In general the biggest part of this to me is that… - we don't currently have any branding after initial scroll. - logo ≠ brand - we don't exactly know what our "brand" is at this point, but we're working on it.
*Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman<https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Brandon Harris <[email protected]>wrote: > > (Pulled this out into its own thread) > > On Jan 20, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Steven Walling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > And one bigger thing... The lack of the puzzle globe when scrolling. I > know you hate the puzzle globe and so do many of our designers. But it's a > key part of our identity, and it's also a really nice large target for > "home" on desktop. Thinking of this as a potential future default look, > splitting the logo and wordmark on every page like that is a serious > change. We should have a larger conversation about it I think internally. > Either we do think the globe is an important part of our brand or we don't. > If we think it's so unimportant as to remove it on scroll, then that has > pretty wide implications for our branding I think. > > So, a couple of things: > > 1) The puzzle globe - and ALL of our brand identity - > *currently* goes away when you scroll past it on the page. Retaining *any* > branding is therefore good, in my opinion. We’re actually ahead of the > game here. > > 2) We know that users recognize Wikipedia branding in the > following order (Jay has the information about this): > > * The Wordmark (WikipediA) > * The “W” mark > * Single puzzle piece > * The puzzle globe. > > The globe is the *least* recognized of our marks, which is > interesting. So by just showing the wordmark, we’re actually in-line with > what is expected. > > 3) Regardless of my personal opinions about the globe as a > logo (I love its symbology, for instance), it’s *incredibly* difficult to > work with because: > > * It doesn’t reduce well *at all* > * Good logos do not have gradients (part > of that reduction bit) > * It’s a 2 dimensional render of a 3-D > model. This rendering was done on a *white* background, which means that > the interior shadows are all reflecting white. Which means putting it on > any other color background doesn’t work: the shadows don’t look correct to > the eye (particularly the shading inside the globe), which puts it into > this sort of ‘uncanny valley’ of visual effects. The viewer *knows* it > doesn’t look correct, but isn’t sure why. > > Clearly, the Winter prototype has some work to do for > non-standard logos (e.g., some wiktionaries, for instance). What we’ll > likely want to do in those cases is an image swap when the thing is > supposed to come to rest. > > > > --- > Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design >
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
