Arch Linux logo concept

foxbunny · 2007-10-29 21:09:46

ari_dbx wrote:

??? would you mind to explain me that please?
http://www.arklinux.org/setup/themes/de … x-logo.png

Well, I was just joking, man. Anyway, ArkLinux has always reminded me of cold, Arctic. Partly because they use cold colors and the name sounds like Arctic, I guess. *shrugs*

ari_dbx · 2007-10-29 21:16:21

foxbunny wrote:

ari_dbx wrote:
??? would you mind to explain me that please?
http://www.arklinux.org/setup/themes/de … x-logo.png
Well, I was just joking, man. Anyway, ArkLinux has always reminded me of cold, Arctic. Partly because they use cold colors and the name sounds like Arctic, I guess. *shrugs*

:lol::lol: hahaha i thought they have a similar logo so I ran to their website looking for something that look like a mountain

Last edited by ari_dbx (2007-10-29 21:16:44)

PDExperiment626 · 2007-10-29 23:28:35

Some thoughts on the current logos.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/1.png
1. The 'cuts' in the triangle are lost in scaling
2. Gives an initial impression of a teepee, and this is what the scaled down version looks like. I'm left thinking about what a teepee has to do with arch.
3. KDE shine overdone

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/2.png
1. Something so close to an 'A' may be difficult to trademark and may have already been done.
2. Making a logo so close to an 'A' conveys little about the arch distribution itself. Many objects are already associated with a simple 'A' and so the association to arch made by any logo focusing mostly on a simple 'A' will have to fight HARD for the viewer's mindshare.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/3.png
1. Understand people new to arch or those who haven't used it probably don't know what pacman is. This logo indicates the distribution has some strong association with gaming or is a game.
2. Your asking for a lawsuit; it's too close to original pacman logo.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/4.png
This is my current favorite for a few reasons.
1. The logo is simple (4 elements) with no acute edges. It will scale well and will be easy to read on flat and textured backgrounds.
2. The logo is abstract enough so that it doesn't compete against viewers mindshare against other preexisting associations. The look is more industrial and conveys a notion of strength as its based heavily on the outline of a triangle. Triangles (pointing up) have very strong ties to ideas of strength and masculinity. If a logo is abstract the idea it conveys is dominated by its underlying shape and color. Unfortunately, the first logo isn't abstracted far enough away from a teepee to shake that initial impression.
3. The downside of being more abstract is that it will take more time to catch on. Think of the Ubuntu logo; it's ubiquitous now even though it took some time to become popular. The counter-balance to the slower uptake is that the logo will have staying power regardless of how big arch gets.
4. This is more of a side note. Using an equilateral triangle poses some challenges when it comes to scaling. Basically, the geometry relies on 30-60-90 triangles whose rasterization on smaller scales can distort the image. This may requires some pixel tweaking on the smaller scales to keep the logo rep true to its larger scale depiction. Cerise has handled this issue very nicely in her submission. If you use 30-60-90 triangles, this is something to keep in mind.
5. The color scheme is very close to the current one. So the project will not have to go through the struggles of changing its colors in addition to changing logo.
6. The simplicity and readability (even on textures) of the logo lends itself to being put on any type of surface. For instance many people like putting Ubuntu's logo on naked bodies... this works well because the logo is readable on textures... this logo has the same property. While I'm not a fan of such images, they are popular with the target group of people you're trying to attract.
7. Freegeist said this reminds him of a power supply grill. While I've never seen a triangular power supply grill myself, he even associates the symbol with an object of power within a computer.
8. 'Free your computer' is a great slogan for this logo. Most people in the target market know about the movie 'the matrix'; this slogan ties into that mindshare while fitting into the feeling conveyed by the logo and ideas that make Arch a unique distribution. It's a simple, catchy and effective slogan.
9. I like the typeface. The letters are solid but have unique, extended curves that fit into the association arch linux has gained with actual arches. It's a simple, strong, yet distinctive choice of font.

In my opinion, the reason why I like Cerise entry the most is that she's presented the whole package. No--a slogan, backgrounds, etc. weren't required for submission; but I like it when people go the extra mile to present their logo in a cohesive branding scheme. All elements of Cerise's submission compliment one another, there aren't elements that conflict with one another. In other words, the slogan, logo, backgrounds, and fontface all enhance a message of strength and dominance conveyed by a very unique design.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/5.png
1. The logo has acute points that won't scale well.
2. If this logo is small on a dark background, it's shape is all but completely lost. The poster in the submission looks like a yellow circle with an 'x' through it.
3. Putting a white glow around this logo to make it work on a dark background doesn't work. In scaling, the white glow is lost and the black arcs get lost as well.
4. The logo actually being a 2d representation of a 3d concept (arcs around the sun) actually make it very difficult to turn the logo into an exact 3d representation (with blender or whatever).
5. This type of logo strikes me as a bit generic; this general concept is something many IT firms go with these days.
6. I know foxbunny has indicated that the yellow is meant to represent the sun and thus energy. First, people's understanding of what 'energy' is has nothing to do with the scientific definition of energy. True, yellow is associated with the sun; but that sun is associated with happiness and warmth... not energy (psychologically speaking). Electrical discharge, Cerenkov radiation, etc. are the notions people associate with power and thus, energy (i.e. blue colors). People don't see the sun blowing up or striking down from the heavens... it's a constant presence bringing warmth. Even though there is a scientific link between yellow (indeed any color) and energy, this isn't a psychological link. Case-in-point, men rarely wear yellow. The ubuntu colors incorporate yellow to convey a sense of unity and personal warmth, not energy. Sorry, the psychological link between energy and the color yellow isn't there. Blue is the color you want, if you want to convey a notion of energy.
7. The change in color scheme requires more work (in terms of regaining mindshare of viewers) than staying with the old arch colors. Perhaps it would be better to start off with a blue version of the logo and work it over to the goal, yellow color scheme.

