On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: > Btw, logos are graphical marks and is not mandatory that they are logotypes > (wordmarks). This means you don't necessarily need to read the name of the > product from the start (look at apple, volkswagen, audi, sun, etc). After > you know it's XWiki, you can easily see what proposal 16 states.
I don't agree with this reasoning. Either you use a logo that doesn't mean anything (ie it's a symbol, an image, etc) or you have a logo with letters and in that case it must be readable. Even though I know it's about XWiki, I can't even read it... I don't find the logo that smart. A smart logo is a logo that is simple, polished and that be read easily. Cleverness is not usually that good in branding since a good portion of people won't understand the clever thing. Thanks -Vincent > > The logo should be the identity and feeling of that product. Having a smart > logo would be nice for us, don't you think? > Caty > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:00, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think version 16 is the ONLY original logo we have for this challenge. >> It is abstract enough to make a great brand and be reused for variations. >> It is simple, straightforward and easily to remember (not to reproduce, to >> remember that you've seen it before). >> It's look IMO is perfect for a technical application and community. >> It's smart, creative and I LOVE IT :) >> >> Go version 16 :) >> Caty >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:41, Fabio Mancinelli < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 for 4A >>>>> >>>>> and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a >>> missing >>>>> arm.. >>>>> I can't read XWiki in it.. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I >>> had >>>> people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't >>> able to >>>> read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, >>> this >>>> logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect >>> anyone to >>>> understand the XWiki logo that is. >>>> >>>> I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't >>>> improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about >>> to >>>> make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>>> >>>> Guillaume >>>> >>> I share your opinion... Besides the fact that I don't like it because it's >>> miles away from the "web 2.0" style that I think we tend to. >>> It would be good if our style was "geeky-oldschool" but I don't think it's >>> the case. >>> But this is a personal and questionable opinion. >>> >>> The fact is that me too, at a first glance, I can't read XWiki in it and I >>> have to make an effort in order to "see" XWiki written in that logo. >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> Fabio >>> _______________________________________________ >>> users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
