Hi Nik, all!
Just some short comments on this issue as well, because I'd like to
finally answer Andras question ... :-)
Am Samstag, den 05.03.2011, 04:10 +1100 schrieb Nik:
> Can I butt-in for a second on just one issue; ...
Of course :-)
> On 3/3/2011 9:33 AM, Christoph Noack wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 02.03.2011, 23:00 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
[...]
> >> In my eyes 80% grey (#333333) is dark enough to look distinct from the
> >> lighter tone, but is recognized as "not black".
> It is simply music to my ears to hear you say that Bernhard =)
[...]
> Can we finally put this to bed and move to a dark-grey instead of black?
> reasons;
> - Black is unfriendly
> - Black creates a negative emphasis on contrast (especially given the
> simplicity of the shapes in the logo)
> - Makes text "stick out" rather than "blend in"
> - The Green doesn't match the black comfortably, but matches the greys well
> - Printing dark grey is not an issue (including the mono version)
> - Using Grey, especially in gradient, creates the perception of lighting
Since you name it - there is not only printing, but also stitching and
such stuff. That's the reason for having the basic (okay: plain) logo
that cares about the essential things like shape and simple colors.
Based on that logo, a "contemporary" variant can be derived and even
slightly altered according to "fashion needs".
So - to me - it would be okay to agree on "dark gray" (also for the
plain logo), if:
* it fits to the visual impression on all media (product, website,
letter heads, ...)
* black is an exception when it comes to special production
methods like stitching or coating (sometimes dark gray is not an
option)
Personally, I think we should start to collect such tiny logo issues in
the wiki and update all in one "rush" - to save some effort.
> Black text on white background = default = no thought given to
> appropriateness of message = no design effort made.
Depends on the message ;-)
[...]
> >> We could add "LibreGrey 2" and "LibreGrey 3", but I don't think this is
> >> necessary for the LibO palette.
> > Mmh, I got lost a bit ... if I understood it correctly, you discuss the
> > logo instead of the color palette to be included in / translated for
> > LibreOffice.
> >
> > Concerning the former, the black is still fine for the Basic logo for
> > various reasons. Indeed, the Contemporary logo features the different
> > gray shadings (and is the only one as far as I remember).
> >
> We shouldn't have "contemporary" and "plain" versions! that will only
> cause inconsistencies.
> Why aren't we just moving over to the contemporary version as the /main/
> logo?
> The plain logo has no benefit over the contemporary version and
> switching them will not create confusion, they are essentially the same
> thing (to end users).
If we would only provide the logo on screens and on high quality
printouts, I would agree. But we have also other promotional material
(like the large banners) that need to be printed in simple and plain
colors. So - to me - there is not only a real benefit in providing the
plain version; it is essential. But we want to express our default
choice - that should be simple.
So how about the following logos...
"Basic/Plain" (defines basic color and shape)
* Derived "contemporary --> LibreOffice "preferred" logo
(highlighted on the branding page)
* Derived "grayscale" (like today)
* Derived "black/white" (like today)
* Derived "inverted" (like today)
>From my point-of-view, most of the confusion is created by those people
who copy the logo from other locations in the web - and sometimes even
modifying them. Grrrr.
Does that sound reasonable?
Cheers,
Christoph
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
