responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1: Nice and simple which is well-suited for the name of the site.

# thomas responded on 29th June 2005 with...

The only one with at logo that works. Not too sure about the choise of the font

# god responded on 29th June 2005 with...

24: nice and clean though i’m not sure i agree wit the font choice.

27: good font choice, nice mark. some spacing issues, but good overall.

# thomas responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#3 that is… sry.

# Dave responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Yep, #1 for me. However #10 is close second.

# Lars Koudal responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#9: it immediately caught my eye. It just looks sweet and simple, adding a feel of “rules” to it. several other logos follow the same idea. i prefer this one though.

# Rachel responded on 29th June 2005 with...

My favs are #1 (like others have said - it just conveys simplicity!) and I also like #25 - although it could probably do with more spacing, I do like the way it incorporates the slogan which I always think is important.

# Tyley responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I like # 25

# justin responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I can honestly say that I don’t like any of them.

# Angel8tje responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#25: If you are looking for simplicity this is the logo. The blue brings harmony to the letters. A comforting logo which refers to simplicity. The sub sentence is also a plus point.

#42: Also a simple design and the 2 colours that are used bring peace to the words. The icon used for this logo can refer to a human being. I think this logo can bring a spirit to simplified standards. Simplified standards is created and designed by people (see icon in the logo) who want to bring some clarity and simplicity to the minefield of web standards and accessibility.

# erin responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I like #13, with #1 being second—but it’s just SO common—it looks like every other logo . . .

# Schultzy responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#45 because it is simple and great


actually because I want to win

#59 and #64 realy are good.

# OCY responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I think they are all pretty bad. Especially #53. #1 is alright but it’s too common. I wish I had submitted a design. It might have won. Some appear to have nothing in relation to the site. If I were you I’d prolong the contest until you get some quality submissions.

# Malarkey responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27.

# Roger Johansson responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#56: Because I like the colours, and it has a shape you can use for icons and stuff.

# Jkayel Semicolin responded on 29th June 2005 with...

51 is really quite nice. Simple, not cliched, and not too close to other sites (27 made me think of shaun’s new mint design, there was a stylegala clone, 24 looks like something I’ve seen before,  and a few others seemed very familiar ...)

... just scrolled through again ... yes ... 51 is kickass.

# Aaron B. responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#26 all the way!

# Tim Uruski responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#26 Gets my vote for simplicity coupled with technical relevance.  Plus the colors are purty.

# 3om3 responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27. Crisp Clean. Simple.

# A. Fruit responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#24. Cube-a-licious

# Greg responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27: Nice and simple, easy on the eyes. I’d like to see the image on the lef scaled down a bit, though.

I also like #13, #51 and #54. And long walks on the beach.

# Andy Beeching responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#25 floats my boat

# Lee Hickman responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I’m glad that someone like OCY has pointed out the skills needed to develop good design.

You only have to look at his portfolio to see what we are missing. Why, why, oh friggin’ why did he have to miss the deadline? I’m sure it would have been a gem.

Check out OCY’s breath-taking use of brand/design skills here and weep at the injustice of his non involvement.

# JohnO responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#26 - I like it because it has something to do with code, while not using angular brackets, with a nice typeface (go serif!)

second place #1 - definitely the best typography up there.. 26 is a close second, but you gotta have some color in there…

# Dale Cruse responded on 29th June 2005 with...

1. Simple.

# Ben Ward responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#51: The purple colour for the asterisk is lovely. It’s not linked to a particular programming language, which is my principal complaint with the logos featuring squrily brackets (a lot of which are otherwise very good indeed).

# Allanw responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#7 - simple and straight forward

# Martin Smith responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#2, #10 or #51 stand out to me for some reason? ;-)

# Tom Woolley responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#10 gets my vote due to its sheer simplicity, clear type and tight layout.

# David responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27 // Nice flowing mark, nice clean colors. I would use a different font -  forget the name of that font but it’s quite common. I like for logos to have a less common font. I would maybe take the font from #14 and use it with the mark of #27. The font from 14 has a similar tilt as the mark from 27. So, yea, my vote is for #27.
Also, I don’t think by saying the logo needs to be simple that it has to be ultra simple with just 2 words side by side. A logo with a clean mark is also simple. If I can draw it in the sand it’s simple.

