On 11/10/12 21:21, Nicola De Filippo wrote:
I think it's the quality of the product and marketing to give success to a logo and not vice versa. Apple would be successful with a pig
Generally I agree that having a good product is more important than marketing (note the logo is part of the marketing and branding). Take for example the infamous Ling's Cars - http://www.lingscars.com/ - which is very successful even with such a terrible presentation.
I hope that the focus of effort with Nemo will be on producing a great product, but that need not mean having a sub-standard logo or branding.
Actually, animals and bright colours can be fine for a logo, when done with some design sense (it just seem many open source projects don't have that design sense).
My plea is that we not end up with something garish and childish. Consider what kind of thing you would like: * Logo designed/chosen by a project lead or outspoken people because they have the most say not because they have any design sense. (For example this designed by Larry Wall, who is an amazing programmer, but with unfortunate design sense: http://perl6.org/camelia-logo.png ) * Logo designed by someone with design skills, in a way that the community is happy about (but not design by committee). (For example this alternative to the above logo by someone with some design sense http://blog.kraih.com/a-logo-for-perl ) OK, my rant is over. Carry on with the good work you are doing. Cheers, Ross.