Note: If something could be done to fix the points on the logo to make it scale better, it'd be stronger as a logo. The use of black with yellow (a low contrast to white) will present problems as the logo will need to be put on both black and white backgrounds. A deeper shade of yellow may help this out quite a bit.

Lastly, I like that foxbunny has made an attempt to make a cohesive design/branding scheme, but I don't see the uniqueness in the layout or design present in thebodzio's submission or cerise's. The background on the screenshot has become overused with the popularity of OS X. The gradients and half-and-half color scheme on the cds I've seen before in other distros. The poster looks like the original logo with a photoshop effect on it, and the black background I still contest makes the logo loose definition. While I have no problem with design emulation (good design is good design, after all), it's not as strong as good designs that are also unique. That all being said, it's a nice presentation of a total package.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/6.png
1. The logo won't scale well.
2. Get away from the pacman ideas. People don't know that pacman is a package manager, normally. You don't want the distro associated with games or gaming, and you don't want a lawsuit.
3. The 'at' symbol is already used in too many other logos... too much competition there for viewer's mindshare.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/7.png
1. As for the idea of penguins in a linux distro logo, too much mindshare competition to be effective. Really, people need to stop using penguins in their distro logos; it's been overdone.
2. I may be wrong, but the submission logo looks like it's using a mesh gradient on the chest. If this is the case, the logo won't export to SVG (which was laid out as a submission criterion).
3. This logo can't be put into a tango format.
4. The logo is too complicated and won't scale well. Indeed the 16 and 22 sizes look like symbols used in chess; a bad situation to be in for menus etc.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/8.png
This is very nicely done submission and is very well presented; but I still see some issues with it.
1. The accute angles won't scale well. This logo looks like s scythe when scaled down significantly. Although, the designer has done an excellent job of pixel-tweeking the smaller versions of his logo to remain true as possible to the larger image. It's just hard to see the points as the color is neutral.
2. The color scheme is very neutral and will not create a strong association between Arch and a specific color. Also neutral colors don't usually depict strength... an interesting contrast to the shape itself. Also, the color scheme is different than the current one; and I've gone over the potential issue with that (a relatively minor point if color scheme migration is an option).
3. The concept is fairly abstract; but the immediate associations that come to mind are
a. a medieval helmet
b. Gothic cathedrals which immediately ties to Christianity.
basically this logo gives a historical feel. I understand that it's meant to be a gothic arch; but that structure has very strong historical ties in people's minds to medieval times or Christianity. Take that for what it is (personally, I like the shape... but that matters little when it comes to corporate logos). All-in-all a very good level of abstraction in the logo... I'm just not sure if it conveys the right meaning for Arch (that's for the devs to decide).

Thebodzio has given another nice presentation of all his work. I get the impression that he also has a nice and cohesive vision of branding and design, which I find personally appealing. I believe his design on the CDs to be especially well-done and they are intriguing. The only point of note is that to produce CDs without the clear plastic ring is significantly more expensive than ones with the clear ring. A very nice, original presentation indeed.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/9.png
1. The sharp points won't scale
2. The primary curve is somewhat dissonant as it actually kinks (the arch going to straight lines actually causes a discontinuity in the actual curvature of the arch).
3. The logo has issues holding the space around itself. Basically, the design approximates a single line stroke; it will not hold attention well if it's surrounded by anything other than a flat background.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … nux/10.png
1. KDE shiny is overused. The problem with 'shiny' is that it doesn't work in most desktop theming schemes. People need to stop assuming everyone uses KDE. The logo presentation should be generic; it should be able to fit into any desktop or window manager environment.
2. While the presentation should be generic, the logo itself shouldn't be. This logo is abstracted to the point of being completely generic. One of the hardest points to designing a logo is designing something abstracted away from current associations of the viewer but not being totally generic. That is, logos need to basically evoke SOME feeling or notion on the part of the viewer but not much more. This logo goes too far into abstraction and has become generic.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … nux/11.png
1. Interesting concept, but the 3d idea will be lost in scaling. Basically the design is too complex at the moment as it is conveys 3d effects through shading, etc. I would try to abstract this concept out a little more, perhaps by indicating layers by breaks in the shape itself.