# matrixd responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#7 It is simple, like Simplified

# Jan Brasna responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#56, sir… I don’t know why, I’d have chosen some different too, they are pretty nice, but I was either missing some strongness or message or they evoked something different so I wouldn’t connect them to web standards. This one is enough bold and remarkable for me, as well it has a slight visual connection to web technology.

Maybe #1 if it gets well-known, so the brand will become clear and recognizable. That alone it’s IMHO too “anonymous”.

If you want my runner-ups, here we go: #3, #13, #15, #25, #26, #27, #33, #51, #55

# Bridget responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#24:  It caught my eye.

# Andrew K responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1, #10, #27 and #56 are the finalists in my eyes.

# Mike Stenhouse responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Can’t make my mind up.

1. Simple but familiar.
50. Interesting but probably not suitable.
51. Simple but the two-tone thing’s been done.

That said, they all look to be straight out of Corporate Logo and Letterhead Vol.6 (or something). Plenty of commercial designers here? There’s not necessarily anything wrong with that but something a little ‘different’ would be lovely.

# Pete responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27. Fits the ideals completely.

# Jeff Wheeler responded on 29th June 2005 with...

59: I love the vector button thingies going on here. Very well done.
16: So modern and cool. I like it, but it has to be second after 59.

# Logollum responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#24 - the cubes pop out at me.

# Brian Spaid responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1 But “standards” should really be black and “simplified” gray. Standards is the subject and should therefore have more weight.

# Benjamin Bergh responded on 29th June 2005 with...

27, 51 or 56 will do it.

# John Blaze responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#25…. but #24 would scale better.  #1 is too simple.

# bludrop responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#10
#25
#27

They’re not too plain and make use of the “2 s’s”.

# Greg responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1 So much more well, simple!

# Fergus Webber responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#20 and #21 are my favourites but to be honest none of them are any good, I think you should read my tutorial on how to make good logos. CLICK HERE TO READ IT

# Benjy responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#3 or #10

# kiji responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27 simple but still dynamic; very good typography and design in general; it looks scalable ; you could use it for an icon as well.
#1 may be too dull, static. It conveys the idea that standards will turn out dull designs.
And it might be a good idea to stay away from the S.S., as it does not have the best connotations in Europe (Waffen S.S. - Sturm Staffel, the “elite” german troops during W.W.II)

# sdesocio responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I would say that 33 would be my pick it the “Simplified” used the same font as the “Standard” but because it didn’t I think that 56 is the best. It seems that alot of them “borrow” too much, 9 looks like <stylegala.com”>Stylegala   24 looks like Simple Bits , and there are a few that look like mattress company logos. I think u guys should have just gotten Hicks design to do the logo and skipped the voting. I do hope I didn’t offend anyone I know that there is nothing new under the sun so its tough to get beyond an initial design relationship and come up with something striking, That why u don’t see me saying I could do better.

# bodaniel responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Maybe #10

# quis responded on 29th June 2005 with...

A vote for 33, just cos #1 has had so damn many already.

# PlinkyPlonk responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1: Simple & unfussy. I’m a sucker for Meta.

# mark rush responded on 29th June 2005 with...

56 but chnge the typeface!

Mark

# Kitta responded on 29th June 2005 with...

My vote goes to #59.

# Thomas B. Aschim responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#10: lean, clean and beautiful (although the emphasis might be a little wrong)

# kemie responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1 embodies the spirit of simplicity
i’m also favorable to #26, very nicely executed, though i’m afraid it’s tied too much to css syntax, so it might be excluding othre technologies

# Paul Watson responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Lots of lovely light-tones-on-white logos (6, 34, 60-62, and to some extent 1, 30 and 50) which look good but don’t score high on the accessibility front (low contrast, bad for users with poor vision), and standards and accessibility should go hand in hand.

My favourites: 26 and 29.  26 wins by a whisker.

# Chris Buckley responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#10 get’s my vote, it’s very clean simple but not to simple.

# Emma responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Lots of new ones to look at… but I still like #10

# Bad Ger responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Joking aside, #12 gets my vote because it’s friendly and appealing and it pushes the envelope of logo design

# Dave responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#26 for me (and my other half!)

# Benjamin responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#51: Is my choice because it is clean, simple and the colours are great. Three cheers for #51! . . . Hip Hip. . . . ?

