Reminder: Here is the full text of the article on which you are commenting:

The library has used various logos for various things at various times, but as far as anyone who works here now is aware, there has never been a single logo that served as the logo for the library, a unifying symbol that we could use for everything.

There's a logo on (some of) our stationery, another one on our nametags, another one on library shirts that we've had made at various times, something different on the website, and so on and so forth. We have a mascot who appears in newsletters, promotions for children's programs, and so forth, but he isn't really suitable for use as a logo (for a variety of reasons -- e.g., he does not render well at small sizes or in black and white). The Friends have a logo, but it represents the Friends in particular, rather than the library in general.

We can continue using some of those things, but we'd like to identify (or create) one logo as the primary logo for the library, so that we can create a unified look and feel between various publications. In other words, we want to have one logo that we can use on letterhead, on the website, and elsewhere.

[logo prototype] The image you see at right is the current thinking. It's based on a logo that we have on some stationery, but the dome and columns are new additions. It seems [small logo prototype] a bit complex for a logo (notice, for instance, how much harder it is to see at 32x32 pixels, at left; as a 16x16 favicon, it becomes virtually unrecogniseable: [tiny logo prototype]), but at larger sizes it does present a nice family-centered image and does seem to represent the sorts of things the library is about -- books, computers, and such (in other words, information), and a place for people to gather. We're trying to find out who originally designed it, so that we can find out what rights we have to modify it and use it beyond its original purpose for stationery.

I'm also still looking for feedback on the design. How can it be simplified yet still represent the library well, and how can it be improved without making it more complex?

(If you wish to see the comments that others have left, use the Read More link, below.)
at :