I found it a bit odd to accidentally see that the logo had been changed
when searching for a reference on google.
Yes I do agree that the logo selection process was biased and unnecessary.
I heard nothing about it. Is there a design discussion list for ofbiz? Also
what the hell is option two aside from a similar logo version to option 1?
To me that seems like a biased vote. People will look at both logos as the
same. You combine those two logos and it is more than the old logo.
Furthermore I feel that there are far bigger issues that need to be dealt
with on the ofbiz UI/UX side, working on the theme way back then was a
mess. However changing up the logo back to it's 1993...? 1994? Incarnation
must be important.
I would have loved to see a new creative brand. The selection process did
not really produce anything new or creative. We took a step back to the
first logo which was dated back when I did the now replaced logo. A bit of
two steps back as far as I am concerned.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> Le 05/10/2016 à 07:51, Paul Piper a écrit :
>> Perhaps I should add:
>> I liked the work Brainfood had done in the past with the themes, logo & CI
>> it provided. You guys did a good job back then! So I hope that none of you
>> guys take these recent moves as a devaluation of your work.
>> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.
>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Vice President / Partner