Board Thread:Clubs/@comment-37611621-20190404022432/@comment-35646433-20190408023606

I see -- you're doing the design-critisizm route. Well, I'll do the same for yours. We shall consider it an opportunity to improve in the future :)

No, I respectfully disagree, and believe that my wordmark would be much more effective on the wiki's header. The text on Charlotte's does NOT stand out at all, since it's about a half-pixel thick and barely readable from a distance. Won't that make it slightly more, to quote Charlotte, unprofessional? Also, to address Charlotte's issue of the alicorn's wings -- they are actually not cut off. They just look cut off because of the pixel display of an average computer screen. But that's beside my point. A wordmark should be eye-catching. If any graphics are added to them, in my opinion, they should be simple and bold without causing a distraction. Take, for instance, this wiki's wordmark. It's simply "Keeper of the Lost Cities", written in yellow pixel letters on a teal background. It may lack common design, but it is simple and effective, and that is what I believe a wordmark should be. Also consider the fact that most logos are much higher resolution. Complex graphics such as the one Charlotte has included in her wordmark would be extremely effective -- but in an environment with less graphic limitations, such as a self-designed website. I, for instance, could not immediately tell what the graphic was on the her logo, simply because it's a dark black pixelated logo against a dark purple background. I am not attempting to critisize Charlotte's work, I am just attempting to politely point out what I believe an ideal wordmark should constitute of.