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

Hi Joey,

This feedback comes waaay too late, but I think your changes to the type have been awesome improvements in many areas (like the way you made the arch ascender of the second "f" end in a way that is concentric to the tittle of the "i", very nice). Like some others, the way the arm of the "f" touches the "i" makes me slightly uncomfortable when reading the word.

In any case, what I wanted to say is, I think your small improvements will be hard-pressed to outweigh the deficiencies in the typeface itself. I think the design of the typeface is flawed and can't really be "fixed" with small typographic adjustments. For example, even replacing the text with Arial is an improvement (but maybe only to me). I'd like to know where you stand on the typeface in general? do you think it works?

I have problems with the geometric shape of the characters;

   * I don't like that the arm of the letter "L" appears thinner than
     the stroke-width of its stem (may just appear that way).
   * I think the kerning should be a lot tighter between the letters so
     that the distance between characters is the same as the gap
     between the stroke and tittle of the "i"
   * The bowl of the "b" makes no attempt to appear concentric (but
     that is just taste, many typefaces feature this)
   * I don't like that the beginning of the shoulder on the "r" is
     thinner than the end of it, especially because it is next to an
     "e" which is even in stroke width
   * I don't like that the foot of the "e" doesn't "close off" the
     shape which is featured in the eye
   * The "f"s are difficult in many ways
   * the "c" will need to change in order to appropriately match the
     curve of the final "e"
   * the list goes on really ...

But most of this is too nitpicky, no font is perfect (except HELVETICA =).
I'm not trying to be nasty, but this typeface looks genuinely unfinished.
I think we would do ourselves a huge favour by locating a better font for the next version of the logo. What do you think? change or stay? and if change, do you or your colleagues know of any good open-source fonts?

I know ... It's very late to be talking about such things, but discussion in this vein might make for a better future logo.


On 3/5/2011 4:52 AM, Johannes Bausch wrote:

okay, I've tried to set up a voting page for us, see here:

<>Do you all have
write access to this page? I am not that experienced with wikis.

@Bernhard: I've shifted the i more to the left. I've also redone the visual
kerning for some of the letters; have a look at the scaled-down versions, it
"should" look more even now.

@all: It would be great if you voted on the wiki or here on the mailing
list. Even if you disapprove of this poll it would be great to get some more
opinions on this; so far it's only five people who talk about it.


PS: I'll be away until Wednesday next week.

2011/3/2 Bernhard Dippold<>

Hi Joey, all,

replying to both of your mails, so please scroll down until the end...

Johannes Bausch schrieb:


to gather some more opinions I thought it would be a good idea to have a
poll somewhere else, so I asked people in a forum to cast their vote.
Although I don't know whether this was a good idea (not really
representative, game design forum, so people might be programmers) I
you might be interested in the results:

It's impossible to see the different alternatives, because at my computer
the background is nearly black.

Ii updated the image with a slightly lighter grey background, so you can
see the different alternatives, but keep the white text of the poll results.

  Apparently noone likes the
too fancy ligatures. Most people also complained about the logo in
so I tried to explain why this is (and remains, for now) the logo of LibO.
If you're interested in the comments, too, I'll send you the link.
So... in the next days I'll make some final drafts and put up a voting
If you have some final ideas please tell me.

People seem to like the last alternative (with "f" bow bent towards the "i"
dot) as much as the original.

Even if this is far from being representative, I'd like to see a finalized
version of this proposal.

Could you improve this by moving the "i" nearer to the "f"? I don't think
that equal spacing for the dot between "f" and "i" looks best...

Perhaps a combination of your third an my proposal?


2011/3/2 Johannes Bausch<>

  Hey Bernhard,
2011/3/2 Bernhard Dippold<>

In your reply to my last mail I understood you in a way that you wanted

work on a new proposal.

  I added a third alternative (which I don't like very much). The logos
on my
page are only drafts; if we decide on one of them, I'll spend more time
it. At the moment I don't have another idea how to deal with the ligature
do you? I'd be more than glad to try another one.

Like your poll members I like this proposal best, but it needs some more
tweaking (I mentioned above).

I don't think that there are so many alternatives to modify the two "f" and
the "i", so I don't have any other reliable alternative in mind.

But what we need to keep in mind: Changes being recognized by the average

user / viewer will more likely be postponed until a new major or minor
than modifications leading "only" to a more balanced, professional and
consistent visual impression.

  +1, I agree.
In my eyes proposals (c) and (d) might fall in the "balanced" category,
while (a) and (b) would be more recognizable as modified details.

  Who has the final word on that?
The SC, but they probably support a decision by the Design Team.

Best regards


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

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.