FIRST Email - Introducing Evolution of the FIRST Logo

[Pat Fairbank]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng

I have to agree, the logo is a rather poor substitute for the existing one. On a white background, the circle fades out of existence without an outline.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I think the kerning is a bit off. The S and T are too close together and it makes them look like they are seperate from FIR. Actually, from the blown up picture, I think the kerning needed to be tweaked on all the letters a bit. The I and R look too seperated as well.

Originally Posted by Squirrelrock

Also, the font that FIRST is written in could be changed for the better, and the spacing of the letters could be worked on a little bit.

I would not be too quick to criticize the design quality of the new logo. I just finished reading the Logo Standards Guide and I suggest everyone else who has an issue with the design of logo do the same. The new logo was definitely not something that was thrown together in a couple of hours or even a couple of weeks - that document alone must have taken ages to design. (Does anyone else think it odd that the restrictions on logo use and modification are so strict, especially in comparison to previous regulations?)

According to the document, "the lettering is specifically designed and cannot be recreated by any conventional typesetting methods." If the kerning seems "a bit off", it was clearly designed to be that way.

That being said, I have to agree that at first sight, the visual appeal of the logo is somewhat underwhelming, but as Jessica Boucher and Ken Leung are wisely suggesting, I'm going to give it a while before judging.

[rocknthehawk]

i don't really like it.....MAYBE THE HINT IS HIDDEN IN THE NEW LOGO!!!!

[Koko Ed]

It looks squished up and crowded.