The idea has potential in that it is more intriguing than the generic 'A'. I would try abstracting this concept further and try to bring something into the design that you feel reflects the concepts of arch in some way.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … nux/12.png
1. foxbunny was right to point out that puzzle pieces have a strong association with microsoft at the moment.
2. this is more of a splash screen, not a logo. It's ability to scale is non-existent.
3. The puzzle concept brings strong dissonance to the word 'Arch'. The break in the 'r' is visually disturbing and gives the impression that there is actually a typesetting error in the design itself.
4. At this point, puzzle pieces have become a generic entity; the logo conveys little more than the name of the distribution.

http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … nux/13.png
1. Again, lay off the KDE shiny.
2. Stop with the pacman concept. People associate pacman with a game not a package manager.
3. I'd say do this if you want to be sued.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/img/avatars/6658.png
1. Too complicated. Even though there are 4 arches, there are actually seven pieces for your eye to resolve in the negative space.
2. Sharp points are too prevalent in the design; it scales poorly. That being said, freegeist has pixel-tweeked his submission so that his scaled version actually looks true to the larger size--a nice job.
3. You can't put this logo on a black background and readily make out what it is. If it's scaled down on a black background you'll scarcely notice it let alone make out what it is.
4. I look at this and the first few things that come to mind
a. a ribcage
b. water waves (stretching on that one)
c. series of mountains.
None of these are very strong in my mind. Really though, this logo looks generic to me (personally, I'd expect to see this almost in a doctor's office... but that's more of a personal association).

I'll make some general remarks for people still working on their own logos.
1. Keep in mind that your logo needs to be seen at a variety of scales on a variety of backgrounds.
2. Your logo needs to stand out when surrounded by other things.
3. Generic logo DOES NOT mean PROFESSIONAL. Generic logo means BLAND. Professional logos are the ones that are abstract enough to not be readily associated with a specific object or thought, but still evoke some emotion or feeling on the part of the viewer. Generic logos are the ones that inspire absolutely nothing on the part of the viewer. This is the property that companies pay big bucks for when they buy a logo.
4. When designing a logo first consider basic shapes and colors and what they inspire in people. For example, pink is NOT a colour of strength. How those shapes are oriented effects their conveyed meaning. For example, A triangle pointing 'up' is a symbol of strength, masculinity etc., while a triangle pointing DOWN is a symbol of femininity. These aren't just academic observations, there are actual statistical correlations reflecting the associations people make between shapes/colors and feelings/emotions. Use this idea in formulating your original concepts.
5. Know the golden ratio and use it when working out the relative proportions in your logo.
6. Avoid excessively acute angles that are dangling in the design. Specifically, anything less than 30 degrees will have issues scaling if it is an edge of a logo object. Cerise's logo goes to this limit but as her pieces fit together making a unified structure as the object is scaled, the points aren't lost in scaling. These acute angles aren't 'dangling'.
7. Just because a picture looks cool or interesting doesn't mean it will make a good logo. If that were the case EVERYONE would have a logo of a naked woman. Logos are meant to associate your project/company with a raw emotion or thought, not some specific image like a flux cannon or a pair of big boobs.

Those are my thoughts, take them for what you will.

Last edited by PDExperiment626 (2007-10-30 08:38:03)

thayer · 2007-10-30 01:41:49

PDExperiment626 wrote:

Some thoughts on the current logos.
http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc/wp-content/ … inux/1.png
1. The 'cuts' in the triangle are lost in scaling
2. Gives an initial impression of a teepee, and this is what the scaled down version looks like. I'm left thinking about what a teepee has to do with arch.
3. KDE shine overdone
Those are my thoughts, take them for what you will.

I agree with many of your points about the logo candidates in general. I just wanted to say that the "KDE shine" was intended to be an example of what a full colour magazine print may look like. It was not intended to be considered the official logo. I personally prefer 1 or 2 colour logos without drop shadows, gradients or any other fluff. When placed on wallpapers or textures, logos almost always look better as a solid colour (e.g. white or black).

I do agree about the scaling issue with the cuts. For the icons I tweaked the smaller sizers to minimize the loss, but it's still an issue.

Although it's probably too bland for most, I actually prefer the simplicity of the minimalist logo over the archer.

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-30 01:43:12)

afonic · 2007-10-30 02:45:35

foxbunny wrote:

@afonic
Community had a great part in *creating* the logo, and I think the devs, who devoted most of the time to creating Arch Linux, should have a say on what's it gonna be.

What I said above was to make a poll that could count as an extra +1 in the voting process, not decide to logo from that poll instead of the devs. Besides we could have 20 or 30 submissions but the users that might be interested to vote are many more.

Also I'd like to agree with PDExperiment626 that while we (Arch users) understand the use of the pacman shape in the logo, new users would probably be confused and think it is a distro aimed at games or something like that.

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 02:58:50

PDExperiment626 wrote:

1. The logo has acute points that won't scale well.

Those points can be (and will be) dealt with separately in different cases. I admit I was a bit lazy and didn't work on smaller scales too much, as it didn't look obviously broken.

PDExperiment626 wrote:

2. If this logo is small on a dark background, it's shape is all but completely lost. The poster in the submission looks like a yellow circle with an 'x' through it.

