Re: [GNUnet-developers] logo rework

[hyazinthe]

--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: carlo von lynX <address@hidden>
Datum: 26.06.2018 21:45:38
An: address@hidden
Betreff: Re: [GNUnet-developers] logo rework

>> 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.

I don't have any hard feelings about that. Just noticed the switch and
draw attention to it, so that all notice it. If there was a vote on what
specific way to write GNUnet in the logo - upper case, lower case, all
upper case, all lower case, mixes, etc. - I could pick up dices for my decision.
But maybe that's just because I'm not very skillful in typography.

Btw, screenshot of 'GNU' in smallcaps:
https://abload.de/img/writing-lowercaseuppet9jcs.png


> 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.  ;)

Yeah, that's a beautiful thing. Definitely liked that design step.


> 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.  ;))

There's a lot of nice things you can do for animating specifically this logo.


> 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... ;)

Yeah, I like this flexible handling and agree with it.


> And then there was gnu.net. The domain is for sale.

Yeah, that, of course, would be very nice to have.
Same information within the URL, but conveyed with less signs.
That would be great.


>> 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.

Yeah, I also prefer the 'night theme'-like dark blue version.


>> 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.

And that's the beauty of it - expressing 'anonymity/privacy preservation' - and 
exactly what I've meant.
This passive glow, which happens just in our brains, when there actually isn't 
any,
that's exactly what I've meant by this, not applying a real, active glow effect.
A glow effect is always kind of appealing, but it's more important that it's 
application fits to
the concrete content. GNUnet is an alternative network stack, which strives to 
be 'anonymous/privacy-perserving' by default,
not 'hang your ass out of the window' by default.
So, a network of bright lantern nodes and connections, shining in the dark, 
brightening near areas,
would be too much attention. I mean, our nodes don't want to be a center of 
attention, but the opposite of it.
And that's also something one should be aware of when doing an animation:
It always comes so natural to let something appear with an active glow, but 
specifically for the GNUnet
adding this wouldn't make the overall result fit more to the GNUnet, but less.
However, creating a passive glow by brightness difference between the network 
and the background
is a very good way to introduce an appealing glow and at the same time do it in 
a way, which makes the overall result
fit even more to the GNUnet. It takes subtlety to make a glow work for the 
GNUnet with its fundamental architectural goals,
and a glow 'happening in the viewer's brains, when there actually isn't any' 
takes subtlety to the next level - one that
can't be increased, and extends perception experience. The perfect solution.

>> 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.

I agree.

> Whereas in the web my idea was that the logo stays on dark
> grounds either on the homepage or in the navigation bar, ...

I agree.

> but then the rest of the site is probably going to be light.

Not so sure about this, the notion of a complete 'night theme'-like website 
design seems more appealing to me.
So, I advocate for keeping options open on this one. But finally it's probably 
just a matter of good design work:
If as such the webdesign is worked out well and very skillful, you can make 
everything work,
no matter if it's complete white, split - like you've suggested - complete 
'night theme' - like my gut suggests - or
anything else...

>> 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.

Nice. :)

>> 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?

There we disagree. I'd mind that the graphic is just decoration and
the eye is still looking at the text first. I prefer having it the
exact other way around: Image first, text - if, at all, then - second.

>> 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.

Nice. :)

>> 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.

The gnu's head would say 'GNUnet' more than just a 'u:n' alone for itself.
The gnu's head gets very blurry in tab icon size, but not too much for making
the connection between the tab icon and the GNUnet project.

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

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

Hey, thank you for all your constructive output. What goes around, comes around.

>> 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.

But that's exactly what we do: Developing not just any application software,
but specifically a complete alternative network stack replacing the insecure 
internet.
And even more: On top of that, as such it's also as 'libre by default' as it 
can get.
So, to sum up these both points in a nutshell:
A tech project couldn't go more 'going to sell soda to kids on the entire 
planet' than that.
So, I advote not lowering priority of this aspect, but even highening priority 
of this aspect.


>> 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?

Yes, it is. It's a distraction.


>> Let it speak for itself, because it can.

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

Nice. :)

>> 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.

You've mentioned a good point there.
All these labels pursue a goal: Reaching the point where the logo image alone
speaks for itself to a general public. And for reaching this point, they
pursue a strategy: Becoming as popular as possible.
Over the years - some labels even decades - they work towards a 2 step 
development:
Making more people familiar with the label and logo and for what it stands,
then phasing out the text in the logo a little bit.
This phase out comes in different forms:
One form is literally a phase out within the logo.
Another kind of phase out is simply using the text containing logo version less 
and less
in the scope of the complete communication, and the 'image only' logo version 
more and more.
And they do these 2 steps so often until they feel 'ready' for the final 2 step:
Within the logo communication leaving away the text under the image - all the 
time, completely.

Basically you're saying:
'We're not "ready", yet. We haven't reached this point, yet, where the best 
thing is to pull that move
of completely leaving away the text in logo communication.'
And you know what? My gut doesn't like it, but I have to agree.
Another thing my gut doesn't like, but which I don't come around admitting:
It seems like the 'half-transparent' approach is the current common ground 
between
the position of having a logo with text and the position of having an 'image 
only' logo.
I mean, half way text will be there, and half way not. ;)
But what's more important to me:
In case for now we mainly do take an 'image+text' logo version instead of an 
'image only' logo version,
I strongly speak out in favor of additionally at least explicitely and 
intentionally pursuing exactly said
goal of 'reaching the point where the logo image alone speaks for itself to a 
general public'
and strategy of 'becoming as popular as possible by working towards a 2 step 
development over the years'
in logo communication.

Maybe in the short term - the here and now - with us starting with basically 0% 
text phase out in any form in logo communication - probably
exspecially at places of 1st contact like for instance the main site of 
https://gnunet.org - but leave
text away in situations where it makes sence to use it without text, like for 
example the navigation version, tab icons, small sizes, etc.

And maybe in the mid term after reaching a certain milestone like for example 
when we're as big as mastodon (1 million users)
we're feeling 'ready' for 50% text phase out in any form in logo communication.
May it be half-transparency text or 50% using logo versions with text and 50% 
using logo versions without text in logo communication.

And maybe in the far distant future after reaching a certain milestone like for 
example when we're as big as twitter
we're feeling 'ready' for leaving away the text under the image in logo 
communication - all the time, completely.

>> 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.

I think with recent thought iteration inspired by you I even have to change my 
priority ranking,
adding a new priority right at the top:

In case of a vote and choice of versions incorporating said suggestions for 
improvement and if I had a say there,
I would vote 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...

1st priority: , 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) + deciding to pursue a 
'text phase out' transition goal & strategy with milestones in logo 
communication
2nd priority: , and with suggested color & background scheme (bright blue, 
black/'night theme' like very dark blue, and white), and going for textless 
logo whenever it makes sense (small sizes, etc.) + deciding to pursue a 'text 
phase out' transition goal & strategy with milestones in logo communication
3rd priority: , but without the text under the image, and with suggested color 
& background scheme (bright blue, black/'night theme' like very dark blue, and 
white)
4th priority: , 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)

Otherwise - 5th priority - I'd just go with the basic version.


> Thank you for thinking so much about this!

You're welcome.


Greetings,
Bastian Schmidt