Re: [GNUnet-developers] logo rework

[carlo von lynX]

Thanks for the kind words or rather.. I'm glad
you're agreeing with us on most of this!

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:20:58AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> I'm wondering a bit about the text not being 'GNUnet', but 'gnu:net'. Wasn't 
> consensus in case of text application, that it should be 'GNUnet'?

Interestingly you're the first to bring this up. I think that
"GNUnet" works well to make it stand out in a written text but
it does not look exactly beautiful and elegant when used stand-
alone as a graphic imagery. If it *really* has to be GNUnet,
then one can put "GNU" in smallcaps so it fits the size of the
"net". But I've done this before and wasn't really convinced.
It still looked essentially nerdy.
You can look at it in https://youtu.be/LTystTvYBQw at 1:51.

When doing graphical versions of the name I prefer either all 
caps (GNUNET) or lowercase. The colon in-between came to be as 
the dots were almost identical to the ones used in the logo 
itself.. that's how I chose to use two actual gnunet nodes 
from amirouche's design and positioned them to form the colon
in the text, so it's technically no longer a colon.  ;)

Something that captures my interest about lowercase "gnu:net" is 
how the "u:n" looks mirrored.. I can imagine animations that play
with whirling the text in circles while the u:n always lines up
nicely. We can say the animation illustrates the non-deterministic
routing of GNUnet.  ;))

Just because the new logo does a "gnu:net" kind of thing doesn't
make me think we are under any pressure or need to change existing
text. To me using GNUnet in written text is still fine. But it's
also no big deal to just s/GNUnet/gnu:net/g on all repos... ;)

And then there was gnu.net. The domain is for sale. How much do
those squatting bastards want?

> 2. - suggestions for improvement:
> 
> The network and the text look good, but the background doesn't fit so well: 
> The white border distracts and when you squinch your eyes half way shut, the 
> brown background turns into black.

Oh yeah, it'S the first things I changed when I did versions for
the new website couple hours ago. Great eyes see alike.. the two
versions you made are exactly the way I thought would be the
natural developments. I uploaded a black one to the website in
the making, but I would still consider the dark blue variant.

> Both build up a brightness difference between the network and the background, 
> which lets the network appear to be glowing a bit - but just a bit, not too 
> flashy - which is good.

Yes, a slight glow effect might actually work, but I like how
there's already a glow happening in the viewer's brains, when
there actually isn't any.

> In general I think it's a good idea to just stick to 3 colors regarding this 
> design:
> This bright blue,
> black/'night theme' like very dark blue,
> and white

Yes, leaves room for an extra color on the website in case 
some pieces of text need to stand out.

> The text has a different color than the image. And it's not just a different 
> alpha value making it the same color but just half way transparent instead of 
> solid.
> As a result changing backgrounds becomes a hassle:

Oh you mean the print version, yes that would be using black
instead of white text - just like you intuitively assume.
Whereas in the web my idea was that the logo stays on dark 
grounds either on the homepage or in the navigation bar, but
then the rest of the site is probably going to be light.

> One could avoid this hassle by making the text in the same color like the 
> image - this bright blue - but go half way down with the alpha value, so that 
> the text is half way transparent, and so always works out well no matter what 
> the background is.
> 
> logo + half transparent text on 'night theme' like very dark blue background: 
> https://abload.de/img/logohalftransparenttel2jn5.png
> logo + half transparent text on black background:                             
> https://abload.de/img/logohalftransparentte2okgs.png

These are fine with me as well.

> logo + half transparent text on white background:                             
> https://abload.de/img/logohalftransparenttexrkr2.png

Here I would rather swap the brightness levels instead
of introducing another even lighter blue which is
hard to see.

But I actually don't mind that the graphic is just
decoration and the eye is still looking at the text first.
So I'm fine with a clear black/white on the text.

Any other opinions on this?

> But I rather suggest leaving away the text, 

The navigation version is without the text, indeed.
And there will be situations where it makes sense to
use it without the text.. like buttons, flyers and
the front side of a t-shirt.

> Good logo design also means, that a logo is clearly and easily recognizable 
> in a small size, like for example as a web browser tab icon.
> And this is an aspect, which gets more and more important. Think of social 
> media avatars and the transformation of our computer experiences rather 
> towards small mobile phone screens, away from big screens.
> Reason no. 1.: A logo with text will always be less clearly and easily 
> recognizable than a pure image logo version.
> Additionally - reason no. 2 - often small size versions of a logo are so 
> small, that you can't read the text in it, anyway, in case the logo contains 
> text.

For the ico I would just cut out the "u:n" instead
of trying to put the gnu's head in there.

> Comparison picture:   https://abload.de/img/smallsizeevaluationdokb9.png

Thank you for all the work to do this.  :)

> Reason no. 3: Having image with text as a logo or just a pure image decides 
> wether a logo is universal,
> or if adjustments within the logo itself are necessary from language to 
> language:
> 
> Example picture:              
> https://abload.de/img/logotextindifferentlaldsnu.png

Interesting concept, but that would be quite over the top
for a tech project that isn't going to sell soda to kids
on the entire planet. Arab geeks know roman characters, too.

> Just using the image, and that's it, leaving the writing under it away, is 
> the best solution to the problem of too big competition for attention between 
> the logo and the writing.

Is it a problem?

> Let it speak for itself, because it can.

Yes we can, anytime we want to we can use it without text.

> Firstly, the logo as such is self-explanatory,
> and secondly, the logo already is surrounded by the writing 'GNU' or 
> 'GNUnet', because of it's environment:
> We're seeing the logo in logical connection and close to something, which 
> contains the writing 'GNU' or 'GNUnet'.
> Maybe it's the URL in the address bar, or the hashtag of a social media 
> message.

That's also the case for Coca-Cola, LEVIS and adidas.. and yet...
even though adidas has a real logo, it is most frequently seen
in combination with the text.

Nike is big enough that it no longer needs to put its name
next to the logo, but that is of no help to a project that
people may have heard of, but can't recognize because they
don't know the logo. So unless we have the environment saying
the name, or coolness suggesting we should go without (t-shirt),
we should have a variation that comes with the name.

> 1st priority: in favor of changing the old logo - the comic gnu in the spider 
> net - to this version of the 'network in shape of a gnu' posted by Lynx on 
> 24th of june 2018 on this mailing list, but without the text under the image, 
> and with suggested color & background scheme (bright blue, black/'night 
> theme' like very dark blue, and white)
> 2nd priority: in favor of changing the old logo - the comic gnu in the spider 
> net - to this version of the 'network in shape of a gnu' posted by Lynx on 
> 24th of june 2018 on this mailing list, but with the text under the image 
> being half-transparent and in image color, and with suggested color & 
> background scheme (bright blue, black/'night theme' like very dark blue, and 
> white)

I consider both your top priorities great versions/variations
of the logo and I think they can both find application, and
the black/white ones, too.

Thank you for thinking so much about this!

-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/