It makes sense given that the most prominent places many of these will be seen are a title screen when the game is loading, and on a cover graphic that is either on a physical box or a virtual box/poster in an online store.

More often than not the logo HAS to tell you what the name of the game is or it has failed in one of its primary roles, in the same way a movie poster more often than not has to tell you the name of the movie.

I'm sure many of these would have icon-only secondary logos for use as desktop/UI icons in the same way that sporting teams will have secondary logos that don't feature the team's name or city.

I might be wrong, but I think the results Chad was inquiring about are results around the Epicurrence site, not your portfolio site. Do you have any data around the site that proves it was successful and helped the client? Hard data like that can be really persuasive in convincing employers that your designs don't just look good, but they also result in tangible business outcomes. It also communicates an attitude that you care enough about your client's goals to measure that sort of stuff.

I don't think he copped out. He provided several reasonable arguments for why he thinks the current "standard" system is superior — more tactile and visually distinct (arguable, but valid), visual feedback on their status even when not in use, ability to control vents independently of other car functions. Those are all valid reasons.

I like this idea, and it's impressive what you've achieved in short time. Nice work!

Now for a little (friendly) criticism.

I think it would be worth revisiting the colour contrast throughout. The type throughout is very small and has quite low contrast against the white. That's fine for people with perfect vision, not so much for everyone else. I feel like this could actually hurt the UX quite significantly because you've obviously spent time to give the app a calming zen-like tone – but if people are struggling to read the text it will wind up having the exact opposite effect.

On a similar note, the texture in the app icon is so subtle that it almost looks like low res noise or JPEG artefacts. Which is a shame, because the texture is actually quite lovely, but it's just too fiddly and subtle in such a small area. The bird icon is quite lovely – if you removed the texture and the drop shadow behind it I think it would actually have more impact.

Just my 2c.

The argument I've heard from my friends and co-workers is that a lot of them use the AUX input to listen to their phone's music on their car stereo. Having to use the dongle will mean they can no longer charge their phones whilst driving and listening to music. So they either need to buy ANOTHER dongle to allow simultaneous charging/3.5mm audio (dual-dongling), or buy a bluetooth receiver/adaptor for their stereo. Either way, they're out of pocket and using workarounds, resulting in a worse experience.

FontExplorer is definitely slower to start up than RightFont, but in actual use I haven't noticed a substantial speed difference between the two. Although since I've had trouble getting RightFont to recognise some of the fonts it's probably not a totally equal comparison.

But that's only when I start my machine, so I'm waiting for email and other apps to open up anyway. I don't consider the extra 10 seconds it takes for FontExplorer to startup to be an issue, since once it's open, it's always open.

For reference, I have 7,340 font families installed on my machine, and it's a mix of OTF, TTF and older PostScript font files.

I was very interested in RightFont, since I work in a team and the library sharing features using Dropbox were a very attractive feature. That could potentially solve issues we were having where multiple (slightly different) versions of the same font were floating around. Currently some of us use FontExplorer, but setting up a shared font server with that is much too expensive for us. RightFont looked like it might be a solution.

Unfortunately we've found that RightFont just flat out refuses to recognise a lot of the fonts that are put in the shared library (usually older ones). While FontExplorer may not offer the sharing features we want at a cost that we can justify, it DOES handle pretty much anything we can throw at it.

I revisit it every now and then to see what progress has been made, but FontExplorer is still my go-to everyday solution for font management.