Designer Pro 6 Logo - What do you think?

[Rik]

Hi Xperts.

I've been looking at the Designer Pro 6 Logo a bit more closely.

Having had a go at drawing it, I think that the version I have shown in the post here is the way it should be.

Obviously, I have my reason for drawing it the way I have and I would love to know whether you think it should be this way also.

If not, then what it the reason why the original has been drawn the way it has?

[MEB]

Hi Rick,
I think i understand the rationalization behind your drawing, but the question is, why do you have to rationalize it? The quality of the graphic resides in it´s intricate elements and in the letters D, P and 6. The order in which they appear is irrelevant to the overall perception you get from the graphic, unless you really want to analyse it meticulously. So there´s really no point. One can even argue that breaking that rationalization may turn it even more interesting (reminding Escher's work)... And it certainly achieves it´s main goal.
That´s my opinion.

[Scotty]

Hi,
If I may express my reason, in your design Xara is not mentioned at all. Xara (the Company) I imagine wanted its names included hence Xara Designer Pro 6. This way 'Xara' is mentioned and probably registers with potential customers relating to othe Xara brand programs.
JimM

[Rik]

Hi Jim and MEB.

Thanks for your comments!

Firstly I have addressed the Xara issue and it was just an oversight on my part as I was concentrating so hard on drawing the logo. Mind you, I am beginning to see the Magix logo more than the Xara logo.

As for trying to rationalise the logo?

My only thinking was that if I took a pencil or a brush, started at the top and was going to draw or paint the logo, which parts would be on top and which parts would be underneath?

It's not to ctiticise the original, I just could not go from one end to the other (doesn't matter which end you start) without it feeling wrong to me!

So, it is more of an observation and I wondered what others thought?

[gwpriester]

I think Magix, who designed the new logo and graphics, wanted the repeat of the logo to be less obvious. I see what you have done and you are probably right on the money content-wise. But it is like a classical music suite where the major theme reappears but more subtly.

[Big Frank]

After staring at both logos for a while I tend to agree with Rik. The way the original has been drawn lacks a certain linear logic. The original, though, has more contrast (more pleasing to the eye) and the font (something like Avalon or Avant Garde?) is nicer than the one you have used. I do not, however, like the seemingly arbitrary positioning of the text. Almost seems like an after-thought.



However, Rik, you may want to be careful when redrawing a logo, anybody's logo, and publishing it on a website. If they take umbrage (especially if they don't like you criticism! )... you could be in trouble.

[Rik]

Magix own Xara so I've put their logo on the artwork also.

I've enjoyed drawing the logo as many others on this and other forums have.

I drew the logo this way to show what I thought it might have been?!

I am not using it for any commercial use or profit.
I am not a legal expert but all these drawings and logos are freely available on the Internet.
You can find the Designer Pro 6 logo and the Magix logo on their own web sites.

Beret: I take your point and I am not being flippant when I say that my little drawing is not going to cause anyone problems.

Here is a legal excerpt:-
'In particular, it is not permitted to use the brand and/or logo of
MAGIX or a similar symbol in business transactions in such a
manner that there could be a risk of confusion in terms of Article
14, paragraph 2 of the trademark law.
You are therefore not permitted to offer or advertise goods using
the logo without the consent of MAGIX AG unless the goods
concerned are original goods of MAGIX AG, or to use the logo on
business documents or as a description of the business.'

I am also not criticising the original designer of the logo. My curious eye saw the logo and I thought that if I were using a pencil to draw, as I used to when I was younger, what would I have done when I got to a point when the lines intersected?

So, if I was drawing this as a flowing line then my version seemed to make sense to me. Not necessarily to anyone else and indeed the originator had his/her reasons.
So, I was/am curious (still) as to the originator's thinking regarding the design?
I would have thought this to be a complement.
I hope the originator will regard it as a complement!

[Big Frank]

I am not using it for any commercial use or profit.
I am not a legal expert but all these drawings and logos are freely available on the Internet.
You can find the Designer Pro 6 logo and the Magix logo on their own web sites.

I'd thought I'd just make the point that in my experience, in the event of legal action which, I accept, is unlikely in this case, the above three points are totally irrelevant and would not absolve you of any responsibility. The wrongdoing lies in publication which you have done. Don't forget that you can find the Coca Cola or the Kellogg's logos just about everywhere you look but if they find you defacing their logo (which includes amending it in any way) you can find yourself in very expensive trouble.

Beret: I take your point and I am not being flippant when I say that my little drawing is not going to cause anyone problems.

Well, it's not going to cause me any problems, that's for sure...

But I agree with you. It could and maybe should have been drawn differently.

[Richard S]

The way I see it is the Xara (owners) Logo seems to flow better. Coming from a road building background is where my logic stems.
Apart from the first 'downhill ramp' all the rest that follows is 'uphill' if you get my drift.

But that said if I had been presented with Rik's as the original I wouldn't have sought to change that either.
I think its a personal preference thing.

[Rik]

Apart from the first 'downhill ramp' all the rest that follows is 'uphill' if you get my drift.

Hi Richard.

That is a very good way of looking at it. If it was a ramp.

But then you mention what I saw anyway. Which ever end you start at, you run into a problem.
If I started at the top and went down your 'ramp', everything will run beautifully until I came to the third crossover!

Please understand that I am not trying to say that the original is wrong.
And I am not saying that a ramp could not be built that way.

It's just what my eyes saw and that got me thinking as to what the thinking was behind the original?!

Can I also say that in my opinion, the design is FANTASTIC.