# Andrew Challen responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I’m drawn to #51

# lisa rostron responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Number one reminds me of the ‘stanley’ logo and is just too simple. It’s not forward thinking enough….

Number 10 has my vote and is clear and concise.

# Rob Waring responded on 29th June 2005 with...

54 or 64 part 4. I like the touch of colour in 54 and 64 uses good bold colours.

# Jon Hicks responded on 29th June 2005 with...

sdesocio - how do you know I didn’t submit a logo?! ;o)

# Alan responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Sorry if this got mentioned before but before you choose it might be usefull to read this :)
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002342.html

# Alan responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#54 : Seems to be the best choice for the mark at least.

I agree with sdesocio on #24 -

CSS + Standards + Cubes = SimpleBits

I sincerely believe the competition should be kept open until you get an entry from OCY and Fergus ‘Let’s stretch the boundaries of web design’ Webber though!

# Olly responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#10 - It’s just the only one that stands out for me.

# Phil responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Number 10. Clean and nice colour combination

# Garrie Smith responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Number 10 for me, closely followed by 51.  Nice and simple designs but eyecatching

# Jean responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I’m voting for #06

# Richard Rutter responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1 It’s simple and elegant. Could be resized and coloured if needs be, so it’s also flexible. And there’s attention to detail with the proper fi ligature (which should be standard but isn’t).

# Rachel B responded on 29th June 2005 with...

Number 51 does it for me.

# Reuben responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1, #3 are nice and definately simple.
#53 is just plain awesome!

# Jani responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#12

Its beautiful, and animals are eay to remember.

# Marco Douma responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#1 How more simple can you get. All others are just too much. Simple Standards is the word, so you should try to be as simple as possible.
Although the idea of #26 I do prefer. It’s a good metaphor.
I think it should a combinatiion between #1 and #26

# Andrew Phillipo responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#10:  it’s much better - I can see a whole site design around this logo but can’t really with the others.

It’s just asthetically pleasing in a way most of the others are not.  Also a lot of the logos seems to say insurance broker/bank/estate agent.  Orange and blue are also not a good choice IMHO but thats just me!

Andy.

# Faruk Ateş responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#33: simple, elegant, clean, clear, direct.

# Bernd responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#59: ..., because I like the message behind it.

# Poiuy Terry responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#10: - Clean and simple.

# ollila responded on 29th June 2005 with...

“the watchwords are simplicity, standards and bloody good design.”

With that said, #1 would be the best choice in my eye’s. It’s simple, elegant, well designed but yet somewhat familiar.

Also liked #13 except for the “Check Mark” deal. #33 is also pretty good, as well as #51, except for that ugly color.

I also agree with the person who suggested keeping the contest open till Ocy wows us all with his brilliant design skills.

# Veracon responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#54, with no doubt at all. (Well, maybe a little; if not 54, then possibly 24…)

# Cindy responded on 29th June 2005 with...

I like #24.  It pops off the page to me where as so many of the others are just too bland.  I like the bold color choice on the cubes.  As for the use of cubes, maybe you will think of Simplebits or maybe Evolt.  Is this necessarily a bad thing?  I didn’t until it was pointed out.

As a second choice I like 25.  It states what Simplified Standards is about.

# Ben responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#51
For me its the only design which combines simplicity with a nice aesthetic

# Ben responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#56.  I love “fi” ligatures.

# Mark responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#51
like the colour. clean and elegant type. icon works to hint at many aspects of site building

# Casey responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27, hands down…

# Luc responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27 - very clean, and obviously recognisable. #56 is a close second though.

# Aaron responded on 29th June 2005 with...

#27 - very nice and recognisable mark, nice typography, colours are nice and it fits a simple theme without being too basic. i really like it and think it could be appealing to wider audiences

#2 - close to the one above. it’s clean and colourful, but i think typography put me off this one, it reminded me of an insurance company (not saying any particular one - maybe it’s the colours and style of the text). the logo itself is nice and plays with the double S without being silly. only comment about that is, the S’s are flat and the sphere containing them has a soft 3D feel to it - but it could be like a marble in that way so i cant pick at it really

#24 - looks nice, though I’m not sure the logo fits the theme as it’s a bit indescript

#25 - looks quite beautiful actually but something i cant put my finger on means I don’t rank it as highly as #2 or #27

and if i may, i have to have a go at #1 - to me it is boring - yes it’s clean and clear and so what, doesn’t interest me in the slightest despite the fact it looks good. standards don’t have to be boring but that logo certainly is. you can keep to standards and still have something visually appealing and functional, and the logo should encorporate that somewhat.

