On 14 April 2014 23:10, Nicholas Bollweg <[email protected]> wrote:
> updated, based on some designer feedback: > http://imgur.com/7P2104K > I dont like that.The other had slim lines (simplicity) and strong colors (vivid) rgds jan i > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Bollweg <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > sorry, it's some kind of gallery: > > http://imgur.com/ITtyVG3,kA1rwlZ#1 > > > > Here is the direct link: > > http://imgur.com/kA1rwlZ#1 > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> On 04/14/2014 04:04 PM, Nicholas Bollweg wrote: > >> > >>> So much hammer and anvil... a bit 17th century, no? > >>> > >>> Several other more modern forging techniques are out there: drop, > press, > >>> upset, roll, net-shape, induction, etc (not doing the full wiki walk, > but > >>> some of them look cool). For example, roll forging is cool, as it > >>> involves > >>> a series of different tools that alter the metal moving through it > before > >>> it is finished: > >>> http://www.custompartnet.com/wu/images/sheet-metal/roll-forming.png > >>> > >>> In regards to the feather: how about something that uses the > foundation's > >>> color scheme a bit more subtly, and pulls in some additional more > modern > >>> elements: > >>> > >>> http://imgur.com/ITtyVG3,kA1rwlZ > >>> (just whipped it up, not super excited about) > >>> > >> > >> Is this the right URL? I just see the word Allura, but later you refer > to > >> a chemical compound as being part of the logo, and I'm not seeing that > yet. > >> > >> --Rich > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> the font is anonymous pro, which is coder-centric and open source > (OFL): > >>> http://www.marksimonson.com/fonts/view/anonymous-pro > >>> > >>> the chemical compound is Allura Red :) > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allura_Red_AC_ball-and-stick.png > >>> > >>> I kinda like the concept of a chemical compound as a metaphor, as it > >>> suggests that it (i.e. a forge running allura) is made of smaller > things > >>> (atoms) (i.e. projects and neighborhoods) which are in turn made of > even > >>> smaller things (i.e. code, wikis, etc.). Also, the diagram is kinda > like > >>> the gitk diagrams (or whoever gitk appropriated it from), though if > your > >>> commit history looked like that, you'd probably be in for trouble :( > >>> > >>> I assume keeping clear away from the syndicated cartoon stuff is > >>> probably a > >>> good idea... > >>> > >>> Cheers! > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 04/14/2014 12:20 PM, jan i wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 14 April 2014 18:11, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> While it's not a requirement for us to have a logo, it would be > very > >>>>> > >>>>>> nice. > >>>>>> Anybody got any thoughts regarding what we might do for a logo, or > the > >>>>>> skills to make one? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I was thinking that some imagery around the idea of a forge might > >>>>>> work, > >>>>>> although I know that SourceForge did that years ago. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It makes project/product identification a lot simpler when having a > >>>>> logo. > >>>>> Putting the logo on next to everything a project makes, ensures > >>>>> end-users > >>>>> asociate the logo with the project a lot better than the simple name. > >>>>> > >>>>> A simple forge, where our feather is forged/hammered. I am not good > at > >>>>> drawing, but I can see such an image. > >>>>> > >>>>> FeatherForge (on Twitter, Facebook, Etsy, and featherforge.com) has > >>>> such > >>>> a logo. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Rich Bowen - [email protected] - @rbowen > >>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> -- > >> Rich Bowen - [email protected] - @rbowen > >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > >> > >> > > >
