Sig redesign preview

[Viper]

It's been awhile since I've done any sig series, and I am thinking about giving my sigs an upgrade. I have put together a new template, 88 pixels on a side, which makes it slightly smaller than my v3.x sig template in terms of pixel count, but with this design I've found I can do more with less. I've created a Minnesota Wild sig in this new style, as a preview for you. I'd like some C&C before I decide whether to go forward with whole sig series.

Design notes to compare/contrast with my current sig design:

• Like my previous templates, these are designed to be stackable. In this case, they should kind of look like building blocks when stacked together.
  
• The vertical panel will be the team's primary uniform color and bear the team's location name (or official club name for soccer teams).
  
• The horizontal panel will be the secondary color and bear the team nickname (in quotes if unofficial)
  
• One exception to the coloring convention above: If one of the main colors is light (like yellow-gold or silver), both panels will be the darker color, but the text will be the lighter color instead of white.
  
• I've changed the text font from Futura XBlkCn BT to Alternate Gothic2 BT. Also, instead of using a standard font size for all sigs, I will resize the text in each sig so that the longest part of the name just fits into its panel.
  
• I've reintroduced the league logo (something I used to have in my v1.x and v2.x sigs) in the lower left corner of the sig. For non-MLS soccer clubs, the logo will be the national association crest instead of the league logo (e.g. the FA shield instead of the EPL lion), so the sig doesn't become obsolete if the club gets promoted or relegated.
  
• The last, maybe coolest feature: The background is transparent!
  

If I go ahead with v4.0, the first series I will upgrade is the NHL (just in time for the playoffs, natch). Eventually I will also redo my previous sig series, and may even do series for leagues I've never done before (MLB, NBA, Arena Football, etc.) No requests yet though, please. Like I said, I want to get some feedback about this template first before I make any more sigs with it.

[elliott]

I really like how the open square on the bottom left will separate a sig on the right from the bottom color bar on the left, when lining them up. I would have to see it on someones signature first, but that should look cool.

[Viper]

I really like how the open square on the bottom left will separate a sig on the right from the bottom color bar on the left, when lining them up. I would have to see it on someones signature first, but that should look cool.

OK, I've done a couple more to test out the effect. One of them is a double-size championship sig.

[gingerbreadmann]

I really like how the open square on the bottom left will separate a sig on the right from the bottom color bar on the left, when lining them up. I would have to see it on someones signature first, but that should look cool.

OK, I've done a couple more to test out the effect. One of them is a double-size championship sig.

These are much better than your original ones. I like the new font and the blocks on the left and bottom and how you kept the simplicity. Well worth the effort Viper.

[elliott]

I really like how the open square on the bottom left will separate a sig on the right from the bottom color bar on the left, when lining them up. I would have to see it on someones signature first, but that should look cool.

OK, I've done a couple more to test out the effect. One of them is a double-size championship sig.

Yeah, that Wild/Packers one is exactly what I'm talking about. I like. Nice work.

[Korbyn]

These are cool, like them better then your old ones.

[eRay]

looks nice. the only thing that bothers me is when you have sigs stacked on eachother. things start sitting next to eachother that shouldn't, like in your example "packers" is as close to the NHL logo as "wild" is. in your current sig it looks like "las vegas" belongs with the NHL logo too. just a small problem that won't always happen, but it just throws me off.

[Erik121]

I would say maybe add the conference logo to the college ones. I think the Big Ten mark would look better than the plain NCAA blue circle logo.

[lbr218]

I would say maybe add the conference logo to the college ones. I think the Big Ten mark would look better than the plain NCAA blue circle logo.

i concur, my good man. :-P

[LEWJ]

Much better. You've fixed the only thing I didn't like about the old ones (which was covered by elliot).

[Viper]

I would say maybe add the conference logo to the college ones. I think the Big Ten mark would look better than the plain NCAA blue circle logo.

i concur, my good man. :-P

The problem with that is that some schools are in different conferences for different sports. Minnesota and Wisconsin, for instance, are in the WCHA for ice hockey but the Big Ten for everything else. And what would you do with Notre Dame (an independent for football, in the CCHA for hockey and the Big East for everything else)?

[gingerbreadmann]

After looking at all the ones in your sig now, one thing I may suggest is keeping a standard font size and only scrunching it in/expanding out when it is necessary.

For example: Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Wild, and Las Vegas Flying Aces all look good but Toronto Vipers looks way too big and Minnesota Golden Gophers looks way too small. I am saying that in the Vipers, you should put a limit on how big the font is(and make it universal for every one) and for the Gophers, only scrunch "Golden Gophers." Also, how would it look if you only scrunched horizontally?

[Viper]

After looking at all the ones in your sig now, one thing I may suggest is keeping a standard font size and only scrunching it in/expanding out when it is necessary.

For example: Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Wild, and Las Vegas Flying Aces all look good but Toronto Vipers looks way too big and Minnesota Golden Gophers looks way too small. I am saying that in the Vipers, you should put a limit on how big the font is(and make it universal for every one) and for the Gophers, only scrunch "Golden Gophers." Also, how would it look if you only scrunched horizontally?

The problem with using a standard font size for all sigs is that that standard size would have to be very tiny. This is fine for long names like "San Francisco" or "Galatasaray" (a Turkish soccer club I've done a v3.x sig for). With an "Iowa" or "Miami" though, it leaves too much wasted space.

Actually since my last post, I have been considering precisely the opposite approach: stretching the text so that it always fills up the panel it's on, horizontally and vertically. Then the fonts would look slightly different for each sig, but they would fill up the same amount of space for every sig for a somewhat uniform appearance. For two-part names like "Golden Gophers" I might also stack the two words on top of one another instead of in a single string.

I am also considering tweaking the template itself somewhat to create more space between the sigs (to avoid the confusing effect that eRay brought up). I'll redo my own sigs below first (hopefully by the end of the night tonight) and get more feedback.

Update: I've decided against always filling up the panel. I will still stretch/compress the longest part of the name to fill up its panel, but will use the same aspect ratio for the other panel even if it leaves a little empty space, so the font will at least stay uniform within each individual sig.

[gingerbreadmann]

After looking at all the ones in your sig now, one thing I may suggest is keeping a standard font size and only scrunching it in/expanding out when it is necessary.

For example: Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Wild, and Las Vegas Flying Aces all look good but Toronto Vipers looks way too big and Minnesota Golden Gophers looks way too small. I am saying that in the Vipers, you should put a limit on how big the font is(and make it universal for every one) and for the Gophers, only scrunch "Golden Gophers." Also, how would it look if you only scrunched horizontally?

The problem with using a standard font size for all sigs is that that standard size would have to be very tiny. This is fine for long names like "San Francisco" or "Galatasaray" (a Turkish soccer club I've done a v3.x sig for). With an "Iowa" or "Miami" though, it leaves too much wasted space.

All I can say is tat sometimes, less is more.

I would be interested to see what these new ones would look like as well, though.

[Viper]

OK, forget what I posted about stretching/compressing the text. I tried it on a couple of sigs and it doesn't look very good, so I won't even bother to post them.

What I'll try instead is to use a uniform font size for each city/state name. That is, every sig with "Minnesota" in the side panel will have a uniform font size; every sig with, say, "Chicago" in the side panel will also have a uniform font size, but it will not necessarily be the same as the Minnesota font size, etc.

If that doesn't work out I may just say "screw it" and go with a single uniform font size for all my sigs after all. (Or maybe two uniform sizes, one for general use and one for stacking two words in the same panel.)

Update: Screw it.

Well, not entirely. For two-word names I will stretch the longest word to just fit inside the panel, then use the same aspect ratio for the other word to keep them uniform. Otherwise, it's 14-point Alternate Gothic all the way. Also I've switched the colors in the panels; now the bottom (nickname) panel has the primary color.

[gingerbreadmann]

I certainly like them but the Golden Gophers still look wrong.