The 'x' on the poster is intentional. The logo features a couple of elements that can be 'extracted', so to speak, and used as artwork. The Sun image, therefore, uses only the 'x' to remind people of the actual logo, and is NOT trying to represent the logo itself, precisely in order to make the 'Sun' a more prominent theme. The logo in the lower half of the poster (the actual logo) is in reality MUCH bigger than you can see on the scaled-down image on the screen, so it will not be a problem, even if the halo is weak. It's a 70x100cm poster.

PDExperiment626 wrote:

3. Putting a white glow around this logo to make it work on a dark background doesn't work. In scaling, the white glow is lost and the black arcs get lost as well.

I do agree that the logo has poorer performance on the dark surface, and I'm planning to simply exclude dark surface as a background behind the logo in the usage guideline. However, you are assuming here that you can use the logo in any way you can possibly imagine, which is usually not the case. The logo is not meant to be used with the halo, scaled down, on a dark surface. It will look okay in large sizes, though, such as on a poster.

PDExperiment626 wrote:

4. The logo actually being a 2d representation of a 3d concept (arcs around the sun) actually make it very difficult to turn the logo into an exact 3d representation (with blender or whatever).

Huh? Are we even required to turn our logo into a 3D representation?

PDExperiment626 wrote:

5. This type of logo strikes me as a bit generic; this general concept is something many IT firms go with these days.

Okay, I admit I don't understand this part... number 5.

EDIT: Saw your footnotes. See the comments at the bottom of this post.

PDExperiment626 wrote:

6. I know foxbunny has indicated that the yellow is meant to represent the sun and thus energy. First, people's understanding of what 'energy' is has nothing to do with the scientific definition of energy. True, yellow is associated with the sun; but that sun is associated with happiness and warmth... not energy (psychologically speaking). Electrical discharge, Cerenkov radiation, etc. are the notions people associate with power and thus, energy (i.e. blue colors). People don't see the sun blowing up or striking down from the heavens... it's a constant presence bringing warmth. Even though there is a scientific link between yellow (indeed any color) and energy, this isn't a psychological link. Case-in-point, men rarely wear yellow. The ubuntu colors incorporate yellow to convey a sense of unity and personal warmth, not energy. Sorry, the psychological link between energy and the color yellow isn't there. Blue is the color you want, if you want to convey a notion of energy.

You are missing the point. Most likely, the ONLY reason we know that Ubuntu represents unity and stuff is because Canonical did a fair share of advertising in order to inprint that image into our heads. But I digress.

The link between the Sun and energy is not lost. It has to be created and nurtured, and it is same for any type of message others may have tried to incorporate into their logos. So, basically, you don't have to worry about it. It's only a logo. The logo change is, as you probably know already, called rebranding and it calls for a very careful planning and a consistent, directed follow-up.

Oh, and what you refer to is, imho, closer to force than energy.

PDExperiment626 wrote:

7. The change in color scheme requires more work (in terms of regaining mindshare of viewers) than staying with the old arch colors. Perhaps it would be better to start off with a blue version of the logo and work it over to the goal, yellow color scheme.

I don't think a change in color scheme would require any more work than any type of rebranding. Why do you think the color weighs more than other factors?

PDExperiment626 wrote:

Note: If something could be done to fix the points on the logo to make it scale better, it'd be stronger as a logo. The use of black with yellow (a low contrast to white) will present problems as the logo will need to be put on both black and white backgrounds. A deeper shade of yellow may help this out quite a bit.

Yes, the points can be fixed _when_ the logo is scaled down, and it can safely remain this way it is now, when used in larger sizes (48+ px). IMO, it does rather well right down to sizes as small as 20px wide in its base form on white b/g, and it does a bit worse, scaling down to just over 24px wide in Tango variant. For smaller sizes, small tweaks yield very good results.

About putting on dark surface, I don't think that will necessarily be the case. There are a number of neat ways this logo (with its accompanying style) can avoid the black background, so it is all a matter of regulating this.

Anyway, it was nice of you to comment so in-depth. Good opportunity to see things from a different perspective. But keep in mind that people will need to come up with a usage manual for their logo (or one will be created for them), so if logo has any caveats, those can be addressed in the them.

One more thing. That distinction between generic and professional... hm. I might not be familiar with what you guys (you and cerise) refer to as professional logo. What is the definition of 'professional logo' anyway?

As for my logo being 'generic'... heheh, didn't see *that* coming. When people talk about logos (I mean mostly you, but there are others who talk about it in the same way), they tend to forget that the whole brand identity is a mish-mash of various sensations, ideas, opinions, and emotions that revolve around a product. It's not just the logo. If you show an Ubuntu logo to someone who has never been exposed to computers, modern technology, Canonica's rather large advertising campaign, it's photos and community videos on YouTube, that person will probably have only negligible emotional response to it, or at least a very different one. Or show a Coca-cola logo to a Tibetan monk (anyway, to anyone that hasn't been exposed to Coca-cola culture and its products)... It is not a coincidence that Coca-Cola Company spends billions on advertising its products. It's not just doing it because it wants people to know about their products, its name, and its logo. We all *know* Coke. We know how it tastes, and how its logo and packaging looks. Coke is actually repeatedly recreating and reinforcing its brand image, its brand culture.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 03:25:48)

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 03:01:44

afonic wrote:

What I said above was to make a poll that could count as an extra +1 in the voting process, not decide to logo from that poll instead of the devs. Besides we could have 20 or 30 submissions but the users that might be interested to vote are many more.

