[Mageia-artwork] [RFC] Proposed logo guidelines

Wed Jan 19 10:49:10 CET 2011

Hi,
+
+On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 01:28, Olivier FAURAX <olivier at faurax.fr> wrote:
+> Le 18/01/2011 00:31, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
+>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 00:02, Caroline Garlatti <cgarlatti at gmail.com> wrote:
+>>> Le dimanche 9 janvier 2011 17:52:28, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
+>>> Indeed, I was working on it. You can see my first draft here:
+>>> http://www.kalypo.com/share/
+>>>
+>>> We have tried to:
+>>> - rebalance the logo: increase the size of the text and reduce the cauldron
+>>
+>> Actually, the size of the text made smaller relative to the cauldron
+>> (see http://blog.mageia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mageia_logo.jpg
+>> ) :-p
+>
+> Yes, the cauldron is bigger, but also wider.
+
+Well, that's the other way around. :-) The text has been made smaller,
+to have the "m" aligned within the inner border of the cauldron
+(that's an important setting in this realignement), and the same "m"
+has been used to set the space around the icon (crucial setting too).
+
+> The cauldron border size was took from the size of the letter (bottom
+> border of the "e"), the new version breaks the link between the cauldron
+> and letter size.
+
+Yes, but it will anyway if we change the font (and that may be an
+option). I understand that the initial link makes sense, and that's a
+good way to build the icon, but that too can be an intermediary step
+and the icon may live on its own later on (that is, the icon strutural
+definition may stand alone, separate from the initial "e").
+
+> To me, this suggests that the name an "annex" of the logo, like if ti
+> was of less importance.
+
+Not of less importance, but balanced/contrasted; it makes both more
+remarkable: the icon is not a letter, but a distinctive sign, that may
+be on the left, or above the text.
+
+May be it can be rebalanced again, but you can't have a name that
+outweights the icon. Plus, negative space (around the full logo,
+around/between each of its components) is crucial.
+
+>>> - introduce a color . This proposal offers the possibility to have one logo but
+>>> different color for each group (cf- Romain's mail_brand/logo management,
+>>> official/derivative)
+>
+> We need to know where we are going with colors.
+> Do we have some input from marcom ?
+
+Not at this point. We'll add this point to discuss in the marcom
+meeting on Thursday. However we must go fast; or (it's likely to be
+this way given the time constraint) we will have a collector edition
+of tee-shirts for FOSDEM (understand it as, with a logo that is not
+the final official one). That may sound problematic at first, but it's
+not; time goes on and we already did that (have Mageia tee shirts with
+a temporary identity) for OWF back in October; and the
+finalized/updated logo will replace all instances.
+
+> I made some tests during the logo elaboration :
+> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ofaurax/5118935357/in/set-72157625195368021/
+> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ofaurax/5119536536/in/set-72157625195368021/
+> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ofaurax/5159964096/in/set-72157625195368021/
+>
+> The blue and orange are ok, but seems childish to me (I imagine them on
+> a toy).
+> It's ok if we don't want to suggest something "rock-solid" or corporate.
+
+Define "corporate", "childish"; it's like "pro" or "commercial" it's a
+word that's become difficult to define, especially since most of its
+usage is in a negative, contradictory or depreciative context.
+
+So I would rather prefer we stay out of subjective interpretations
+first and build from a similar set of rules as for the logo: initial
+intentions, some strict requirements, open tracks, and see what comes
+from this. That is, we build and define the story behind the logo,
+rather than only leave it open to interpretations from here and there.
+
+As an exemple of requirement: do not use or rely on Mandriva colour
+scheme (blue/orange/yellow); or of any other major Linux distribution.
+It does not prevent to use the same colours, but it requires to do so
+in a really distinctive manner/rearrangement.
+
+> Note that the bubble in orange seems more natural, as we expect lighter
+> colors for bubbles.
+>
+> For the letters, perhaps we might color "m", "g" and "a" of "mageia", as
+> this is its package suffix.
+
+I'm not sure we should go further than marking more than one letter
+(or even a single one, actually). It makes the full logo confusing. It
+may still be relevant for bubbles/i-dot.
+
+>> With the time, I don't know if the color-coding will be enough to
+>> differentiate official/derivative uses.
+>
+> I think that color is not enough to differentiate.
+> We'll discussed that in another thread.
+
+Yes.
+
+> - changed the font : this one is less wide (the "e" is no more rounded)
+
+That was voluntary, because we wanted to use the same font for
+headlines ; in some context, it's easier not to have to change the
+font default properties. Or, it requires to have a precise track of
+what has been altered so it can be reproduced.
+
+> - filled the bubbles
+>
+> The new border size of the cauldron with the filling of the bubbles
+> makes the icon heavier, especially the bubbles (I don't imagine tham
+> popping anymore).
+
+The gradient may contribute to the popping/lightness effect, no?
+
+> I think that we need to fill them, or at least put a color in them, but
+> we might not lose the lightness of them (as this represents the boiling
+> of ideas).
+
+On the other hand, filling them makes the whole icon less complex
+(that's especially relevant for small size icons).
+
+>> Anyway, we have two interesting refinement directions I guess:
+>>  - caroline, with the gradient, filled-in bubbles, and color uses,
+>>  - alexn83, with the font change (alexn83, I don't remeber, do you
+>> have the font reference, or is it reworked?) and the match of the i
+>> point with the bubbles
+>
+> I'll try to put my remarks in another refinement as a showcase, if I
+> find some time.
+
+Ok.
+
+Romain
+