<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: wacom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onemanblogs.co.uk/index.php/archives/2007/10/09/wacom/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onemanblogs.co.uk/index.php/archives/2007/10/09/wacom</link>
	<description>I am me. Who are you?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:18:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yury, logo designer</title>
		<link>http://www.onemanblogs.co.uk/index.php/archives/2007/10/09/wacom/comment-page-1#comment-8344</link>
		<dc:creator>Yury, logo designer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onemanblogs.co.uk/index.php/archives/2007/10/09/wacom#comment-8344</guid>
		<description>Maybe it&#039;s too easy to criticize Wolff Olins after infamous London 2012 logo, but I really can&#039;t see the point of Wacom&#039;s rebranding.
There is a certain attempt to break away from corporate feel of previous logo, but result is too cheesy.  
Typography is the best part of new logo, but I can&#039;t call it neither exceptional nor outstanding - it is typical techy font that looks contemporary for this decade, but who knows how soon it will be dated?
The &quot;color thing&quot; is completely disgusting. It has awkward and static forms, and these gradients... I&#039;m not a purist and I understand that with the rise of new media gradients and 3D-effects become more suitable  for some identities, but the gradients here have unnatural look, like somebody&#039;s first attempt after discovering gradient button in Photoshop or Illustrator.
I feel that WO designers had good intentions but failed to convey Wacom&#039;s message.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe it&#8217;s too easy to criticize Wolff Olins after infamous London 2012 logo, but I really can&#8217;t see the point of Wacom&#8217;s rebranding.<br />
There is a certain attempt to break away from corporate feel of previous logo, but result is too cheesy.<br />
Typography is the best part of new logo, but I can&#8217;t call it neither exceptional nor outstanding &#8211; it is typical techy font that looks contemporary for this decade, but who knows how soon it will be dated?<br />
The &#8220;color thing&#8221; is completely disgusting. It has awkward and static forms, and these gradients&#8230; I&#8217;m not a purist and I understand that with the rise of new media gradients and 3D-effects become more suitable  for some identities, but the gradients here have unnatural look, like somebody&#8217;s first attempt after discovering gradient button in Photoshop or Illustrator.<br />
I feel that WO designers had good intentions but failed to convey Wacom&#8217;s message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

