Discuss mailing list

[sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>]

>> > What looks a little too fancy is the color. What is the expected
>> > perceiption of it? I mean, colors are great. But they age and come out
>> > of style. Could your concept work with more conservative choice of
>> > color or even without colors?
> My view is that the colour is optional, and need not be immutable.  I
> would use it when colour was available and choose a colour to match
> whatever else was in the context.  We could change it with the seasons,
> or the average temperature of the surface of the earth, or whatever.
It's not that insignificant. Based on color effects, different colors
have different effects on users. To be a reliable alternative to ICANN,
one should consider some (not to bright) variations of blue, as this
classically implies clean, fresh, trustworthy or serious.

> I have also shown a very rough idea to further open the 'o' -- a bit
> more like the old logo.
So the bottommost one at the left side
(https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B0D2_zh4skGSd0xwRTI0RXJLNEU/edit?pli=1&docId=0B0D2_zh4skGSTFdqRzkyQXdJSFk)
seems to me like a start of integrating the old logo's partial open
circle (http://wiki.opennic.glue/), after all.

> Did you check
> that the fonts are free or under a license so that they can be used by
> the project?
Good point, should be considered.

Regards sjeap

Am 16.06.2012 19:56, schrieb Falk Husemann:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> something came to mind, when I thought about your logos. Did you check
> that the fonts are free or under a license so that they can be used by
> the project?
> 
> I don't know much about copyright and logo design. But how would this
> work legally, if we all love your logo?
> 
> Greets,
> Falk

Am 16.06.2012 18:56, schrieb Richard Lyons:
> I had been fiddling with it again, of course, when Falk's mail came in.
> I have simplified the shapes of the 'e' and 'n'.  I have also moved the
> "node" to the junction of "open" with "NIC"  -- the point at which
> "open" plugs in.  
> 
> I would keep the option to use either the two-line or the one-line
> version, depending on context.  The isolated small logotype with the
> node attached to the N can be read as oN, which sounds positive, and is
> the initials for Open Nic.  
> 
> The position of the node in the small logotype can be top left, even if
> the node slides to the two other locations when the whole logo is drawn.
> They are clearly all the same family.  Alternatively the node can be
> left centre in both the single-line version and the small logotype, and
> slide to the top only when the two-line version is used.  It should not
> be at the top for the small logotype, since then it reads "No", which is
> negative, and not the right order for Open Nic
> 
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 17:21:53 +0200, Falk Husemann wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> your try to express openness and networking looks good.
>>
>> I especially like the tries in thoughts3.pdf in the bottom on the left.
>> The open o really works out. Also the try with shadow/extrusion (on the
>> big N) works and gives the logo a little more plasticity.
> 
> I think the small check in the joint of the letters NIC is an artefact
> from the conversion to pdf or the rendering by google or by the browser.
> It was not intended.  I could look at a 3d effect, though I dont feel it
> is lacking.
> 
>>
>> What looks a little too fancy is the color. What is the expected
>> perceiption of it? I mean, colors are great. But they age and come out
>> of style. Could your concept work with more conservative choice of
>> color or even without colors?
> 
> My view is that the colour is optional, and need not be immutable.  I
> would use it when colour was available and choose a colour to match
> whatever else was in the context.  We could change it with the seasons,
> or the average temperature of the surface of the earth, or whatever. It
> has the advantage of adding focus, and emphasising the connection point
> between open and NIC.
> 
> I have added some colourless samples on the sketch thoughts4.pdf at the
> same URL
> https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B0D2_zh4skGSd0xwRTI0RXJLNEU/edit
> 
> I have also shown a very rough idea to further open the 'o' -- a bit
> more like the old logo.  I do not much like this at the moment.
> 
> richard

Am 16.06.2012 17:21, schrieb Falk Husemann:
> Hi there,
> 
> your try to express openness and networking looks good.
> 
> I especially like the tries in thoughts3.pdf in the bottom on the left.
> The open o really works out. Also the try with shadow/extrusion (on the
> big N) works and gives the logo a little more plasticity.
> 
> What looks a little too fancy is the color. What is the expected
> perceiption of it? I mean, colors are great. But they age and come out
> of style. Could your concept work with more conservative choice of
> color or even without colors?
> 
> My employer uses this since the 70's:
> 
> <http://irb.cs.tu-dortmund.de/images/IRB2.gif>
> 
> Keep up the great work! You seem to have a plan =)
> 
> Greets,
> Falk

