I didn't check if the font I used had a ff or ffi character. I played with the characters in inkscape to adjust the dot height and f spacing manually, as well as I tightened up the other characters in the word mark. That could be adjusted further.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Graham Lauder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 28 May 2013 15:00:47 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > On 5/28/13 2:48 PM, Alphonso Whitfield III wrote: > > > I agree with Kadal looks like more of the same. > > > > And that is not necessarily bad. We got feedback from 5000 users and it > > seems that the majority like the logo we have and why not simply keeping > > the main idea and do only some refresh. > > Where is that data, I can't find it, it doesn't seem to be on the wiki > with the > logo stuff > > When you say "Not necessarily bad", by what criteria do you judge this, the > aesthetic sensibilities of 5000 random respondents. I'm sorry I missed the > survey so I have no idea of what was in it. > > People like it because it's familiar, however it fulfills none of the > requirements of a brand relaunch. I doesn't signal a new beginning, just > says "same old, same old". Besides which, choosing a logo by "Vote" is > going > to purely subjective without any thought being given to the practical > needs of > the brand, especially that of the marketing side of things, without any > thought to the Brand as a whole. > > A good example happened a while back with the OpenSuSE community. Novell > changed the way it created and distributed promo DVDs. The task; to market > and distribute OS 11.3, was given to a company in Germany whose name > escapes > me at the moment. Up til then the packaging had been blacks, greys and > dark > greens. The new guys brightened up the packaging, put photos of happy > looking > people on the sleeve and generally went all out to be funky and aim at the > 16 > - 35 market. It caused a hell of a shit fight, the devs and many of the > community objected loudly. So I took it and the previous version (mostly > grey with a little bit of green with black pin stripes) to a Software > Freedom > Day event and asked people who knew nothing about the software, which one > they would choose to take, NOT which one they "liked" better but which they > would take home with them. Almost without exception they chose the funky > 11.3, even those that were outside the target market preferred the 11.3 > version. From my own aesthetic POV I preferred the look of the 11.1 & 11.2 > packaging but I wasn't the target market. The 11.3 packaging however had > impact and it attracted it's target audience and that was the Objective. > > > > > One of the important aspects is to get a new maintainable and fresh > > image source (svg) and variations that we can use for different use > cases. > > > > Nobody said that we have to invent something completely new. > > Of course nobody said we HAVE to change it, I, personally, would have > preferred that we had made that assertion, rather than spending a lot of > time > and effort on NOT changing it. Lucas Filho's proposals for instance, were > very > good, especially the "Warpaint" idea. It had controversial potential > about it > that could have given us column space and attracted a lot of attention. > Kevin's stacked pages motif was also great and I think that could have been > explored further. > The above two had the additional tick in that they were original. > > > >The brand is well known, the logo is well known, ... > > The most recognisable part of the OOo brand was a line of text: 14 > characters > in camel case: > > OpenOffice.org. > > It had the advantage that it was instantly recognisable in the middle of a > page of text, which given that it is an internet brand rather than a high > street brand is a huge thing. > > That has changed completely it is now Apache Open Office. People used to > complain that the old name was long and clumsy and so we make it longer and > clumsier and without the distinctive word shape but somehow dropping the > .org > made this alright, the problem is now we just have three words that blur > into > the background of a pageful of characters. We had one very small brand > distinction and now we don't even have that, killed by "Nothing is in > stone..." Apache bureaucracy. > > The logo is only known to our present user base, it has little, if any, > recognition outside that demographic and there is little reason to assume > that > this will change if the branding simply staggers on as it is. Certainly it > will be difficult to hang a "rebranding" campaign off it. "Ladies and > Gentlemen, > the big announcement today is that it's all the same as yesterday..." I > can > feel the excitement generating in the market already! :/ > > The critical thing is brand recognition, outside our present user base, our > brand recognition is practically zero and that would still be higher than > our > Logo recognition. (If you have any reputable market research that refutes > this I would love to see it.) > > > The PMC needs, like any good management team, to ignore the subjective > and > make a decision on purely objective criteria: Impact, uniqueness, story. > > If this was