[cgiapp] CGI::Application Logo
Alex
capfan at gmx.de
Tue Aug 18 09:39:57 EDT 2009
Hi!
There is two things I want to reply directly:
a)
>> It's not that I simply want to arbitrary flame your approach. I wish I
>> could do it any better. I would spend you a new logo (for free, in
>> mercy). But if I would try to make a logo now, it would be done in
>> paint and have a similar look. I just really hope, that this logo
>> won't make it to the official representative logo of CA - or any log representing CA.
>
>I do appreciate that you're frank enough to say that.
>
>But if you're not going to do it, who will? And do we need a new logo?
There is something like a debate on perl and marketing. There was a thread on a german bulletin board where it was discussed, too, and there were given the following links:
http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/39344
http://news.perlfoundation.org/2009/08/2009q3_grant_proposal_improve.html
The idea of a reference design for perl related things, maybe some sort of corporate identity for perl, is discussed there. This topic fits in there. There is (possibly) a design problem and many ppl who can't do it any better. So letting a professional improving the design or set up some design references is most likely a good idea. Maybe we can jump in there and get some orientation.
b)
>> I don't think that anyone who does such things like design as a
>> professional would consider the logo any good. No offense to the
>> effort creating one, but I would consider it an absolute failure.
>> I have to admit, and I think I'm not the only one, that I'm not able
>> do it any better. I such at designing things. But I would rather stick
>> with the old logo, than inventing something much more worse.
>
>Well, if you can't do better, then you can't really claim to speak on behalf of professionals.
If this is a requirement, I work with someone who does professional design things, and he considers the logo as not good (inaccurate translation possible). And no, he won't do it for free.
But even if we all would ignore this point, there might be many ppl who think the same [logo not good], even unprofessional. I think the lack of massive comments like "yay, that’s really great work and please don't stop doing it" supports this.
I agree that simply considering something as really bad isn't any constructive. Again, I really wish I could do any better. But continuing doing something that might not have the desired effect (or simply being ugly) only because there is no one who can do better is absurd. If it will be done, then it should be done really good. CA deserves it.
Finally, I have a constructive idea: why not ask someone who contributes to kde-look.org or openwebdesign.org? They seem really capable doing such a job. But maybe this should do someone who is a native english speaker.
Well, that's all for now. Not that I would simply ignore any other thing you wrote, but there is not much time at this end of the line, too :)
Best regards, Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: cgiapp-bounces at lists.openlib.org [mailto:cgiapp-bounces at lists.openlib.org] On Behalf Of Ron Savage
Sent: Dienstag, 18. August 2009 04:02
To: CGI Application
Subject: RE: [cgiapp] CGI::Application Logo
Hi Alex
OK. Bushfires are at a minimum, at least for the moment, so I have time to reply.
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 23:46 +0200, Alex wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I don't think that anyone who does such things like design as a
> professional would consider the logo any good. No offense to the
> effort creating one, but I would consider it an absolute failure.
> I have to admit, and I think I'm not the only one, that I'm not able
> do it any better. I such at designing things. But I would rather stick
> with the old logo, than inventing something much more worse.
Well, if you can't do better, then you can't really claim to speak on behalf of professionals.
> I think, when you proposed to make CA somewhat more visible to the
> world, you didn't indent to trigger negative reaction because the
> image looks like crap. Let's have a somewhat realistic look at the logo.
>
> It uses three colors. Corflowerblue (I think it's the name of the
It's SkyBlue, as used by Image::Magick.
> wannabe-blue in the background), red and yellow. The only purpose of
> these colors is to distract the viewers eyes. They do, because the
> colors don't stick together. It's like a car crash. It's damn ugly,
> but you can't look away. Sure, a car crash causes attention, people
> probably will talk about it, or even take a closer look. But the general intention is negative.
Nope. The purpose is to remind the viewer of the real world, where a reddish and yellow sun appears in a blue sky.
These colours are warm, friendly, and comforting, besides being universally familiar.
