On 24.04.13. 16:48, Liz Barry wrote:
I quickly put the logo side by side with the attribution mark. I feel it
is clearly of the same family, linked by
1. the shape of the folded map
2. the color grey in the magnifying glass handle
i uploaded the JPG to twitter --
https://twitter.com/lizbarry/status/327071379105120257
What do you think?
I disagree. Branding is serious issue.
Although suggested attribution mark fulfills usability requirements it
is not alike current OSM log and surely is not suitable for brand logo
replacement.
I also do not recommend using any new attribution mark before brand is
established. That would just make a confusion. It is better to leave
things as they are until visual identity of the OpenStreetMap brand is
established.
If there will be a change it should start with branding. When that is
done, and done well, brand logo would surely do the job as attribution mark.
One more thing, brand logo does not have to have a meaning (like looking
as map and magnifying glass). Brand logo may be meaningless as such but
get its meaning from brand itself. What is most important for a brand
log is to be easily recognized as such and usable in all situations.
My guess is that for OpenStreetMap it is best to play with full name and
OSM as base for a logo than using detailed graphical elements such are
map and magnifying glass for simple reason - details cannot survive low
resolution.
And finally, creating logo should be left to people who know how to do
it, and who are able to offer ideas that are applicable.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