You cannot use #56 unless you want to risk a lawsuit of somekind as the logo design and colour is too similar to that of www.morethan.com

There are some really nice logos here, and also some that seem to have nothing to do with what your site is about. lots of choice, please don’t pick the boring one :P

# coda responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#23 (2nd one): Not overdesigned like most of the others. Simple & elegant.

# Luke Barrow responded on 30th June 2005 with...

Definitely #51. #1 is very nice and simple, but I think it’s too simple and it’s not all that unique. #1 has nice colors and nice typography and is simple yet unique enough.

# James Archer responded on 30th June 2005 with...

I’ve got a bad feeling about this competition.  As a marketing/branding guy, I’m sort of dreading where this is going…

That said, here are my thoughts on the least bad:

#1 - This is probably the best of the bunch.

#3 - Okay, but could use a better color scheme. (The logo has an overused concept, but at least it’d make a nice favicon.)

#29 - Not bad (nice typography and color), but probably tries too hard to be clever—would be overanalyzed.

#52 - I’m a sucker for antlers.

#53 - I think we found Jon Hicks’ logo.

# Al responded on 30th June 2005 with...

I would say for simplicity sake that #1 takes it with it’s clean bold font and non-intruding design.  It gets the point across and nothing more.

#24 Really caught my eye due to the boldness outlining the cubes but I feel that is more of the focus rather than “Simplified Standards”  I don’t think that logo will scale very well if enlarged as well.

#27 also caught my eye and the graphic doesn’t take away but I think it intrudes on the message.  The graphic could possibly be inline with the height of the message to keep it from stealing the show.  Nice use of colors though.

# Chris K responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#6 would be my first choice, although I would rethink the color. It does something a bit unique with a cliched element.

#1 is my second, even though it is a little to plain

#56 would be third, but I think the typeface needs to be different.

#6 and #33 aren’t bad either, but again too common of a look.

Overall, I’m not too impressed. The ideas look very cliched and common, and very few seem to capture the theme of the site. Nothing very unique out of the 64 shown.

# Sven responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#05 Very sweet, but might be a nightmare to integrate into a design.

#33 Back to the root, simple and efficient. Means something to anyone who knows a little bit about CSS.

#43 A more graphical version of the #33. Look quite appealing but the CSS link isn’t so obvious anymore.

# Liz responded on 30th June 2005 with...

One prefers #1. One believes that it is simple yet striking enough to be the logotype of choice.

# Jonathan Snook responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#13 is my choice. (well, right after #25… I hear the guy who did that one is really handsome).

# Allan responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#13 - with or without the check mark glyph. There’s subtle elegance in the contrasting mix of sans-serif and serif.

# Todd responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#1

# taylor responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#54
simple. wonderful colors. Grays and oranges are technology provoking. In short, it just hit me. none of the others did it quite like #54.

# Ritz responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#1 : Seems to be the only slap-ya-in-the-face strong logo. Very nice typography.

Would like to see it switched with the standards darker. But then the simplified would be ignored as the first word. Which is the point… Nevermind.

Not sure about these logo competitions, but it sure is fun seeing what people offer up and how everyone responds to them. That almost makes it worth doing. Thanks

# Tom responded on 30th June 2005 with...

1, design is simple.

# Daniel responded on 30th June 2005 with...

51: I would have to go with 51 for sure because it’s simple, which is what the name Simplified Standards should imply, but it still has the little extra bit, which makes it, IMHO, a bit better than number 1. Plus, I like the font a lot, and I think it would be relatively simple to make a nice clean design to match. The colour is good, too.

# Chad Sakonchick responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#26 : Is relevant to the subject of the site.  My only complaint is the gradient background, change the background to a solid color and it would be perfect.

# Rob responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#23 (the third one) - the mark in the first two look like a nice set of…um…standards, yeah.  But the third is nice and simple.

#1 is a close second but I like the use of some color in #23.

# Zach responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#24: Elegant and unpretentious. It just works.

# Juicebomb responded on 30th June 2005 with...

I find it disheartening when I read something to the effect of: “I like number (insert number) the best because it’s design is the most appropriate to the subject matter.”

