On 3/29/13, Robin Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: > Due to the opinions I've seen so far I've decided to make a new design: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27846912/OO_4_final_design_Robin-Fowler.jpg?version=1&modificationDate=1364582663662
Here is a tweak, without the orb. Looks pretty olympic. http://imagebin.org/252139 > > Overall it has a flat look and yet still some depth to make it stand out > from the microsoft brand. I think it is also important to think about the > form itself, the silhouette should ideally be recognisable on its own, which > is one reason using the apache feather is a good idea. > > Some other thoughts: > > One of the problems i see with a lot of the proposals is the lack of thought > given to typography. It seems the text is just slapped on as an > afterthought, in many cases the 'apache' is floating somewhere randomly > above 'openoffice'. Think of what you want the logo to imply, it should not > look disorganised. Another thing worth pointing out is the kerning (spacing > between letters) which could be optimised on some of the proposals. There was a long discussion about the typography, starting with an open typography, and also a more artistic. > > This is an extremely important aspect of the whole logo design and should be > considered when choosing a design. After all, many logos consist of nothing > other than text. > > I also want to say i really like Vasilis Xenofontos design. It might be too > different from the current, but it's a very good logo imo. > > Robin > > On 28 Mar 2013, at 12:38, Samer Mansour <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Robin brought up a good point that we should pick a logo before we start >> work on the application artifacts or the website as it will influence >> those. >> >> I initially was excited that we could have a new logo, an opportunity to >> change the face of OpenOffice. >> >> But after I saw Chris R. proposal I convinced myself refreshing rather >> than >> re-branding was the better path. >> >> So I would like to start a conversation that will hopefully give us >> strong >> arguments to picking a logo. >> >> I already mentioned I liked the flat logo. >> Here are reasons: >> >> - It is very similar to the current logo and that logo has a history of >> being recognized. >> - Flat is 'in', easily recognizable on and works well on social >> platforms, >> screens and print media. (Think corporate and product logos of today, >> recently Pepsi, Domino's, Microsoft, Skype, Twitter) >> - This logo can be severed from the word mark to make it fit in a square >> and still carry the branding image. Icons, site, etc. >> - A middle ground for community members who like the current logo. Who >> want >> to achieve a new image of 4.0 without tossing history. >> >> Looking back, we had lots of ideas but it only took me a moment when i >> saw >> Chris r.'s proposal to realize the logo didn't need to be complex and >> completely new. That simple was actually beautiful. >> >> Thoughts? Agree? Disagree (and your solution is)? >> >> Samer Mansour > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://es.openoffice.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
