2010/3/4 Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]>: > In my own opinion, I am not liking the new design. First it looks too > similar to the older one but less stylish. The colors also look awful. > Is somebody getting payed for this or is it a community effort? > Either or, I think this logo sucks. > > I would recomment funding a project to create the typography from > scratch, and GPL it. You can do that with software available > > You can do that with FontForge (http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/) or > GFE (Gnu Font editor). > > Please, this roundy edges fonts really doesn't look that appealing. > > > On 3/4/10, Stefan Taxhet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> For an impression of the first two rebrushed elements - the logo and a >> symbol - have a look at >> http://www.openoffice.org/trademark/brandrefresh.html >>
Hello, I rather agree with Alexandro. I prefer the condensed font from the present logo. The big round O is clumsy and amateuristic compared to the polished, efficient condensed 0 I prefer the 'metallic' blue, also more professional, than the new naive colour. I prefer the slightly leaner seagulls (the newer ones are fatter and less birdlike) Why exchange the blue part with the black? I prefer the birds black, against a blue sky What happened to the 'wave' (dark blue above, lighter below) that adds to the seascape image (freedom) Are the seven coloured dots part of the logo? I like them. For the symbol: same remark about colour (for first symbol) and fatness of birds. Conclusion: better keep the old logo, or start afresh along the lines Alexandro proposes. -- Guy using dutch OOo 3.2 on a iMac Intel DualCore Snow Leopard and brazilian OOo 3.2 on an Intel MacBook Pro Leopard -- please reply only to [email protected] -- Dodoes can't afford to have headaches --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
