Re: [PROPOSED] Swap the "open" and "official" versions of the new logo
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 03:57:49PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 04-Jun-99, 03:49 (CDT), Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> > I don't know how controversial this suggestion will be, but I propose that
> > the official version of the new logo be the one with the bottle in it.
>
> Second. That was one thing that always bugged me about the swirl thing
> (although I like it otherwise): that the official was simpler than the
> un-official -- it just didn't click for me mentally.
As I said, I'd love to have Raul's opinion on this. I think the fact that
the official logo is _simpler_ is pure genius. It's simple, it gets to ge
point, it's identifiable, it's everything a logo should be. The other one,
with the bottle, is more like a work of art. I can see why people like it
better for identifying a product (namely, the distribution, not the
project), but this is exactly the reason I like the simpler one better as a
project logo. You can slap this thing (the swirl) on top of something else,
and voila, you have a logo for some specific product of the project.
This is my way of saying I have a problem with this Official vs
Non-Official logo bussiness. I think stamping "Official" on top of the log
should do it, but that's another story and the developers have spoken: most
of you guys _want_ two visually distinct logos. I'm, OTOH, talking about
logo derivatives for the different stuff Debian, as a project, may produce.
I'm confused regaring Branden's proposal... on one hand, I think Branden's
idea might be good, we might want to be able to produce visually attractive
`Debian Used Here' web buttons, which is much easier to accomplish with the
simpler logo, but on the other hand, I recognize the great value a simple
logo has for the project and its official components.
Marcelo
Reply to: