Critique the GDFO logo


Target: Designers
Tone of Voice: Informal

I wanted to create a logo that is like a palette of colors/shapes to represent the tools of a designer. There are two version of the logo. The primary is the square, and secondary is the horizontal. See them below. You can hopefully tell the shapes represents the letters G D F and O. Let me know what you think!



GDFO Logo Square Version



GDFO Logo Horizontal Version


I’m getting ADFO,

Maybe a small notch or something to make the G more G-like LOL I would never get G out of that shape if I didn’t know what it was beforehand.

1 Like

Right, my instant-recognition muscle immediately said ‘lower-case a,’ and now I can’t un-see it.

(It also mis-identified the F as a lower-case r, so ostensibly, this place is now ‘aDrO’.)

Ditto. I think a little notch in the G and the F make them more recognizable. On a side note, will there be any user ability to change the color scheme for how this forum displays?

Never mind, found the settings to change to the light interface theme. Ha. All good now.

I thought the same thing…until I tried it. Became a rabbit hole of sorts…ruins the concept…potentially creates confusion in other directions.

A classic Crit Pit “Got any other ideas?” moment. Sorry Ivan.

A little more detail to define the shapes, maybe?


1 Like

Is that what it says …


I agree with B, even if it’s more subtly defining the shapes. I know that it’s abstract, I get that, but as Hotbutton mentioned, right now it reads more like “adro”

Nothing like getting a forum of designers to weigh in on a logo. Ha. It’s like a feeding frenzy. But a well intentioned feeding frenzy. Ha!

Right…some nice attempts, but…

This is what I meant by “ruins the concept.” In fact, I’d say more explicitly turning the shapes into letters disposes of the concept altogether and results in what looks like, IMO, an unsightly font.


Thanks guys! Fair criticism all around! Not sure how to move forward yet… but the thinking process has been initiated by the ideas…

Hotbutton, If the concept is four characters all conforming to the size of a circle and geometrically repeating elements of that circle, yeah, the concept is compromised by any alternations that lie outside that concept.

However, a less geometric and humanist interpretation of the concept might allow for some consistently applied tweaks and refinements that provide visual clues and better balance while retaining the overall rhythm of the geometric shapes that it’s based upon.

Trying to achieve a middle ground of keeping as much of the concept while making it more legible is, perhaps, like you mentioned, a recipe for some not-so-good-looking glyphs. Personally, I’d be inclined to abandon a strict adherence to the concept and concentrate, instead, on preserving the colors, flavor and rhythm of the whole thing while paying more attention to designing some glyphs that could stand on their own as aesthetically interesting.

Heading down that road might lead to something like Milton Glaser’s Baby Teeth typeface, below.


1 Like

^^^^ I like that.

How about we lose the “O” FO always make me think of a vulgar phrase LOL

I too keep thinking of GTFO…which makes me chuckle and I was like “whoah, they are are telling some users what to do”

ps…I am liking the new forum UX so far


Yeah, I’d be sort of inclined to lose the O too. Since the other GDF is going away, there’s some value in maintaining more naming consistency with the predecessor forum. The O is, I’m guessing, just a reference to the .org domain, which doesn’t necessarily have to be part of the name.

1 Like

I like the evil PacMan. :wink:

It needs some fine tuning. Can’t make out the letters. Colors are good.

Thanks for all the ideas!

How about this? I dropped the O, we don’t need it.



Yeah, I like that. Definitely says GDF now.

1 Like

©2019 Graphic Design Forum | Contact | Legal | Twitter | Facebook