The community will get to vote if there is a tie, though.

afonic wrote:

Also I'd like to agree with PDExperiment626 that while we (Arch users) understand the use of the pacman shape in the logo, new users would probably be confused and think it is a distro aimed at games or something like that.

+1 for that

stonecrest · 2007-10-30 04:15:50

Are the devs going to use an Instant Runoff Voting system? A plurality voting system is unfair to third-party artworks!

cerise · 2007-10-30 05:36:25

thayer.w wrote:

Although it's probably too bland for most, I actually prefer the simplicity of the minimalist logo over the archer.

You know, I don't think your minimalist design is too bland. I think it has a lot of potential.

The reason I think it may be difficult to use as a logo itself is because while it is an interesting bauhaus idea -- using just the letters AS the logo itself -- for the purpose of branding a distribution, it may be just a bit too avant-garde for an operating system logo. Have you thought about gently tweaking the letter forms themselves to make a more prominent shape? A shape can help move your minimalist "a" and "l" away from simply being an "al" representation -- and more into the realm of a traditional logo idea.

If you shape them into a more 'circular' form, you could convey unity, 'wholeness' and other inviting-types of sentiments.
If you shape them more into a 'triangular/angular' form, you could convey strength, stability, and grounding.
If you shape them more into a filled-out square or rectangle, then you can convey more of the 'building-block' and 'base' types of ideas.

I prefer your minimalist design to your archer design quite a bit actually, and can see a lot of potential for its use in many places -- light, dark, somewhere in the middle, textured, etc.

cactus · 2007-10-30 06:14:28

thayer.w wrote:

Although it's probably too bland for most, I actually prefer the simplicity of the minimalist logo over the archer.

I actually liked the archer logo, before it had cuts in it (not that the cuts were bad, they just got lost in scaling). At larger sizes the cuts look nice.
I liked the simplicity of it, and I thought the space under it looked like a person (the shoulder and head profile). It make me think of archlinux as being 'from the head', in that it took a bit of thinking.
Someone else had to point out to me that it was an arrowhead.
HA!

cerise · 2007-10-30 06:14:58

foxbunny wrote:

About putting on dark surface, I don't think that will necessarily be the case. There are a number of neat ways this logo (with its accompanying style) can avoid the black background, so it is all a matter of regulating this.
Anyway, it was nice of you to comment so in-depth. Good opportunity to see things from a different perspective. But keep in mind that people will need to come up with a usage manual for their logo (or one will be created for them), so if logo has any caveats, those can be addressed in the them.

foxbunny -
The basic kernel boot splash image is on a black background. Traditionally, the arch logo has sat at the top of the screen while your system loads. In this respect, having the logo appear on a black background is essential to branding. Regardless of the number of flashy boot screen products out there, the basic design is what arch has by default.

Also, usage guidelines are traditionally for things like, "You may not print this logo on cafepress products and sell them for a profit," and, "You may not use this logo in a commercial campaign without our express permission," not for things like, "Don't use our logo on a black background." I think draconian usage rules are too heavy-handed and will not be followed. People will put the logo on anything and everything they want and post it to kde-, gnome-, xfce-, *-, look.org for others to download and use. I've seen ubuntu's logo on a woman's naked anatomical parts, in 3d representations, on textures, on black, warped, on natural photos, etc. If people like the logo and the arch distribution, the logo will get slapped on anything and everything people use for a background. Limiting that kind of expression is tantamount to killing interest in the distro.

I believe in giving people tools to fire their imaginations, even if it means the logo gets tattooed on a woman's bare bottom, than in limiting the genuine expression of people that are enthusiastic.

foxbunny wrote:

One more thing. That distinction between generic and professional... hm. I might not be familiar with what you guys (you and cerise) refer to as professional logo. What is the definition of 'professional logo' anyway?

I use the term professional for any logo that represents a dominant idea or theme while also involving related connotations to the psychological and emotional impact requested by the client (the same as the definition used when talking with any client,) -- in a technically strong presentation. I can't speak for anyone else outside of the design business.

foxbunny wrote:

they tend to forget that the whole brand identity is a mish-mash of various sensations, ideas, opinions, and emotions that revolve around a product. It's not just the logo. If you show an Ubuntu logo to someone who has never been exposed to computers, modern technology, Canonica's rather large advertising campaign, it's photos and community videos on YouTube, that person will probably have only negligible emotional response to it, or at least a very different one.

Since this is what I have done on a daily basis for a number of years, I have some experience in this area to share.
There isn't a person to whom any distribution is targeting that meets your criteria, so more accurate definitions of the people that a linux distribution is targeting (namely, an entire population of people that use computers,) need to be used when making quantitative statements about logos, colours, designs, etc. Therefore, a person will have seen the internet, seen a computer, have used one, and has watched tv. This person may have heard the word 'linux' or might not.

