Here is my attempt at a KISS logo for EOMA68 (easily adapted for other standards):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32579869145
If you want me to post it somewhere else (or you want the sources), you got to point me where to upload it.
License: Whatever lkcl wants (otherwise cc-sa-by-4.0)
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 09:26:29PM -0500, James L wrote:
Here is my attempt at a KISS logo for EOMA68 (easily adapted for other standards):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32579869145
If you want me to post it somewhere else (or you want the sources), you got to point me where to upload it.
License: Whatever lkcl wants (otherwise cc-sa-by-4.0)
Looks good.
Could I ask you to produce variants of this:
1) without colour
2) low resolution/small size
3) (1) & (2)
The reason is that a logo is going to be used in many places and still has to be robustly recognisable. So all candidate logos should be 'tested' by checking how they look when mangled as above.
Regards
Looks good.
Could I ask you to produce variants of this:
- without colour
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32445321752
- low resolution/small size
100p wide: https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32445321542
- (1) & (2)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32445321642
The reason is that a logo is going to be used in many places and still has to be robustly recognisable. So all candidate logos should be 'tested' by checking how they look when mangled as above.
Regards
Licenses: Same as before (Whatever lkcl wants, otherwise cc-sa-by-4.0)
I don't like it, I dunno. It's bland.
On January 30, 2017 2:19:04 AM GMT+03:00, James L james6.28318530@gmail.com wrote:
Looks good.
Could I ask you to produce variants of this:
- without colour
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32445321752
- low resolution/small size
100p wide: https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32445321542
- (1) & (2)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151565999@N03/32445321642
The reason is that a logo is going to be used in many places and
still has to be
robustly recognisable. So all candidate logos should be 'tested' by
checking how
they look when mangled as above.
Regards
Licenses: Same as before (Whatever lkcl wants, otherwise cc-sa-by-4.0)
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
I liked the one with a card sliding into a weirdly shaped blue circle. I'd say take that, smooth things out a bit, and make the visual look more definitively like something the card is being slotted into by hiding the right side of the card behind the blue thing. Kind of random, but really, who cares? What matters is if it looks cool.
Another thought is that the card could be a silvery color, with the blue circle thing having green continents with blue oceans (decorated like the Earth), rather than making the card green. Kind of symbolizing connecting your computing to mother Earth, or some such thing.
For monochrome, you could just convert all the edges between colors into outlines.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:55:49AM -0500, Julie Marchant wrote:
For monochrome, you could just convert all the edges between colors into outlines.
Unfortunately that is not good enough ... you are assuming that people will use the monchrome version of the logo rather than just photocopying the colour one on a monochrome copyier.
I used the word 'abuse' - because that is what will happen.
On 01/30/2017 05:25 AM, Alain Williams wrote:
Unfortunately that is not good enough ... you are assuming that people will use the monchrome version of the logo rather than just photocopying the colour one on a monochrome copyier.
You can easily prevent that with a trademark policy... and why would someone choose to make their own half-baked monochrome conversion when a proper one is available?
On Monday 30. January 2017 14.33.46 Julie Marchant wrote:
On 01/30/2017 05:25 AM, Alain Williams wrote:
Unfortunately that is not good enough ... you are assuming that people will use the monchrome version of the logo rather than just photocopying the colour one on a monochrome copyier.
You can easily prevent that with a trademark policy... and why would someone choose to make their own half-baked monochrome conversion when a proper one is available?
People are lazy. Have you never seen anyone copy-paste the first image they found on the Internet into a Word document and then send it around?
People even manage to do this for materials they have full access to, as in there will be a bunch of properly-done logos all made ready (at great expense) on some shared disk or intranet site, and yet someone will still just take the shortcut of grabbing the nearest low resolution bitmap from Google, drag at the corners of it in their Word document, and then, "What do you mean by the vector/big/small/monochrome/greyscale version?"
At a former employer, the work done on the logo to specify the colours and profiles was possibly some of the best work I saw done at that company. Shame the logo wasn't very good, though.
Paul
On 30/01/17 03:33, Julie Marchant wrote:
On 01/30/2017 05:25 AM, Alain Williams wrote:
Unfortunately that is not good enough ... you are assuming that people will use the monchrome version of the logo rather than just photocopying the colour one on a monochrome copyier.
You can easily prevent that with a trademark policy... and why would someone choose to make their own half-baked monochrome conversion when a proper one is available?
Yes, and no. For real publicity, they shouldn't, and the trademark policy should solve the remaining issues. The problem is that there are a /lot/ of BW printers and xeroxes out there still, and documents with the colour logo /will/ get printed on them and passed around.
The colour logo should therefore be recognizable when printed in monochrome. Beautiful would be ideal, but as long as it isn't horrible to look at and makes sense, that will work.
Tor
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:33:46AM -0500, Julie Marchant wrote:
On 01/30/2017 05:25 AM, Alain Williams wrote:
Unfortunately that is not good enough ... you are assuming that people will use the monchrome version of the logo rather than just photocopying the colour one on a monochrome copyier.
You can easily prevent that with a trademark policy... and why would someone choose to make their own half-baked monochrome conversion when a proper one is available?
Because they have a piece of paper about whatever and the logo happens to be on there. Producing a new document is too much effort, they just photocopy it for whatever purpose.
Many people just do the minimum to do what they have to, they won't care at all about some logo of something that they might not even understand.
Gonna have to agree, logo should work in black and white
On January 30, 2017 4:50:35 PM GMT+03:00, Alain Williams addw@phcomp.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:33:46AM -0500, Julie Marchant wrote:
On 01/30/2017 05:25 AM, Alain Williams wrote:
Unfortunately that is not good enough ... you are assuming that
people will use
the monchrome version of the logo rather than just photocopying the
colour one
on a monochrome copyier.
You can easily prevent that with a trademark policy... and why would someone choose to make their own half-baked monochrome conversion
when a
proper one is available?
Because they have a piece of paper about whatever and the logo happens to be on there. Producing a new document is too much effort, they just photocopy it for whatever purpose.
Many people just do the minimum to do what they have to, they won't care at all about some logo of something that they might not even understand.
-- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php #include <std_disclaimer.h>
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
I seem to have misunderstood. I thought Alain was asking for a monochrome variant to be designed for people who want to use that (e.g. if it's easier to print monochrome on a computer card than color), but looking more closely, I can see that he just wanted to see what the proposed logo looked like when you took the color away.
I don't think what I suggested would have any problem; just make the "continents" dark green and make the "ocean" light blue, possibly with black outlines to define the separation better.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Alain Williams -
Allan Mwenda -
James L -
Julie Marchant -
Paul Boddie -
Tor, the Marqueteur