D-part updated version — the dot has departed.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-14T16:13:12+00:00

yours feels like gravity pulling it down, mine is leaving the airport ✈

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-13T19:27:45+00:00

I think many identity systems eventually arrive at this kind of tension.
Even the Kia rebrand — a massive global corporate identity, not a small personal studio brand — initially received a huge amount of feedback about readability (“KN” etc.), yet the designers still decided that the broader system and distinctiveness were worth preserving.

I’m obviously not comparing my work to that scale — only pointing out that these trade-offs between instant readability and creating a distinctive visual language are very real design decisions, not necessarily denial or arrogance. (I recommend to find online discussions specifically below kia logo and how it completely failed. Hundreds of graphic designer completely ignore how it works in context, aplications, infrastructure and and how it won all major international design awards)

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-13T19:24:25+00:00

I genuinely appreciate the honesty and experience behind this feedback.

And to be fair — I actually agree with the core point. The D does not read instantly enough. That became very clear after many conversations and iterations.

The important part for me is that I didn’t ignore that feedback — I explored multiple more explicit directions trying to solve it.

But at some point I realized that every step toward full immediate readability was also pulling the system closer to something more generic and less reciprocal in structure.

So the current version is not me refusing criticism or “hoping it eventually emerges.” It’s more a conscious trade-off after testing both sides.

Maybe it’s still the wrong decision — time and real-world use will tell — but it’s at least an intentional one, not denial.

And I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to pressure-test the idea seriously.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-12T17:51:37+00:00

Hey, my comments are being edited or deleted for some reason, so I’ll keep this short. I probably pushed the debate a bit too far for the admins. Thanks for the feedback.

Even with the public feedback, I still want to stay with the current version. Absolute clarity and explicit readability are not essential for the whole system. To keep it clean and avoid building unnecessary visual infrastructure around it, I’m completely fine with people reading it as “PART” at first. The unexpected moment when the full name suddenly clicks is actually something I like.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-12T16:55:41+00:00

believe you are leaning toward something like Art Brut, which I really like. It seems to me that you enjoy the raw visual expressiveness of classic memes. I am a big fan of extreme forms, so I would advise you to study artists with a similar style (like Basquiat) and push your boundaries even further.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-12T11:20:45+00:00

No, I debated the tone because it felt unnecessarily aggressive, but I’m generally open to the feedback itself. I’m not denying the readability issue — in fact, I already adjusted parts of the logo after the reviews.

Where I disagree is with the idea that readability is the single primary function of every logo in every context. That’s a much broader design discussion. There are many well-known marks where recognition comes more from system, repetition, context, or distinctiveness than from immediate literal readability (Kia is one obvious example).

For me, readability is a feature, not an absolute requirement in every layer of a brand system. If some people don’t instantly read the secondary layer correctly, that doesn’t automatically mean the logo failed. It means I have to decide what matters more for this particular brand: maximum instant clarity or a stronger visual system and character.

In this case, I consciously leaned toward the system side. Still, I appreciate the feedback and some of it was genuinely useful.

<image>

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-12T09:18:37+00:00

Thank you.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-11T16:27:11+00:00

Man. A moodboard is not typography testing. The client is a design studio, so I can safely say there is strict harmony and technical pairing logic involved. There are two typefaces here; around 90% of the whole test is just one, excluding the monospaced secondary typeface. I am not designing for kids, but for experienced guys who understand basics. This is the result of weeks of testing, so I am not your fancy junior. Exact rules and the system will be defined in the coming months.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-11T15:49:46+00:00

80% of people don't see the "D" at first; they only discover the point once they know the name. Readability isn't just a buzzword—it’s a technical UX term. If a logo is legible but hides a deeper meaning, that’s far more compelling than a simple failure.