> It was a football player who said, that the round thing must fit in
> the square thing. But there isn't even a nice square thing. Omitting
> the blue background would be a start. Then the need to put the read
> font on white background for the CA lettering would not exists. Do you
> ever saw a professional web page with red font color on white
> background? Did you ever feel such thing would be easy to read? No (I
> hope). Even if there are error messages on a webpage that have a red
> font color, they have a dark background for the contrast. Mostly they
> don't use red, they use something like orange, or #b42e33 or wine.
Come one! It's not that hard to read, surely. It's for glancing at and, hopefully, recognizing. It's hardly a War and Peace type of thing.
And it's not meant to be a web page, but a logo on a web page. And given the likelihood the containing pages will soon be many and varied in colour, having a logo which does /not/ vanish because it's too similar to many web pages, can't be all bad.
> Then, what is the meaning of the round yellow-red thing? Are we
> related to sun? Is there any reason why it is a round thing? Why don't
> just pick a triangle? Or, totally unrelated to a plugin featuring
> framework, a puzzle piece?
Yes, it's the sun, as explained above. Perhaps that's just my Australian background peeking thru.
And if you wish to put the Freudian interpretation on it, that's it's a baby emerging from the womb, I certainly wouldn't mind, since Perl and CGI::App is our babies.
And let me repeat, these a positive, strong, and life-affirming connotations.
Compare that, for instance, with the obsolete-before-it-was-released, black-and-white, on the new perldoc web site: http://perldoc.perl.org/
Yuksville!
Of course, anyone can impose their own interpretations on it, anyway.
> It's not that I simply want to arbitrary flame your approach. I wish I
> could do it any better. I would spend you a new logo (for free, in
> mercy). But if I would try to make a logo now, it would be done in
> paint and have a similar look. I just really hope, that this logo
> won't make it to the official representative logo of CA - or any log representing CA.
I do appreciate that you're frank enough to say that.
But if you're not going to do it, who will? And do we need a new logo?
These are reasonable questions.
I deliberately aimed to avoid the mechanical connotations of the cog, even though it's based on the wheel, and thus bears some similarity to my design.
The problem with the old logo is precisely that mechanical/masculine look-and-feel. We don't need it - that's what I'm saying.
> So *please*, don't use this logo. Use the old one instead. Let it look
> like a machine, like a pluggable mechanism intended for use by geeks
> only. It's not that bad. On the contrary, I find it (the old one) really good.
Nobody /has/ to use it, and I would not go so far as to say my design is superb. It isn't. There's something lacking I agree. But since I'm not a graphic designed either, I have not yet worked out what needs to be fixed.
Nevertheless, I hope this discussion will propel others to dabble in similar experiments.
> That's my (personal) opinion on the logo.
Likewise.
> Regards, Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cgiapp-bounces at lists.openlib.org
> [mailto:cgiapp-bounces at lists.openlib.org] On Behalf Of Stephen
> Carville
> Sent: Samstag, 8. August 2009 18:17
> To: CGI Application
> Subject: Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application Logo
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ron Savage<ron at savage.net.au> wrote:
> > Hi Folks
> >
> > Here's a sample:
> >
> > http://savage.net.au/three.jpg
>
> Thanks. Here is an example of it in use. You won't be able to get
> past the login page but the remainder have a similar layout.
>
> http://www.totalflood.com/tf-check
>
> --
> Stephen Carville
>
> ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
> ## ##
> ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
> ## visit: http://lists.openlib.org/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
> ## ##
> ## Web archive: http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
> ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
> ## ##
> ################################################################
> Eingehende eMail ist virenfrei.
> Von AVG überprüft - www.avg.de
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virendatenbank: 270.13.47/2289 - Ausgabedatum:
> 08/07/09 18:37:00
>
>
> ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
> ## ##
> ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
> ## visit: http://lists.openlib.org/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
> ## ##
> ## Web archive: http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
> ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
> ## ##
> ################################################################
>
>
--
Ron Savage
ron at savage.net.au
http://savage.net.au/index.html
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://lists.openlib.org/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
Eingehende eMail ist virenfrei.
Von AVG überprüft - www.avg.de
Version: 8.5.392 / Virendatenbank: 270.13.58/2309 - Ausgabedatum: 08/17/09 06:08:00
More information about the cgiapp
mailing list