Hi Christoph, Nik, all,
Christoph Noack schrieb:
Hi Nik, all!
Just some short comments on this issue as well, because I'd like to
finally answer Andras question ... :-)
Sorry for mixing up two different topics - but I found them related when
thinking of official names...
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".
I'd change the naming a bit in order to define the "contemporary logo"
as the basis of all derived logos. As the logo image is not trademarked,
we can modify it according the needs of our community.
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.
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)
I'd switch it:
Main logo: present "contemporary logo"
Derived "plain colors logo" (dark grey and green)
Derived "greyscale logo"
Derived "black logo" (today: black/white)
Derived "white logo" (today: inverted)
Derived "green/black logo" (today: basic) for special needs.
I don't understand where dark grey is an issue and green isn't, but if
someone needs such a logo, we can provide it.
But we definitely should provide the spot colors of our color palette,
so people know about the colors we want to be used on physical banners
and the like.
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.
Did you already find examples on LibreOffice? (I remember really
horrible ones from OOo)
PS: And if we agree on 80% Grey for our logo, I'd propose to give it a
LibO name (LibreGrey 1) in our palette.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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