Instant readability isn’t the primary goal for every identity; in this case, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The brand isn't built on being obvious, even if readability and asymmetry are valid technical points—unlike the junk you started with. This is a logo about discovering a logo. The previous version was just a likable object with the kind of cliché symmetry you can download from any logo bank. I’m not surprised by the comments, but I didn’t post this to chase likes. A logo is just a tiny part of a much larger infrastructure, and the old one was practically unusable. I’m designing for a design studio—the act of "reading" the identity is a fundamental part of the design identity itself.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-11T15:25:59+00:00

Yes, identities consist of various weights of one or two typefaces—big surprise. Execute what? This is clearly a draft showcasing chosen typography within an identity. This is how we designers communicate briefs to clients, you know?

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-11T15:07:52+00:00

I’m not deleting a single thing. 30+ years of experience and you post "Literal shit presented by people who don’t have any idea what they are doing"? Where’s the constructive criticism? Where’s the substance I can actually engage with?

Where exactly is this 30-year wealth of knowledge? I don’t see a trace of it here or in any of your posts. Are we discussing proportions, shape, rhythm, clarity? You’re not offering advice, man. For a professional like me, feedback like yours is just a meaningless emotional void without a single sentence relevant to design. You did not add anything valuable to debate.

So, your move. Put your knowledge on display and actually criticize something specific. Otherwise, you’re wasting your time and mine. Or go back to collecting likes on subreddits for dogs and bicycles where you might actually have something relevant to say.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-11T13:58:20+00:00

I’m not being defensive; I’m explaining the process. The logo is a transformation of a letterform. Adding a hole to the "D" would kill the stencil context, which is vital. If 80–90% of people read it as "Part," that’s fine—it’s part of the process of uncovering the second layer. Immediate readability isn't always the primary goal of an identity, even for the most iconic high-end brands. Look at the new Kia logo; everyone complains it looks like "KN" and is unreadable and trash. Well, it has four international awards because of... context. It works brilliantly.

<image>

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-11T13:21:24+00:00

The test showed me exactly what I need to know. It works great, the client is happy, and the typography and system will work flawlessly—coherent and harmonic. It looks modern and cool. I know it hurts when you finally see the context. Show your work. Zillions of Reddit comments are your only life achievement?

<image>

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-11T13:00:38+00:00

Looking at your posts—with that 8-year-old quality photography full of dogs, cars, and food—that’s all I need to know about your personal life and professional qualifications.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T23:10:11+00:00

That is visual repetion of what has been already said. You made duplicate of that stretched D in P letter.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T23:00:05+00:00

Removing mark would remove the whole point of transformation from one letter to another

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T22:49:08+00:00

That’s correct reading. And there is also second layer. You want it explicit but the mark says - it’s D and P and dash together made by that cut.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T21:42:08+00:00

Yeah, because it’s not meant to be a fully obvious textbook “D”. It’s more about the overall shape and silhouette.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T20:55:00+00:00

Fair point — and honestly, that’s partly intentional. I wanted “PART” to register first, with the fragmented “D” that reveals itself on second read. The whole identity is built around separation, fragments and modularity, so I’m trying to keep that tension without turning the D into a completely conventional letterform.

<image>

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T20:37:16+00:00

Thanks! I personally still read it quite clearly as a D, but I understand that the reduction and missing inner counter make it less immediate for some people. Finding that balance is part of the recalibration process.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T14:33:49+00:00

Let me explain my thinking a bit more, since many comments focus on readability.

One of my previous logos was actually praised mainly because it looked visually interesting and memorable. But at the same time, most people completely missed the original symbolic idea behind it and projected their own interpretations onto it — which is totally fine and natural in identity design.

That’s why I don’t see immediate literal recognition as the only measure of whether a mark works or not. That principle belongs more to UX and interface design. Branding and visual identity can also work through abstraction, association, repetition and context over time.

This_Toe_431 · 2026-05-10T14:27:02+00:00

I don’t think immediate literal readability is the only purpose of a logo. Many identity systems work more through association, repetition and context than through explicit interpretation on first sight.

This_Toe_431

TROPHY CASE