Am 16.06.2012 17:17, schrieb Richard Lyons:
>> > Could you check the links, please?
> Can't understand what happened there.  It worked last night.  Maybe
> because I was just switched to google's "drive" from "documents"
> 
> Try this:
> https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B0D2_zh4skGSd0xwRTI0RXJLNEU/edit
> 
> It should be a folder with both the earlier and later versions.
> 
> richard

Am 16.06.2012 14:14, schrieb sjeap:
> Hello Richard,
> 
> Could you check the links, please?
> 
> Regards sjeap
> 
> Am 16.06.2012 00:21, schrieb Richard Lyons:
>> > curses.  I forgot to give the new url.
>> > 
>> > It is
>> > 
>> >     https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0D2_zh4skGSWWlDWWRucGtYVXM/
>> > 
>> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 20:02:24 +0100, Richard Lyons wrote:
>> > 
>>> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 17:03:03 +0200, sjeap wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >>> These are some good drafts for the logo, nice work. I would like to
>>>> >>> propose a combination of the second bottommost one at the left side
>>>> >>> (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0D2_zh4skGSelBVdTFNbUM4U1E/) and 
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> logo's partial open circle (http://wiki.opennic.glue/). That would 
>>>> >>> look
>>>> >>> much better than the current (really huge) one at
>>>> >>> http://www.opennicproject.org/.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't immediately see how to combine the style of the two logos.  
>>> >>
>>> >> However, I have made a couple of minor changes:
>>> >>
>>> >> I have "opened" the "o" and also added the corresponding version in a
>>> >> single line.  The lower left hand box contains the normal reversed and
>>> >> single-line versions of that idea, and the "oN" logotype in the bottom
>>> >> right would be its favicon, avatar, symbol mode. The shape is
>>> >> sufficiently idiosyncratic that all versions could be used in
>>> >> appropriate circumstances.  The logotype can be seen as a node in the
>>> >> corner, or as a small 'o' overlapping the capital 'N', or as some sort
>>> >> of highlight.  It serves as a unique identifying detail obviously. 
>>> >>
>>> >> In this example, I have also reduced the sixe of the "NIC" slightly,
>>> >> only in the reverse (white-on-black) version.  If this idea were
>>> >> persued, that would probably be a good idea.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anyway, I won't waste any more time on that doodle unless people think
>>> >> it is worth refining.  Some of the spacing is crap. 
>> > 
>> > The doodle is here
>> > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0D2_zh4skGSWWlDWWRucGtYVXM/
>> > 
>>> >>
>>> >> richard
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: [opennic-discuss] OpenNIC website
> Datum: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:03:03 +0200
> Von: sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>
> Antwort an: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> An: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>> > These are some good drafts for the logo, nice work. I would like to
>> > propose a combination of the second bottommost one at the left side
>> > (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0D2_zh4skGSelBVdTFNbUM4U1E/) and the
>> > logo's partial open circle (http://wiki.opennic.glue/). That would look
>> > much better than the current (really huge) one at
>> > http://www.opennicproject.org/.
>> > 
>> > Regards sjeap
>> > 
>> > Am 15.06.2012 12:46, schrieb Richard Lyons:
>>>> >> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:20:48 +0100, Peter Green wrote:
>>>> >> > 
>>>>>> >>> >> I'm happy to have a go at replacing the new logo with an 
>>>>>> >>> >> updated old one, I agree, it would be better.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > Has someone got the old one handy?  
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > I was pondering along other lines, following comments on another 
>>>> >> > thread
>>>> >> > and did a couple of preliminary doodles
>>>> >> >     https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0D2_zh4skGSelBVdTFNbUM4U1E
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > My intentions being 
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> >  1 to express "open" in a rather simplistic way
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> >  2 to have am extractable mini-logo for favicons, etc.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> >  3 in the later doodles to express "network" (also in a simplistic 
>>>> >> > way)
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > I don't know if that is useful to anybody.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > Richard