Re: [xwiki-devs] [xwiki-users] XWiki Logo Challenge, Round 2
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
+1 for 4A and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it.. Ludovic Le 12/04/10 16:44, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one.
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
Hi, On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is. I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it. Any thoughts? Guillaume
Ludovic
Le 12/04/10 16:44, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one.
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/
On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
I said the same thing in a previous email so that makes 3 of us so far. Thanks -Vincent
Any thoughts?
Guillaume
Ludovic
Le 12/04/10 16:44, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one.
On 04/13/2010 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost<[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
Maybe it would be good for people to propose improved versions, but it will be hard to improve readability while also maintaining the style/logo idea. One option would be to keep just the X from the logo, and use a normal font for writing the actual product name (something like 4 does with the pencils).
Guillaume
Ludovic
Le 12/04/10 16:44, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one.
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
Guillaume
I share your opinion... Besides the fact that I don't like it because it's miles away from the "web 2.0" style that I think we tend to. It would be good if our style was "geeky-oldschool" but I don't think it's the case. But this is a personal and questionable opinion. The fact is that me too, at a first glance, I can't read XWiki in it and I have to make an effort in order to "see" XWiki written in that logo. My 2 cents, Fabio
Hi, I think version 16 is the ONLY original logo we have for this challenge. It is abstract enough to make a great brand and be reused for variations. It is simple, straightforward and easily to remember (not to reproduce, to remember that you've seen it before). It's look IMO is perfect for a technical application and community. It's smart, creative and I LOVE IT :) Go version 16 :) Caty On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:41, Fabio Mancinelli <[email protected]>wrote:
On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
Guillaume
I share your opinion... Besides the fact that I don't like it because it's miles away from the "web 2.0" style that I think we tend to. It would be good if our style was "geeky-oldschool" but I don't think it's the case. But this is a personal and questionable opinion.
The fact is that me too, at a first glance, I can't read XWiki in it and I have to make an effort in order to "see" XWiki written in that logo.
My 2 cents, Fabio _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Btw, logos are graphical marks and is not mandatory that they are logotypes (wordmarks). This means you don't necessarily need to read the name of the product from the start (look at apple, volkswagen, audi, sun, etc). After you know it's XWiki, you can easily see what proposal 16 states. The logo should be the identity and feeling of that product. Having a smart logo would be nice for us, don't you think? Caty On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:00, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I think version 16 is the ONLY original logo we have for this challenge. It is abstract enough to make a great brand and be reused for variations. It is simple, straightforward and easily to remember (not to reproduce, to remember that you've seen it before). It's look IMO is perfect for a technical application and community. It's smart, creative and I LOVE IT :)
Go version 16 :) Caty
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:41, Fabio Mancinelli < [email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a
missing
arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
Guillaume
I share your opinion... Besides the fact that I don't like it because it's miles away from the "web 2.0" style that I think we tend to. It would be good if our style was "geeky-oldschool" but I don't think it's the case. But this is a personal and questionable opinion.
The fact is that me too, at a first glance, I can't read XWiki in it and I have to make an effort in order to "see" XWiki written in that logo.
My 2 cents, Fabio _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:
Btw, logos are graphical marks and is not mandatory that they are logotypes (wordmarks). This means you don't necessarily need to read the name of the product from the start (look at apple, volkswagen, audi, sun, etc). After you know it's XWiki, you can easily see what proposal 16 states.
I don't agree with this reasoning. Either you use a logo that doesn't mean anything (ie it's a symbol, an image, etc) or you have a logo with letters and in that case it must be readable. Even though I know it's about XWiki, I can't even read it... I don't find the logo that smart. A smart logo is a logo that is simple, polished and that be read easily. Cleverness is not usually that good in branding since a good portion of people won't understand the clever thing. Thanks -Vincent
The logo should be the identity and feeling of that product. Having a smart logo would be nice for us, don't you think? Caty
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:00, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I think version 16 is the ONLY original logo we have for this challenge. It is abstract enough to make a great brand and be reused for variations. It is simple, straightforward and easily to remember (not to reproduce, to remember that you've seen it before). It's look IMO is perfect for a technical application and community. It's smart, creative and I LOVE IT :)
Go version 16 :) Caty
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:41, Fabio Mancinelli < [email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a
missing
arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
Guillaume
I share your opinion... Besides the fact that I don't like it because it's miles away from the "web 2.0" style that I think we tend to. It would be good if our style was "geeky-oldschool" but I don't think it's the case. But this is a personal and questionable opinion.
The fact is that me too, at a first glance, I can't read XWiki in it and I have to make an effort in order to "see" XWiki written in that logo.
My 2 cents, Fabio _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi all, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
IMO it's a bit too late to give -1 for a logo that passed the first round. Is it less readable now? 16 was voted by 11 community members (including myself) in the first round. Do we count less than "people from outside the project"? If we want a community-chosen logo then we should let the community choose. If we want a logo that is good for marketing then we should find a branding company to do it for us. Thanks, Marius
Guillaume
Ludovic
Le 12/04/10 16:44, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one.
-- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
IMO it's a bit too late to give -1 for a logo that passed the first round. Is it less readable now?
16 was voted by 11 community members (including myself) in the first round. Do we count less than "people from outside the project"? If we want a community-chosen logo then we should let the community choose. If we want a logo that is good for marketing then we should find a branding company to do it for us.
Thanks, Marius
I completely agree with Marius, I would also add that since this is a Community project, it should have a Community logo ! Since 16 has receive many votes now, and that I also agree with Vincent, Ludovic and others, it is not readable enough, I have made an alternative design: W-angle. My feeling was that the W is difficult to read, so my proposal try to keep the style and reworked it. There is also small changes in spacing, and a different powered by button. Here is almost all that was requested in a proposal with this variable: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Community/LogoChallengeRound2/16%2Dw... I really hope that if the logo 16 is chosen, my proposal could help in mitigating the disappointment of those that really find it unacceptable. WDYT ? Denis -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
On Apr 13, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
Hi all,
Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
IMO it's a bit too late to give -1 for a logo that passed the first round. Is it less readable now?
No but if you check none of us voted for it and there was no rule for giving -1 (I would have given it otherwise since I didn't like it in the first round. That said I was pretty sure nobody would vote for it when I saw it. I was wrong it seems ;)). BTW the problem of readability was raised even in the first round but not much was done about it (or I didn't see it).
16 was voted by 11 community members (including myself) in the first round. Do we count less than "people from outside the project"? If we want a community-chosen logo then we should let the community choose. If we want a logo that is good for marketing then we should find a branding company to do it for us.
errr? We *definitely* want a logo that is good for marketing! That's the main point (the only point?) of having a logo. When users log into some website and see this logo we want them to know the site is using XWiki (if they can't read it, they won't even be able to google it if they like it and want to find more about this project). It seems you're opposing marketing and community. I don't know why. This is all about marketing. The whole xwiki.org is about marketing (i.e. make people want to use XWiki). Otherwise we'd just publish the sources with no documentation at all. Thanks -Vincent PS: I'm not saying that we should revote or remove that logo. I'm just giving a strong opinion that the logo is unreadable and is going to cause a lot of confusion. I would like to see that fixed if that logo is selected by the vote.
Thanks, Marius
Guillaume
Ludovic
Le 12/04/10 16:44, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one.
participants (8)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Ecaterina Valica -
Fabio Mancinelli -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Ludovic Dubost -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol