[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: logo objectives


On Mon, Nov 10, 1997 at 06:18:02PM +0000, E Papantoniou wrote:
> In my opinion, before selecting a logo we must be clear about the objectives.
> It must be simple: so the two animals together cannot coexist, they make the
> logo too complex. To choose only one of the two would be unfair.

So far your logical conclusions are acceptable and actually I agree.

> So we must
> choose a DIFFERENT animal (since plain text is considered BORING).

Here you fail completely. Let us not start a flame war, but you can actually
have a lot of other logos that do not show animals and are indeed very
interesting. First, plain text in a special font *is* interesting. Plain
text with a special background pattern (e.g. a jigsaw) *is* interesting.
plain text with a special geometrical object *is* interesting. Why choose an
animnal? Why not a plant, a mineral or another object from nature. There are
many interesting plants out there.

> In this 
> way we also satisfy the criterion of UNIQUENESS (ie Debian will be something
> special - which it is anyway, it is the only free linux any more).
> Credit to GNU and Linux is given in a text basis (ie with the inclusion of
> the words GNU/Linux, which also should be fairly small so that they don't
> take the focus away from Debian).

Here I agree once again with you.
> To summarise and conclude: 
> One animal

This is what I doubt.

> The word DEBIAN with large fonts
> The words GNU/Linux with smaller fonts

> (the animal neither a pinquin nor a gnu)...could be a horse, bird (eg owl)
> (or eagle)...lion...plenty to choose from, why replicate others and not
> being creative???

Exactly this is the point. Choosing an animal is more dangerous to be
repetitive than any other thing. I used to take a regular look on the logo
page, and was very disappointed. Too much colors, too much details, too
stupid (hey, a pinguin with *horns* ?). There is some good *art* there, but
no good *design* if you catch the difference. Here are further requirements
you failed to mention:

* simple structure (the logo should be recognized and understood at once,
without looking two hours at it)

* good b/w version (this is horrible important for printing)

* good small version (for headers. A logo should be good looking independent
from scale. This requirement is harder to fullfill than it seems)

* harmonic. It should not be disturbing neither in shape nor in colour.
(e.g., pink and neon-green is bad choosing.)

Any comments?

Thank you,

"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."
Marcus Brinkmann

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-publicity-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: