Symbol Crit/Input?
- Started
- Last post
- 43 Responses
- emokid0
don't let johnny eat cheese?
- emokid0
ok just kidding. i like these a lot actually. #1 works for me and i get it.
johnny is fat as it is and could do without the cheese for sure.
- wunderbra0
the teddy doesn't make sense if it is not in his other hand. now it just looks like poo, instead of Pooh.
Maybe this ridiculously small size requires more drastic means..
what is it? cheese?
If i don't get more details i can't help more..
- detritus0
#1 of this last lot, i take it, emokid? Good stuff, thanks! That's my preference too, but I'm concerned the 'strikethrough-over' makes the kid a bit indiscernible.
I should've held off from posting the first lot - they were still pretty unfinished - I'm hoping the wee dude now looks like a kid, rather than a portly reacher with thin wrists and flares :)
- ukit0
Make the kid look more normal, I think the stylized nature is actually working against it.
Also, it looks like the object is already out of his reach, which makes it not really make sense.
Another option would be to crop the kid and just so head arm and shoulders so it reduces better?
- _eh_0
Redo.
- ukit0
Also cross out is definitely better but man it is tough at that size...good luck!
- wunderbra0
"Make the kid look more normal, I think the stylized nature is actually working against it."
i motherfucking concur, squire.
- gramme0
Don't let your one-armed toddler with a tumor on his left kidney reach for the hot biscuits on the floating shelf of doom??
- detritus0
My problem is that the principle usage is going to be on-package, with a *maximum* diameter of about 10mm.
It's for the 'pills' I (as 'Nairn') asked about a couple of weeks back - hence the legal restrictions about how specific we can be. Otherwise, I'd go with my original solution of writing 'Keep out of reach of children' and '18+ years only' in relatively big, bold letters!
The bear can be dropped if the consensus is that the wee dude looks childlike, which I hope the larger head and stumpier legs achieve.
- detritus0
Redo.
_eh_
(Oct 19 07, 16:40)Care to clarify?
- _eh_0
I wouldn't understand what I was looking at, had you not enlarged the symbol, thats all. Even then, had you not explained it I probably still would not understand it. Maybe research a different icon/symbol ?
- detritus0
"Also, it looks like the object is already out of his reach, which makes it not really make sense."
Yeah, I'm a bit stuck with this one - I originally didn't go with strikethroughs, but that didn't exactly call anything to action - it was almost like a hint opposite-ways!
I'm disappointed you guys are not responding positively to the stylisation of the wee dude - perhaps I've been looking at it too long, but I thought it was working quite well. Balls.
Oh well.
Thanks for your time!
- emokid0
i can tell that its a kid. and yes, take out the teddy on the floor. #1 in the new batch works for me.
the problem though is with the smaller one. i can't even tell if he's reaching for something or if thats just part of the design. maybe the top part shouldnt be red?
- detritus0
Hmm. Ok.
To be honest, I was going off the symbols I've seen on household chemicals, but trying to simplify them, as I couldn't envisage them
working so small - besides, they look a bit like they were crafted in the 40s, so was hoping for something a bit 'cleaner'.Can anyone think of another way to represent "keep out of reach of children?", without resorting to poison symbols or anything too inflammatory?
- ukit0
I would go with #5 but with the object styled like #1. Kid doesn't look that far off it's mainly his left side that doesn't read so well.
Better keep at it, you don't want to be responsible for some drugged up kids stumbling around town:)
- detritus0
Ok, I've a few variables to mix'n'mull here, thanks guys.
Think the blown-up idea might make sense - I see now what you've referring to, wunderbra - the cross directly over the point of contention? Makes sense.. if I can fit it in!
ukit - oh, I don't know - kids in this country seem to be taking drugs at ever-earlier ages, so if we can channel their hunger towards a legal means of consumption, that can't be a bad thing, can it?
- waynepixel0
Humped back man cannot witch over the tv.