Although to many it may seem like a smart, obvious approach to identity design, it is seemingly the best way to embrace mediocrity with your brand. Last time I checked, mediocrity wasn’t high on the list of most graphic designers, when establishing goals to achieve within design solutions for logo and identity design.

The modern function of a logo/identity isn’t supposed to make the viewer ascertain literal aspects of a brand. It is not supposed to tell the consumer what kind of company/organization they are, by using typography and iconography.

It’s quite the opposite really.

The brand itself, which is an extension of the represented company or organization (including the products and/or services offered), gives the logo/identity a unique meaning that connects the viewer to the company’s (or organization’s) products and/or services.

This is how a big yellow sea Shell becomes a recognizable symbol for gasoline, an Apple with a bite out of it becomes Computers (and consumer electronics), a red Target becomes a place to buy stuff, and a long haired mermaid becomes a cup of coffee.

Now, I’m not suggesting that a logo mark or identity should not have a literal, visual connection to qualities or specific ideals relating to the brand. I’m just saying that it’s not as important as differentiating from other brands, design cliches, and general mediocrity.

If one can accomplish both, bonus. There are many great identities out there that do this. However, I stand by the sentiment that sacrificing differentiation for proper context is folly.

So… That leads to what makes for a good Identity. It should stand out to you, become ingrained into your memory. As soon as you make a personal investment (of time, energy, etc) in the brand you should have a clear visual reference of that brand’s identity. Was there enough to produce a lasting mark in your mind? Was there too much, and now it’s just muddy? Do you even remember which company/organization it was? Oh well, if you forgot, you can always go somewhere else… ;)

Good logos also incorporate symbolism, innuendo, analogy. They make intelligent abstractions of ideas that are relevant, yet not obvious. They provoke thought.

I think there are several good logos displayed here. I of course, see the obligatory negative responders with their: “These all suck, I can’t find a good one in the lot…” I’m sure those same people probably proclaimed how much better they would have done in the FA Cup final when Paul Scholes missed his penalty kick. On the flip side, there are a few that don’t really cut it. But hey, at least you tried, and didn’t hide out in the comments slinging negativity…

That’s just my thoughts.

Also, I just want to say for the record, that I don’t think Jon Hicks is a lazy pot-head because of his logo, as one might suggest.

# Albium responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#13: It just plain works.

Though I’m surprised that no one has mentioned #32 yet. It’s memorable, attractive, and not too derivative or annoying (and it doesn’t scream “hey, it’s another standards site” the way #51 and #61 do, for example). But #13 wins out. Though certainly nice-looking, #1 is far too dull to be a suitable logo.

# jtolbert responded on 30th June 2005 with...

Definitely #1. The typography is great, and it’s the cleanest and most straightforward (that’s never a bad thing).

# Andy Saxton responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#59: Because Its clean and the green is easily interchangable with any other colour to match the colour scheme if you decide to change it.

#2: Comes a close second but reminds me too much of site point

And yes, #36 Does say SimplifiLed Standards..

# BuR responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#10: Simple but yet still eye catching.  Hard to choose as there are so many good designs.

# Andrew Stewart responded on 30th June 2005 with...

finally we hear from someone (juicebomb) who thinks there is more to a good logo/brand than semicolons and brackets. nice post.

there are three contenders in my eyes, but #27 takes it.

# ArAgost responded on 30th June 2005 with...

My vote goes to #7, closely followed by #1. Great simplicity in both of them :)

# D Bruno responded on 30th June 2005 with...

I like #24.  The blocks graphic makes it for me. 

Also, #51. The truly simple graphic captures the idea of simplification.

# Creativescott responded on 30th June 2005 with...

#26 - Clean typography used in a way that conveys context.

I agree that #1 is by design “simple” ... though on it’s own, gives no insight as to what it represents.

You can, or should eliminate any designs with “swooshes” or “double S’s” (SS)... Many others are to visually to complex. Sorry, not of offend.

# Mohodin Rageh responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#27. Why? because it looks professional and could also lends itself to icon use. Also good colors and is more relaxing to look at. In other words, very readable.

#35 is my runner up.

#25 is looks good but its text spacing too tight for a comfortable reading.

BIG NO NO is #1. That is way too simple. And uncool, and very boring to look at. I cannot believe some people like that.

What is so exciting about #26? I don’t get it. It has no meaning beyong that curly and commenting thing to it. Do not fall for that cheap shot please.

