Hi On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Larry Shaffer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Tim Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Larry Shaffer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Tim Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> I have to say when I compare them to our existing logo, none of them >> >> really do it for me. Perhaps we need a new mandate to freshen our >> >> exisiting logo rather than to try to create something new. Our current >> >> logo may have issues but it is: > > ------snip 8< ------------------------- >> >> > Sorry, again, but I think the current logo falls far short of those >> > goals, >> > and any focus on revamping it is just prolonging the inevitable decision >> > to >> > move to a better one. >> >> >> Just to clarify - I am not opposed to replacing the logo at all. I >> just want to replace it with something that properly addresses our >> needs rather than taking an option we are not happy with simply >> because of the 99designs competition deadline. Currently there isn't >> an entry in my opinion that does this - for me anyway. > > > I agree 100% that a logo should not be settled upon, but happily selected, > regardless of any competition deadline. It's a very important decision. I > have a couple of ideas to overcome the current impasse: > > 1) Run off - Currently there seems to be two popular designs, but a general > consensus that neither is the 'right' one. There could be a short-term 'run > off' competition that allows those two designers to try and come up with > better designs, in an attempt to find a good solution for 2.0 release. > Again, this should not mean the result has to be binding, i.e. the winner's > logo used. > > 2) Use current logo - For 2.0 release, just use the current logo, as is. > After 2.0 release, I suggest the forming of an design committee to manage > another go at finding a new logo, and for the reasons mentioned below. > > 3) Design committee - Kudos to Nathan for his efforts on the competition and > getting everyone involved in the process. In retrospect I think a logo by > popular consensus, as a means of getting to final logo selections, may not > be the best course of action. In many organizations there are people with > design background or knowledge who work on making the initial selections to > bring to the community or those who make decisions. > > For example, the popular #50 has a inherent design flaw of being 95% black, > even though the rest of the design is OK. Such a committee could have > spotted this early on and asked the designer to work on a fix, before the > logo was presented to the community/PSC to vote on. > > I suggest such a committee be formed and comprised of 3-5 people who's job > is to manage and make initial decisions on: > > * Project logo, design style, fonts > * Marketing material design style > * Documentation/web site template style and fonts > * Program's general icons, toolbar icons, splash screen and style > > A design committee will allow a cohesive 'look' for all parts of the project > to start taking shape. The committee should probably answer to and be under > the purview of the PSC marketing advisor, and have specific abilities > bestowed upon it members to vote internally to act on smaller decisions > without needing full PSC approval. > > Basically, I feel design by community popular vote is not a good approach: > too many cooks in the kitchen. This committee could be formed now, with an > initial goal of handling the current logo situation. While personally I have > a lot of design experience and would like to be on such a committee, I > understand my current conflict of interest regarding the logo, and would > recuse myself regarding its decision. > > An active community member who has clear public examples of quality, > design-oriented work would be Anita Graser. So, I would nominate her to be > on such a committee. >
That all sounds like a very reasonable approach. I think this kind of filtering would be good as in retrospect there was such a high noise to signal ratio in the design competition I didn't find the process worked well for me. Hats off to Nathan for all the effort he put into it, but a more filtered and considered approach as described above sounds good. It would be also good to have a more rigorous set of criteria - the emotional response to a logo should be the last part of the process not the first, basic design principles should first be ticked off. +1 on your suggestions above Regards Tim > Regards, > > Larry > > >> >> Regards >> >> Tim -- Tim Sutton - QGIS Project Steering Committee Member (Release Manager) ============================================== Please do not email me off-list with technical support questions. Using the lists will gain more exposure for your issues and the knowledge surrounding your issue will be shared with all. Visit http://linfiniti.com to find out about: * QGIS programming and support services * Mapserver and PostGIS based hosting plans * FOSS Consulting Services Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net ============================================== _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