If I show a group of these kinds of people the ubuntu logo (and I have), their immediate impressions are: warm, happy, inviting, sunshine, children, unity (directly from market research.) This has nothing to do with their marketing campaigns, and everything to do with what choices were made in the logo decision. The fact that there are immediate emotional responses to logos and colours has been well documented and proven by people with many letters after their name in numerous scientific journals. This is why hospitals use colours from the 'warm' palette for their lobbies/extended-stay rooms and colours from the 'cool' palette for the actual surgical areas.

Good marketing and public relations campaigns take the market research of what people 'feel' from an immediate impression of an image and then enhance the themes and ideas presented into posters, packaging, and other materials to re-enforce those ideas. The campaigns themselves don't decide what feelings people will have, they append themes and ideas onto those impressions. The decision about what people will feel was decided prior to ever creating the logo in the first place.

Last edited by cerise (2007-10-30 06:20:24)

iphitus · 2007-10-30 07:58:45

I think foxbunny's can be made to work well on a dark background. It's the colours that prevent it, but they're adjustable.

TheBodziO's logo adjusts nicely to a dark background though a modification if it's colours, yet still retains recognisability -- it's the shape that makes it recognisable, not the colours:
http://ruthenus.pl/bodzio/arch-logo-pro … 1020-1.png

And it's the shape in foxbunny's that is the primary focus, not that colours. I opened it before and messed with it in inkscape, you can adapt the black shape to shades of light grey quite easily without losing the apperaance though I'm sure someone with a more experienced hand in graphics could do a more suitable job.

thayerw: Could you do a version of yours using a more free font, maybe London Between which foxbunny has used. You've used Karat, which we established, that we can't! This kinda goes to everyone, make sure the font is free for commercial use and redistribution. If it's modifiable -- bonus.

Anyway, Uni nearly over, finally I can start inkscape and work on my own Time to go find my sketchbooks and design notes.

James

Last edited by iphitus (2007-10-30 08:01:33)

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 09:13:04

cerise wrote:

Also, usage guidelines are traditionally for things like, "You may not print this logo on cafepress products and sell them for a profit," and, "You may not use this logo in a commercial campaign without our express permission," not for things like, "Don't use our logo on a black background." I think draconian usage rules are too heavy-handed and will not be followed. <SNIP, sry>

I've actually read through any number of guidelines and manuals of various companies (Samsung and LG among others), and they ALL were quite specific, to the last detail. Even anal. Not everyone publishes their stuff you know? Some prefer to have a designer look over things nad see if they work. Anyway, in case of Arch Linux, those things would apply to official stuff only. Sure, there will be people who will use it in a 'wrong' way, but that's okay.

cerise wrote:

If I show a group of these kinds of people the ubuntu logo (and I have), their immediate impressions are: warm, happy, inviting, sunshine, children, unity (directly from market research.) <SNIP>

Yes, of course they will have some sort of sensation. They will also have 'generic' reaction to any number of logos. Like people say fat hackers, or Christmas trees in Thayer's logo, for example. But that doesn't mean that a logo can represent the brand as a whole. It can stand for a brand, as much as a name can stand for us.

cerise wrote:

Good marketing and public relations campaigns take the market research of what people 'feel' from an immediate impression of an image and then enhance the themes and ideas presented into posters, packaging, and other materials to re-enforce those ideas.

True.

cerise wrote:

The campaigns themselves don't decide what feelings people will have, they append themes and ideas onto those impressions. The decision about what people will feel was decided prior to ever creating the logo in the first place.

You cannot separate the impact of graphical identity and the whole surrounding campaign, and did I mention the actual product. But, yes. that decision is made in advance, which I pointed out before many times. But feelings are not the only things that are decided on. Images, ideas, thoughts, actions, those are all decided upon in advance. And once the identity package is launched/rebranded, it is closely monitored...

@iphitus
Yes, I'm keeping dark gray as the last resort. Or you could make the yellow darker, and arcs white, but that would be a bit messy. However, if puting the logo on a light-yellow or white band is an option, that would be terrific.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 09:18:41)

cerise · 2007-10-30 09:33:05

foxbunny wrote:

I've actually read through any number of guidelines and manuals of various companies (Samsung and LG among others), and they ALL were quite specific, to the last detail. Even anal. Not everyone publishes their stuff you know? Some prefer to have a designer look over things nad see if they work. Anyway, in case of Arch Linux, those things would apply to official stuff only. Sure, there will be people who will use it in a 'wrong' way, but that's okay.

And while I've created such guidelines for more restrictive companies, I think it would be detrimental to the efforts of an open source, open community.
I'd rather be more like Ubuntu with their fair design usage guidelines than like Sony or Microsoft.

No way is a wrong way for people in the community to express their creativity and enthusiasm, as I said before.

cerise · 2007-10-30 09:37:08

foxbunny wrote:

Yes, of course they will have some sort of sensation. They will also have 'generic' reaction to any number of logos. Like people say fat hackers, or Christmas trees in Thayer's logo, for example. But that doesn't mean that a logo can represent the brand as a whole. It can stand for a brand, as much as a name can stand for us.
You cannot separate the impact of graphical identity and the whole surrounding campaign, and did I mention the actual product. But, yes. that decision is made in advance, which I pointed out before many times. But feelings are not the only things that are decided on. Images, ideas, thoughts, actions, those are all decided upon in advance. And once the identity package is launched/rebranded, it is closely monitored...

