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

Hi Nik, all!

Just some short comments on this issue as well, because I'd like to
finally answer Andras question  ... :-) 

Am Samstag, den 05.03.2011, 04:10 +1100 schrieb Nik:
Can I butt-in for a second on just one issue; ...

Of course :-)

On 3/3/2011 9:33 AM, Christoph Noack wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 02.03.2011, 23:00 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
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 =)


Can we finally put this to bed and move to a dark-grey instead of black? 
- 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

Since you name it - there is not only printing, but also stitching and
such stuff. That's the reason for having the basic (okay: plain) logo
that cares about the essential things like shape and simple colors.
Based on that logo, a "contemporary" variant can be derived and even
slightly altered according to "fashion needs".

So - to me - it would be okay to agree on "dark gray" (also for the
plain logo), if:
      * it fits to the visual impression on all media (product, website,
        letter heads, ...)
      * black is an exception when it comes to special production
        methods like stitching or coating (sometimes dark gray is not an

Personally, I think we should start to collect such tiny logo issues in
the wiki and update all in one "rush" - to save some effort.

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

Depends on the message ;-)


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/ 
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 would only provide the logo on screens and on high quality
printouts, I would agree. But we have also other promotional material
(like the large banners) that need to be printed in simple and plain
colors. So - to me - there is not only a real benefit in providing the
plain version; it is essential. But we want to express our default
choice - that should be simple.

So how about the following logos...
"Basic/Plain" (defines basic color and shape)
              * Derived "contemporary --> LibreOffice "preferred" logo
                (highlighted on the branding page)
              * Derived "grayscale" (like today)
              * Derived "black/white" (like today)
              * Derived "inverted" (like today)

From my point-of-view, most of the confusion is created by those people
who copy the logo from other locations in the web - and sometimes even
modifying them. Grrrr.

Does that sound reasonable?


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.