Tweaked my busniess card design...what do you think?

[Sonny]

Back in March I completely redesigned my business card from scratch. This was the original thread. Your response were very helpful!
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=96606

The basic design elements stayed the same, but I decided to change the font. I felt in the original design the font was a little too 'traditional'. There needed to be an edgy feel, but maintain legibility. Changing the font was not enough IMO. It had to match the tone and feel of the card. So I added a lighting gradient to the font.

After that I wasn't completely satisfied with the empty space above and below the font in the original design. It needed some type of design element to help even things out or move the font around. I did both. I used the player silhouettes from my logo and placed them along the curve. I felt placing the entire logo on the front of the card along with the text would make the space feel crowded. I lowered the opacity of the silhouettes so it would distract the eye from the company name.

I am happy with the back of the business card. In this case, the empty space helps reinforce my logo and website. No need to add anything else.

Below are five variations of the front and one sample of the back. Take a look and let me know what you think. The gray border represents the bleed area.

Thanks,
-Sonny



1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


Back of card.

[CaptainTom]

no. 4

The mottling in the GameTimePhotography font is bothersome. It's artsy, but tends to muddle the text too much. I like the graduated color.

[Tom]

I like 2 and 4.

[TexasPhotoBooth]

Four :)

[J Eddington]

I think 4 too but do agree with Capt Tom about the moltey font. You have so many textures going on already.

[HotHolly]

#1 or #5 - mainly functionality - the little people pull my eye off your name. And you have the little people on the back. I dont think you need them on both sides.

[CaptainTom]

I like the little people. I used to be one.
Now I am a legend in my own mind.

[rubcar]

I like 4. It has a good equal distribution of the information. I like the little sport people playing the game that really makes an impact. Good Luck.

[texkam]

Less is more.

[PhotoByLeal]

#2

[Cajungaltx]

Take it for what it's worth - I just attended the Petty/Tauffer class on this issue - but it doesn't seem to follow the CRAP rules...

Contrast
Elements that aren’t the same should be very different so they stand out, making them “slightly different” confuses the user into seeing a relation that doesn’t exist. Strong contrast between elements allows the user’s eye to flow from one to another down the card instead of creating a sea of similarity that’s boring and not communicative.

Repetition
Repeat styles down the page for a cohesive feel & if you style related elements the same way in one area, continue that trend for other areas for consistency.

Alignment
Everything on the card needs to be visually connected to something else, nothing should be out of place or distinct from all other design elements.

Proximity
Proximity creates related meaning: elements that are related should be grouped together, whereas separate design elements should have enough space in between to communicate they are different.

So - based on that...

I think the back of the card looks excellent. The front is to muddied up though. On all 4 or 5 of the fronts - the gray lettering is on a gray background. STRONG contrast is needed there in my opinion.

I think you should repeat the same color scheme on the front.

I agree with Holly on the little people (sorry Cap!) - my eye is drawn to many places with all of them. On the back, it's all in one area - very 'aligned'...

[Steelsun]

# 4. Similar to the others but the silhouettes are larger, thus easier to make out - on the smaller ones they might look like just stick figures in biz card size.

[Teddington]

They're different? +1 to lose the little people - didn't even see the font or words when you had the little people romping across the card. I must have poor attention to detail cuz other than the little people, they all look the same to me. I think you are obsessing too much.

OK, Janice explained to me that the font wasn't different on all 5 designs - it's different than the original. Duh!! I like the new font better but not the mottle effect for the same reason as everyone else. Same font but shiny finish like your logo on the back. I still don't like the little people but I like the larger little people on 4 better than 2&3.