I'm not certain I can agree with your sentiments here after going through the experiences of both doing concepts from the beginning of an entity and also doing re-branding efforts.

(n.b. I said ideas and themes, not simply feelings.)

Last edited by cerise (2007-10-30 09:37:50)

iphitus · 2007-10-30 10:11:51

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 33#p294333

Thoughts?

Inkscape question: Is there a nice way for me to make those two curves meet up other than zooming and trying to make them meet? They're still not quite right and I know I could spend all night on them.

edit: Just added one with a grey base. A warmer shade of grey might be better, but I'd like to know what you guys think. Is grey a suitable base at all from a designer's persepective?
http://src.iphitus.org/arch-logo/conceptC.png

Last edited by iphitus (2007-10-30 10:28:25)

PDExperiment626 · 2007-10-30 10:52:44

@iphitus

I see the same problems with your logo as with foxbunny's sun logo in regards to use on dark backgrounds.

Either color scheme you use introduces problems with scaling. On either dark or light backgrounds, parts of your logo will be lost when scaled down.

The logo has a slightly modern feel to it, but the choices of shapes and colors make it a pretty generic design.

Really the big problem with the logo is that it reminds me of MacDonalds. Yellow color and arches is mindshare that was claimed decades ago. The logo actually draws me to associations with food much more than anything else. I don't think the logo itself will ever be able to shake that connotation given MacDonald's PR budget.

Finally, I have a more logistical concern about your potential submission. Rules have been laid out that devs will be the ones doing the initial vote on the logo, and the community only votes in the case of a tie. You submitting as a developer flags as an overt conflict of interest. Regardless of whether you vote or not on your design, you have no way to assure the community that nepotism won't come into play in the logo decision, if you submit. This will discourage others from submitting as they will all be starting at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage as a decision maker will be creating a design of their own. If the developers wanted to create their own logo, they should not have ordained a community contest to have a logo created. I'm hoping all developers can appreciate this point of view.

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 11:09:37

cerise wrote:

I'm not certain I can agree with your sentiments here after going through the experiences of both doing concepts from the beginning of an entity and also doing re-branding efforts.

Likewise, actually. Also, after seeing other larger companies do the same. Notably the SAMSUNG's Imagine campaign. Extremely successful, extremely costly, extremely complete, and extremely controlled – all with the (more or less) *same* logo, they've turned their brand image almost upside-down.

cerise wrote:

(n.b. I said ideas and themes, not simply feelings.)

I didn't take it that way, though. Sorry if I made it sound like I did. It was not intentional.

@PDExperiment626
+1 on the conflict of interests.

@iphitus
Back off! Just kidding, man. But I'd like to hear the official devs' stance on this issue.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 11:11:18)

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 11:15:46

iphitus wrote:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 33#p294333

Go ahead with the grey. It stands for mainstream, well established, no-nonsense stuff, though, so I'm wondering how it would ring with Arch Linux. Also, try sunglow for your yellow. That is actually the color used in my concept as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold (look under sunglow)

I wouldn't go darker than that if I were you, simply for the fact that many people get a wrong and dirty idea when they se dirty yellow...

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 11:24:48)

cerise · 2007-10-30 11:24:40

foxbunny wrote:

notably the SAMSUNG's Imagine campaign.

That's a product, not an operating system. The marketing for a product that you can hold in your hands, use, break and etc. is *MARKEDLY* different. Again, I'd rather be like Ubuntu than Samsung. In my years of design experience, it is not in the best-interests of something as intangible as an operating system to lock-down their branding if they would like people to talk about and generate buzz for their "ones and zeroes." Give the community the ability to run with the logo, but restrict commercial development; that's the limit I'm willing to go toward draconian and outdated usage manuals.

However, this is now exceptionally off-topic and I refuse to hijack this thread with market surveys, biz-speak, and other peripherals of the design business any further.

Last edited by cerise (2007-10-30 11:26:10)

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 11:34:12

cerise wrote:

That's a product, not an operating system. The marketing for a product that you can hold in your hands, use, break and etc. is *MARKEDLY* different.

What a mobile phone is for SAMSUNG, an operating system is for Canonical and Arch Linux project. The rules do not change as dramatically as you say.

cerise wrote:

Again, I'd rather be like Ubuntu than Samsung.

Sry, snipped my own reply. Didn't read it right the first time.

http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Officia … ntuArtwork
http://en.opensuse.org/Artwork:Brand

http://www.openoffice.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/29949/OpenOffice.org%20Style%20Manual%20(Version%200.9).pdf

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
http://www.mandriva.com/archives/en/con … 2005-L.pdf

cerise wrote:

In my years of design experience, it is not in the best-interests of something as intangible as an operating system to lock-down their branding if they would like people to talk about and generate buzz for their "ones and zeroes."

