• Tyson KingsburyTyson Kingsbury, 6 years ago

    it might be easier to crit the logo if there was a proper branding page to look at....to see the logo in different sizes and uses etc...

    also, just an FYI.... didn't some dudes just die a few days ago from using those flight suits?...it was pretty big news i think...was even on the news here in Canada....

    first thing i thought of when is saw the homepage was ....whups...not a good image to use right now maybe ;)

    just a thought...

    1 point
    • Eric H.Eric H., 6 years ago

      Definitely unfortunate timing with the Yosemite accident in the news, but the explicit metaphor of "landing" makes sense with the dramatic image. I imagine in a week or two, it'll seem perfectly fine.

      That being said, I'm not entirely sure why there is a "blocker" that requires me to click to see the site in action, which is a very functional and data rich site. The landing page doesn't reveal this at all.

      As visually dramatic as the site is when it loads, I wonder if your bounce rate will be unnecessarily high because you've packaged the meat and potatoes behind a photographic wall (imagine if Google worked this way). My crystal ball tells me you'll be going through a few iterations over the next few months. Keep all options on the table. At least you set a cookie to make the landing go away after first load.

      Good luck!

      0 points
    • Paulo TeixeiraPaulo Teixeira, almost 6 years ago

      Thanks for the feedback!

      Didn't know about that news :/ Although you're not the first person that refer that to us...

      Speaking about the logo you can give a quick scroll in this post: http://blog.landing.jobs/from-jobbox-io-to-landing-jobs/ We used it in different versions ther.


      0 points
  • Richard BallermannRichard Ballermann, almost 6 years ago

    Regarding the logo and brand, it's reasonably nice but overall pretty safe and simple. Can't say its really turning my head. I personally like the underlined L symbol, it feels like that should be the primary logo, but again, there isn't a whole lot that makes your brand particularly unique. It's all just type with an underline and its just not very memorable.

    Overall, it feels as though you're decisions for branding are a bit all over the map. The color pallete you've outlined in your process link are all amazing, but I can see how things might start to break down as a system by employing such a broad range of colors. But this part is where you really lose me:

    "But there’s also a playfulness in some iterations we’ll be rolling out, where the letters dance or are disjointed from their “landed” position along a grid."

    I don't think you should ever incorporate such extremely different variations of your main logo. It no longer feels like a playful extension of your brand; its basically an entirely different logo. I can't help but think this process lacked a singular, coherent vision. You've said that you involved many people in the design process, and design by committee never yields good results. Something as complex as a brand identity should not involve a room full of people.

    0 points