The first one has something that looks suspiciously like a penis on the bottom-right.
I'm sure it doesn't look like that if you're an electrical engineer, or whatever, but people -- especially kids and teenagers -- *will* see that, and that's probably not the kind of attention EOMA needs. :)
My apologies for the unintended phallic imagery... That wasn't what I was aiming for. I was actually just trying to use some different EE symbols to reconstruct the `M` and the `A` of EOMA. I was using the list of symbols from the following reference.
http://rapidtables.com/electric/electrical_symbols.htm
I think the offending symbol you are referring to is the `OR` symbol.
Just to better explain what I was aiming at, I took some colors to the original symbols to highlight the individual letter representations.
http://i.imgur.com/jjUbFx5.png
In the color coded (first) version the E is in red, O is in blue, M is in green and A is in pink.
By the way, I think these are the best logos I've seen on this list. The only gripe I have (well, other than the unintentional phallus in the first one) is that they don't really seem to represent modularity; the first one, in particular, rather looks like a circuit board, and one of the major points of EOMA is that users *don't* have to look at circuit boards to perform upgrades; they just have to pop out a card and replace it with another card. It seems like there must be some possible way to use this basic logo concept to represent that somehow.
In both of the logos that sent out the `E` was actually supposed to represent an EOMA CPU/passthrough card. That is why it looks like a squatty elongated E. I represented the O in the way that I did as I wanted it to represent the PCMCIA slot or housing that it fits into. So together the E and the O represent a modular CPU card being inserted into a device/housing. For the first logo I was intending to show that the specification provides an incredibly low level connection between the CPU card and the housing.
For the second logo... I was thinking that I liked some of the ideas and imagery of the first but that it was way too busy. Plus and end user might get a bit bewildered by it.
Oh and I have one more general comment about logo creation of this sort... I think that it is very important to make sure it will look good rendered in only black and white because, that is essentially what it is going to look like when the logo/certification mark gets silk-screened onto a product.
-Mike
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 03:14:11PM -0700, Mike Leimon wrote:
...
Oh and I have one more general comment about logo creation of this sort... I think that it is very important to make sure it will look good rendered in only black and white because, that is essentially what it is going to look like when the logo/certification mark gets silk-screened onto a product.
And also low resolution especially when scaled so that it is really small - eg the side of some box. This is my objection to the top of the two logos that you have.
I'm not entirely sure why resolution should be relevant. Something without small defining characteristics that are unclear or illegible when the resolution is low might be desire-able, but I would assume so long as any is still atleast 10 pt font when shrunk to 3cm on its widest dimension, it should be sufficient.
On 3/18/17, Alain Williams addw@phcomp.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 03:14:11PM -0700, Mike Leimon wrote:
...
Oh and I have one more general comment about logo creation of this sort... I think that it is very important to make sure it will look good rendered in only black and white because, that is essentially what it is going to look like when the logo/certification mark gets silk-screened onto a product.
And also low resolution especially when scaled so that it is really small - eg the side of some box. This is my objection to the top of the two logos that you have.
-- 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
On 18/03/17 15:48, John Luke Gibson wrote:
I'm not entirely sure why resolution should be relevant. Something without small defining characteristics that are unclear or illegible when the resolution is low might be desire-able, but I would assume so long as any is still atleast 10 pt font when shrunk to 3cm on its widest dimension, it should be sufficient.
Depends on what the logo is for. As a certification mark, without checking, I want to say that typical is the logo in a 3/4"x3/4" box. That's usually full-colour in good printing, though. Then again, the resolution is good enough that less important text can probably be allowed to go down to 8pt.
For an EOMA-X certification mark, I'd be inclined to say that EOMA and the number referencing which set of housings should have a version very similar to the [full-colour] standard version that could even be injection molded into a plug. To wit, the EOMA-68 breakout board should be able to have the certification mark silkscreened onto it or molded into some part of the very minimal case it may have.
Tor
On 3/18/17, Alain Williams addw@phcomp.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 03:14:11PM -0700, Mike Leimon wrote:
...
Oh and I have one more general comment about logo creation of this sort... I think that it is very important to make sure it will look good rendered in only black and white because, that is essentially what it is going to look like when the logo/certification mark gets silk-screened onto a product.
And also low resolution especially when scaled so that it is really small - eg the side of some box. This is my objection to the top of the two logos that you have.
-- 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
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
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk