OpenCart Community

itdude wrote:... some refinements and few more variations.

What do you think?

itdude

can you send me the orignal files you used for the log?

I'm really intreated in using your logo.

Hi Daniel i've sent the original files already... you can check it out at "webmaster@opencart.com"

Kindly let me know if you need anything else. Have a great day!

This (itdude one's) logo is quite good, but typography seems weird for me, specially "opencart" font, not in conjunction with the rest of design. Just IMO.

I think current logo is good enough, simple & clear.

Wow! I love the new typography on the current logo above =) simple and clear...but the edges are a little jagged though, especially at the bottom curve. What font is that? IMO the ICON part is the only thing that needs improvement now. Would be nice to be something more meaningful rather than just a random shape and a straightforward CART graphics... Just a thought

what is the font you are using? itdude?

I've been using these...

Futura Lt BT
Myriad
BaryonDisplaySSi
BauderieScriptSSi

Suggestion, moderate the early images so that they are visibly in-line. Why must they be downloaded in order to see them? This thread goes through 2.5 pages with no images, then the rest of the 3rd page with two corrupted images. Who would want to download those before seeing them as corrupt? Next come 2 pages and counting with visibly in-line images. Those, finally, are welcome sights, choice notwithstanding.

Branding suggests keeping the current logo -- or just changing the relative sizes of its text and cart if 2.0 is the reason for change. The name counts for more than how much detail or wonderment can be put into artwork of a cart. Typography that goes too far in any direction, such as with too obviously Oriental character strokes or Olde West signboard blocks, does not really help matters.

butte wrote:Suggestion, moderate the early images so that they are visibly in-line. Why must they be downloaded in order to see them? This thread goes through 2.5 pages with no images, then the rest of the 3rd page with two corrupted images. Who would want to download those before seeing them as corrupt? Next come 2 pages and counting with visibly in-line images. Those, finally, are welcome sights, choice notwithstanding.

Branding suggests keeping the current logo -- or just changing the relative sizes of its text and cart if 2.0 is the reason for change. The name counts for more than how much detail or wonderment can be put into artwork of a cart. Typography that goes too far in any direction, such as with too obviously Oriental character strokes or Olde West signboard blocks, does not really help matters.

you realize this was a 4 year old post?

Touche. No, I didn't, actually, because something caused it to come up as current, possibly something it it had been edited and triggered that, so I just took it as being for 2.0, actually. However, the point still stands even in retrospect, although nobody will now take time to amend it.

Daniel wrote:

itdude wrote:... some refinements and few more variations.

What do you think?

itdude

can you send me the orignal files you used for the log?

I'm really intreated in using your logo.

the cart looks is ragged

Not feeling these new logos, keep the original - if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

I tried to see the logo but not able to download the attached png file. Is this a problem because I am a new user in this forum ?