Christoph Noack schrieb:
Hi Nik, hi Rob, Jaron, Johannes, Bernhard, ... :-)
Am Montag, den 07.03.2011, 04:34 +1100 schrieb Nik:
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?
You are right Nik, the font is indeed unfinished (e.g. the Unicode
coverage)- and development won't continue as far as I know. But in the
given situation some months ago, the font had some real advantages ...
for example: having a modern but neutral look.
I've used the font comparison that had been done by the OOo Artwork Team
. And since Bernhard had substantial impact in creating the
comparison, I'd like to ask him for his experience whether there is
something better. Bernhard?
*If* the font had been finalized, it had been chosen for the OOo logo
accompanying font too.
But due to it's shortcomings (especially lack of certain characters and
symbols) we chose the M+ P1 font
for text to be presented in combination with the (proprietary) logo.
What I personally really like to see in the font are round dots at every
place: "i", "!", ":", "ü" and so on.
We searched hard for a high quality open source font (as with the given OOo
logo the need was even higher than here), but didn't find a better one.
It is already more than 6 weeks ago that Hillar Liiv worked on improving
the Vegur font:
I'm quite ashamed, that I didn't reply to him ...
I know ... It's very late to be talking about such things, but
discussion in this vein might make for a better future logo.
I think it's a two-step approach:
First improve the existing logo by nearly invisible changes leading to an
improved overall impression.
Then work on the community branding for a new logo (with new font, if we
I think we slowly start to target topics related to a community branding
- not only applying tiny improvements concerning the current one. What
are your thoughts here? Thinking about some major improvements is fine,
but the timing is important as well ...
Personally, I think that some improvements by Johannes should make it
into the current logo for (maybe?) the minor release of LibreOffice.
I could even imagine the next available micro release...
from what I can see, there is consensus that most of the tiny
improvements (like you said Nik - and also to me: except the
f-i-connection) greatly improve the general visual impression.
So perhaps with the bent f-bow, but with space between f-bar and i?
As far as I remember, the few poll comments tended towards the present logo
rather than towards the logo with ligature.
It's not easy to define likes and dislikes for the tiny modifications, if
the main difference is the stroke between "f" and "i"...
But even if we agree on improving the distances between the single
characters (kerning) only, the necessarily modified distances between
"f", "f" and "i" might cause some kind of ligature...
Perhaps we should step back again (I don't like this direction very much,
but if it leads to consensus, it's worthwhile) and improve kerning first.
When we got our optimum version (broader as today or smaller as Nik
proposed), we should add ligatures on this pre-final version.
Does this sound reasonable to you Joey (as foreman in this topic) and all
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
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