Hi Nik, all, sorry for not replying earlier, but...
Nik wrote: > [... skipping the short version - too much to reply inline... > > Hi Bernhard! > I know I told you I'd be busy with my research but you keep raising > interesting topics that lure me back! =) Should I say I'm sorry? Only if this activities here reduce the quality of your main work, your private life, your sleep quality or any other more important task. ;-) OK - I'm very glad that you're here! :-) > Besides, some /*very*/ important stuff is being decided right now, that > if I miss out on, I know it will never get changed again. > That is the way of Open-Source huh? like a big machine on rails that can > only go forward, not back =) Of course it can - but it cost's nearly as much as in the corporate world. (Sometimes money, but more credibility, consistency and fun...) > > On 1/31/2011 9:12 AM, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > > Do you think we can present this logo (or something similar) to the > > Steering Committee as our Design Team proposal for an official logo of > > LibreOffice for external use? > > > > Comments? Critics? Improvements? > > > If the possibility of /small/ changes are possible to the logo in this > context, can we take this opportunity to address some if its shortcomings? I didn't talk to the Steering Committee on this question, but I think we can. > [...] It wouldn't entail major changes, but the longer we trudge on with an > "interim logo", the more certain I become that it will remain the *only* > logo tried. At least for some time. The point is that some people want to use a logo for representing LibreOffice outside the community now. So we are restricted in time, but not as much to avoid any discussion on improvement. We just shouldn't need more than one or wo weeks to come to a final version. > > [...] > R03 is what I would recommend, I think the gap could decrease and > because the letter L has a good "corner" effect, it perfectly juxtaposes > the icon when aligned. > This way, the entire arrangement would look like one visual "block" > which is what you want; White space /around/ the logo, rather than > /between/. I support this standing - we don't need as much space between the parts of the logo. > [...] > > If we were feeling adventurous, I think small changes could really > improve the look of the current logo; (refer to R05) > *http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LibOlogo_reconfigs03.jpg* > - Clip the L so it is cut by the same gap which slices the paper icon: > for continuation. Good idea - even if I don't think we should do the same with the "b2" as in R06. I've already tried to reduce the distance between symbol and "L" even more by extending the green corner to the "L" - not really a valid idea, but you might get what I mean, when I'll upload the draft tomorrow (today only mail access). > - Lighten the colours to mid-grey instead of dark-grey, this will still > print well and compliments the green better. The lighter grey looks more friendly, but there are some drawbacks, we need to keep in mind: 1. Reproduction of grey tones are problematic on prints, the lighter the color is, the more differ prints on different printers. 2. Contrast to the background will be reduced, thus leading to a even more restrictive Branding Guideline ("keep the white background of the logo"). I think the positive aspects of the lighter grey are more important - I just wanted to mention. Your green gradient introduces a new green tone different from the existing green branding colors (I didn't compare - it's just my impression). Especially with the next point this becomes important: > - Colour the "broken corner" of the paper icon to create a focal point > that leads the eye through the logo I like the colored corner. It integrates the symbol with the text and adds a visible distinction from the TDF symbol by keeping it's relationship. But with your new gradient the general impression of the green moves towards yellow. I would like to avoid modifying the Initial Branding Colors before we work on the Community Branding. > > I'm not sure giving the members "logos" is the entire solution because > it just creates many logo variations. > I think creating "badges" for community members with a non-TDF logo > /attached/ will send the right message without diluting the brand. I don't mind if they are "logos" or "logos with badges". But we are on the same side: Being allowed to use a visible reference proving that someone belongs to an LibO Team is a positive motivation. > Because it suggests affiliation without suggesting ownership. > I think Charles mentioned this in an Email to the Design list (I've > CC'ed him), I was really excited by the prospect of making team badges, > but because I'm short on time, I've only got roughs (plenty of > glitches). I thought the topic could wait, but these are related things. I still think that they have some more time. Before anybody can use them, it is necessary to create rules about their usage (who is allowed to use them where). > > I thought we could create "shields" or "emblems" for our community. R07 > shows "members" and "distributors" roughs only; > *http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LibOlogo_reconfigs04.jpg* They really look great! I personally like the left shields better, but the straight upper borders of the right ones resembles better to the TDF symbol. > > And they could be arranged in something like this way (R08); > *http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LibOlogo_reconfigs05.jpg* > This way it is not a logo, it is more like signage. But here I see two problems: If you don't want to use it as logo, it had to respect the white space rules for the logo. And if you don't include the logo symbol, people might consider the shield as main LibO symbol. ... and I feel blindsided by the amount of green (the arrow at the bottom looks a bit heavy to me). But these are points that can be addressed (or not, if it's just me feeling this way). Do you think it is possible to concentrate on the LibO logo now and add the team logos/ badges/signatures later? I think we should try to create the logo as soon as possible. > > Right about now, you're probably hoping you hadn't asked for feedback > right? I'm sorry =) ... Not at all! Great work and an unquestionable improvement over my design! > But let me know what you think, these are all embedded in my page now > anyway; > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik > > I'm sorry I keep bringing this up, but I think it's necessary to discuss > and plan for this. > Most people will see our logo before they even try the software. We > might lose them before we even shake their hand. You really think that we lose most of our possible customers because of our poor logo? I didn't think it would be *that* bad... Best regards Bernhard -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