a decision being made by a marketing department run by me, the > toss up would be between Lucas's "Warpaint", his feather in orb, Kevin's > feather in Orb but with perhaps a more quill type motif. I also would > look at > Robin Fowler's feather motif in 16 as a quill, it's simple shape has > scaleability advantages. > > Cheers > > GL > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > > Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan > > > with The Vital Portal > > > > > > Alphonso Whitfield > > > [email protected] > > > Vital > > > 912-816-2595 > > > Skype: vital.i.net > > > > > > Visit us at: > > > The Vital Portal > > > > > > The Vital Portal On facebook > > > > > > Visit our Google Community > > > > > > Join our Vital Portal Webinars at: > > > The Vital Portal WebEx Meeting Center . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Kevin Grignon" <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: "marketing" <[email protected]>, > > > [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:46:29 AM > > > Subject: Re: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection > > > > > > I like the darker font colour for Apache, but prefer all caps as it > > > supports a more balanced layout. The descender or long leg of the > Apache > > > letter "p" when rendered in lowercase causes tension as it stabs the > > > openOffice logo type. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > On May 28, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Kadal Amutham <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Looks like we are retaining almost the current logo with some small > > >> changes > > >> > > >> With Warm Regards > > >> > > >> V.Kadal Amutham > > >> 919444360480 > > >> 914422396480 > > >> > > >> On 28 May 2013 04:51, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On May 27, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > >>>> [This was cross-posted, so I'm not clear what list was intended. > Makes > > >>> > > >>> tracking the discussion difficult.] > > >>> > > >>>> I'll bite: > > >>>> > > >>>> I prefer Chris's latest. The weight of the lettering is more > powerful. > > >>> > > >>> I think the "Apache" should not be so thin. The form used by Samer > works > > >>> better. I also think down-scaling will work better in this case. > > >>> > > >>>> As far as the orb goes, Chris's could be a tad larger, but not by > much. > > >>> > > >>> I prefer the orientation of the foreground bird to Kevin's, which > has a > > >>> more threatening feel in my subjective experience. > > >>> > > >>> These are good observations. > > >>> > > >>> I would like to see it with an "ffi" ligature. > > >>> > > >>> I think we should leave the 4 out. Others have mentioned that 4 is an > > >>> unlucky number is some cultures. Perhaps we have compromise and have > > >>> both > > >>> versioned and un-versioned logo designs. If so then I think a > treatment > > >>> like "Version 4.0" in grey and blue might work. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Dave > > >>> > > >>>> - Dennis > > >>>> > > >>>> PS: Interesting that we've come around to a close variant of the > > >>>> current > > >>> > > >>> logo. > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > > >>>> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 03:22 PM > > >>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > >>>> Subject: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection > > >>>> > > >>>> What we've done so far: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) Called for logo submissions from the community > > >>>> > > >>>> 2) Many designers responded and we received 40 submissions. There > was > > >>>> a lot of "cross-fertilization" of ideas, as designers saw what > others > > >>>> had come up with, what worked, and borrowed ideas. > > >>>> > > >>>> 3) We did a survey of user responses to the 40 logo submissions. > Over > > >>>> 5000 users offered their ratings and written comments. > > >>>> > > >>>> 4) Publish report and blog post on the results of the logo survey. > > >>>> > > >>>> 5) Invited the designers of the top-rated logos to read over the > > >>>> survey comments and refine their designs and submit an updated > > >>>> version. > > >>>> > > >>>> That's where we are now. The updated logos (three of them) are on > the > > >>> > > >>> wiki now: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Stage+2+Logo+Refine > > >>> ment>>> > > >>>> As you can see there is quite a bit of convergence on a design > > >>>> occurring. > > >>>> > > >>>> So what next? > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd like to propose some next steps. > > >>>> > > >>>> A) Let's discuss the three designs on the mailing list for the next > > >>>> week. The discussion might lead to further refinement. > > >>>> > > >>>> B) If at the end of the week there is consensus on a single design > > >>>> we'll go with that one. > > >>>> > > >>>> C) If at the end of the week there is not consensus on a single > > >>>> design, and the discussion is not leading us closer toward > consensus, > > >>>> then we'll have a 72-hour vote of PMC members to pick the logo. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> > > >>>> -Rob > > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
