Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Bernhard + Christoph,

Can I butt-in for a second on just one issue; ...

On 3/3/2011 9:33 AM, Christoph Noack wrote:
Hi Bernhard, all!

Am Mittwoch, den 02.03.2011, 23:00 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
The greyscale logo uses a 50% grey level (#808080), and I'd like to keep it.

But the darker part of the logo is black only in the basic logo.
We already discussed the black issue several times, so I'd like to see a
"LibreGrey 0" to be used for the dark part of the colored and the
greyscale logo.

In my eyes 80% grey (#333333) is dark enough to look distinct from the
lighter tone, but is recognized as "not black".
It is simply music to my ears to hear you say that Bernhard =)

After so much discussion that seemed to have been swept under the rug, it is good to hear confirmation of this (sub)topic. "Several times" is an understatement =) and if you go back through the proposals you can see a correlation between the level of "finish" in the designs and the absence of pure black. Can we finally put this to bed and move to a dark-grey instead of black? reasons;
- Black is unfriendly
- Black creates a negative emphasis on contrast (especially given the simplicity of the shapes in the logo)
- Makes text "stick out" rather than "blend in"
- The Green doesn't match the black comfortably, but matches the greys well
- Printing dark grey is not an issue (including the mono version)
- Using Grey, especially in gradient, creates the perception of lighting

Really, you only need to look at the difference between this;
and this;
to know that they are worlds apart.

Black text on white background = default = no thought given to appropriateness of message = no design effort made.

We could add "LibreGrey 2" and "LibreGrey 3", but I don't think this is
necessary for the LibO palette.
Mmh, I got lost a bit ... if I understood it correctly, you discuss the
logo instead of the color palette to be included in / translated for

Concerning the former, the black is still fine for the Basic logo for
various reasons. Indeed, the Contemporary logo features the different
gray shadings (and is the only one as far as I remember).

We shouldn't have "contemporary" and "plain" versions! that will only cause inconsistencies. Why aren't we just moving over to the contemporary version as the /main/ logo? The plain logo has no benefit over the contemporary version and switching them will not create confusion, they are essentially the same thing (to end users).
If we include the basic colors in the palette, more grey values are as
important as the main colors.
The logo point will probably not make it past this email, but the switch to grey over black should be considered. I mean, haven't we been through this enough times to know that it isn't worth continuing this mistake? Has a single person even been able to provide a substantial reason that black compliments the branding (clean, balanced and friendly) positioning?


PS. I'm the biggest fan of black in identity design, but only when it suits the brand.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.