Someone said in the comments that #56 looks like the logo of www.morethan.com. Yes it does. Colly, you may get a visit from that company’s lawyers. Plus, it is really boring.

#24 is a bit too similar to simplebits.

#53 must be the most boring of all.


Colly, please don’t rely on this voting system. It is open to fruad. Take all the comments into account and use your good judgement.

# FaKeOnE-rSe responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#24 coz the cubes pop out at me.It caught my eye from the first view

# htttdesign responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#24 for sure!

# LollyCogic responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#24 as well, a lot of the rest rely too heavily on typeface alone - I like a good strong iconic logo.

# Dave responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#33 clean! Simply superb

# Benjamin Stiglitz responded on 1st July 2005 with...

Definitely #26—it’s just so very relevant.

# bill responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#28 minus the middle slash, or #10.

# Jon responded on 1st July 2005 with...

I was going to say #1, but since that typeset seems so overused I am going to recommend #14. It’s different and simple. Some of these designs look too complicated.

# Adrian Agafitei responded on 1st July 2005 with...

I like more than one, but I would choose #38 with a smaller font for the upper text

# Devil's Advocate responded on 1st July 2005 with...

Suggestion: Open the competition up for a second round of entries.

Many people have gone out of there way to point out the elements of great logo design and I think we have all learnt a lot from the responses to the existing designs.

It’s clear that none of these designs have sparked a unanimous acclaim and many people have stated they would have submitted if they had more time.

# DesignBox responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#1
Simple and straight to the point.

will also go with whatever colour scheme you want.

# poncho responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#33 has it for me. Also like #10 and #24.

# Lee responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#10.

Good luck counting the votes…

# David responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#10 very nice… a green color scheme is so trendy

# Silv responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#51 - clean and simple

#23 #54 - in the same register

the one with the badger is a killer ;)

# Ivaylo Ivanov responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#24 It`s very simple and I like it.

# Vega(s)Bond responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#24 is my fave.

# Ste responded on 1st July 2005 with...

#1 because it’s the only one that I could live with seeing every day without thinking ‘gimmick gimmick gimmick’

# demargo responded on 2nd July 2005 with...

#27&#1

# Christina Balas responded on 2nd July 2005 with...

#1. The simplified one.
Many others look vaguely corporate; some have the “S” so detached that it looks like the standards are implified; some have unfortunate SS associations.

Second choice #55; then #48.

# Andrew Gimber responded on 2nd July 2005 with...

#56: (The one with the >< and the lime green) Simple enough to embody the spirit of “simplified standards”, but has the following advantages over #1:

-Has some colour
-The brackets are relevant to web design (and to those who say they’re only relevant to html/xhtml - how many sites on the web don’t use either of those?)
-Has a logo that is separate from the words, allowing for an attractive non-fascist favicon

# Wayland Donlan responded on 4th July 2005 with...

I’m a little surprised by the entries. It has been said that there are no strong contenders and this is sadly true. Most don’t display any innovation or intelligence to what they are trying to say.
It looks like most take on web based imagery and ignore the bigger picture of ‘simple’ and ‘standards’.In most branding excercises simpler is better.
The method to communicate a product to its fullest comes through the initial communication to the designer which i think was a too vague to start with.I would personally create a tighter brief for what Simplified Standards will be. Also, look at the future prospects of what the site will want to achieve. If the message throughout the site is to convey to its subscribers that standards are more accessible to everyone then this should be enforced in the brief. This would evoke a more visual playground in the designers mind and steer away from the typical entries submitted.
Another problem here is that most subscribers to this site are web designers and not branding specialists. Aside from the obvious (mr hicks), most web designers aren’t formally trained in graphic or branding design so it is no surprise that there isn’t a broad spectrum of submissions.

In my opinion, anything that doesn’t include the following should be shortlisted:
> a mouse
> html tags (<>)
> Conjoined s’
> unrelated / unexplainable imagery (london underground?)

Responses are now disabled Your ability to respond is disabled automatically some 30 days after articles are published, or manually much sooner if spamming guttersnipes target a particular article.

Prev 456 Next

Superfluous Aside

Archived in Inspiration, Design & Web

There are 142 responses

External References

Copyright © Mr. Simon Collison 2003-2017. Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License. Grab the RSS feed

Engineered in Nottingham, scaffolded by ExpressionEngine, steam-pumped by United & kept alive with tea and hugs.