Can I say that in many ways we've come at this a bit backarsewards and not as I'd hoped or intended when I first threw the idea of a facelift out there. That does not mean it is a disaster either though. For example I only considered the pc desktop site banner because that is how I use the site. Naturally now though we would need to have a smaller, lighter variation for mobile access users. D'oh!
All the examples I'd knocked together were intended as discussion starters. Yes, some were tossed in there to hopefully generate "Oh fuck no!" reactions, which actually help the decision making process There are no definitely correct answers with this stuff.
Now, I fully accept my role in this confusion because I was extremely miffed and on self-imposed exile/packing my bags at the time the proposal was presented.
My personal preference would have been to have had a wee brainstorm to investigate how people saw the group, maybe we would go on a font safari and then myself and anyone else interested or willing could bash together something representative.
A bit like those cooking progs where you get handed a carrier of stuff and have to attempt to make something edible from it.
Realistically that would produce results which were bland, hideous, satisfactory or potentially, absolutely nailed it.
I do think though that we can progress from this point having established a decision to change.
We can do that and return to a process of defining and refining a more representative logo.
I also believe there is merit in having a logo which can be changed or adapted for events or simply to relieve visual monotony.
There are guarantees.
No-one will die during this process, be calm.
Everyone will not be pleased with the end result.
Because we are all twisted, broken, weirdo's someone will find illuminati, occult or numeric symbolism in the graphic, so have fun with that.
h1#gkLogo a img