And yet, people from Canonical have locked it down succesfully, as did the people from openSUSE project. They change bits here and there, but overall the brand is stable and unchanging. Need I remind you that the official imagery for both Ubuntu and openSUSE are directed by their sponsoring companies, and both companies have guidelines for the usage of their imagery. And both communities create the buzz for their 'ones and zeroes' unhindered, all the time.

The community is free to do whatever they want with the images when it's not official. I doubt it would by any different for Arch Linux. We are talking about registered trademarks, which are, naturally controlled by the owners rather than the community. The community can contribute any number of logos of their own, and modifications, but those are NOT treated as official, and, moreover (mis)presentation of such artwork as being official is prohibited explicitly.

cerise wrote:

Give the community the ability to run with the logo, but restrict commercial development; that's the limit I'm willing to go toward draconian and outdated usage manuals.

The community can do (and will always be able to do) whatever they like, as they did up to this point. We are talking about Aaron and devs taking branding into their own hands, which is, imo, a very sensible. Why do you think that community members should *manage* the Arch Linux graphical identitiy? Even Ubuntu doesn't allow that.

Also, I think this is an important topic for the current project, since it does concern Arch Linux's rebranding.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 12:21:22)

PJ · 2007-10-30 11:38:06

iphitus wrote:

Inkscape question: Is there a nice way for me to make those two curves meet up other than zooming and trying to make them meet? They're still not quite right and I know I could spend all night on them.

Made a small guide which describes how I would do it.
www.geocities.com/kinortkele/howto.svg

iphitus · 2007-10-30 11:41:19

PDExperiment626 wrote:

@iphitus
I see the same problems with your logo as with foxbunny's sun logo in regards to use on dark backgrounds. Either color scheme you use introduces problems with scaling. On either dark or light backgrounds, parts of your logo will be lost when scaled down. The logo has a slightly modern feel to it, but the choices of shapes and colors make it a pretty generic design.

Colour changing is fun. Added a bit more individualism to it too. I hear what you say above about the grey foxbunny, but it goes great with these blues.

http://src.iphitus.org/arch-logo/conceptD.png
http://src.iphitus.org/arch-logo/conceptD.svg

Really the big problem with the logo is that it reminds me of MacDonalds. Yellow color and arches is mindshare that was claimed decades ago. The logo actually draws me to associations with food much more than anything else. I don't think the logo itself will ever be able to shake that connotation given MacDonald's PR budget.

Never thought of that. I think it's a far stretch after lookin at them side by side, but if one person thinks it, its possible others will.

Finally, I have a more logistical concern about your potential submission. Rules have been laid out that devs will be the ones doing the initial vote on the logo, and the community only votes in the case of a tie. You submitting as a developer flags as an overt conflict of interest. Regardless of whether you vote or not on your design, you have no way to assure the community that nepotism won't come into play in the logo decision, if you submit. This will discourage others from submitting as they will all be starting at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage as a decision maker will be creating a design of their own. If the developers wanted to create their own logo, they should not have ordained a community contest to have a logo created. I'm hoping all developers can appreciate this point of view.

Hadn't thought of that. Insert <expletive />. That ruins the fun. I'll post this on the list and see what others say. IMHO they're a professional bunch -- I don't think nepotism would come in at all... but I guess the point should be raised.

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 11:43:36

iphitus wrote:

Hadn't thought of that. Insert <expletive />. That ruins the fun. I'll post this on the list and see what others say. IMHO they're a professional bunch -- I don't think nepotism would come in at all... but I guess the point should be raised.

You have to admit, though, iphitus, that it *may seem* bad to community members. Gotta be careful.

iphitus · 2007-10-30 11:50:40

foxbunny wrote:

iphitus wrote:
Hadn't thought of that. Insert <expletive />. That ruins the fun. I'll post this on the list and see what others say. IMHO they're a professional bunch -- I don't think nepotism would come in at all... but I guess the point should be raised.
You have to admit, though, iphitus, that it *may seem* bad to community members. Gotta be careful.

http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev … 02742.html

James

Arch Linux

#576 2007-10-29 21:09:46

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#577 2007-10-29 21:16:21

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#578 2007-10-29 23:28:35

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#579 2007-10-30 01:41:49

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#580 2007-10-30 02:45:35

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#581 2007-10-30 02:58:50

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#582 2007-10-30 03:01:44

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#583 2007-10-30 04:15:50

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#584 2007-10-30 05:36:25

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#585 2007-10-30 06:14:28

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#586 2007-10-30 06:14:58

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#587 2007-10-30 07:58:45

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#588 2007-10-30 09:13:04

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#589 2007-10-30 09:33:05

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#590 2007-10-30 09:37:08

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#591 2007-10-30 10:11:51

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#592 2007-10-30 10:52:44

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#593 2007-10-30 11:09:37

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#594 2007-10-30 11:15:46

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#595 2007-10-30 11:24:40

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#596 2007-10-30 11:34:12

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#597 2007-10-30 11:38:06

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#598 2007-10-30 11:41:19

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#599 2007-10-30 11:43:36

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#600 2007-10-30 11:50:40

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer