update_4

[jmak]

On 7/14/06, Luzi Thoeny <lucius.antonius at gmail.com> wrote:
> jmak wrote:
> >
> > If you look at them carefully they represent the same kind of
> > modifications I did with our logo.
> I don't agree on this point. To me, the new logos you proposed do not
> look like the same logo anymore, because (1) your proposals so far did
> not keep the colors of the original logo, unlike the new proposals for
> ubuntu that you linked to,

That link was intended to show that the other flavors too are
exploring things toward the glossy direction. I just found it
yesterday. When I started experimenting with our logo I didn't even
know that existed.

But even if I would have known I wouldn't have designed a clone of it.
Because both logo is different and you cannot just copy things
mindlessly.

Our logo has a muted blue, which doesn't really give itself to the wet
look like the orange, or the neon colors. That's why I went for the
more contrasty look chromy look.

And please, note that I've never said that these were final pieces. I
consider them only as explorations.


>and (2) I feel that the 3d glass effects are
> somewhat overdone, so that they jump into your eye instead of subtly
> 'enhancing' it.

What's wrong with that. Isn't one of the purpose of a logo to jump
into your face? Look at the Apple, Novell, and Adobe logos, for
instance. The purpose of the logo is to burn an associative image or
icon of the product in the mind of the costumer. And this you cannot
do subtly, especially nowadays when logos and images are dripping even
from the kitchen tap.


>
> That's just my private opinion, though, so don't take it too seriously.
> It's just normal that when you show some work of yours to the public,
> that you will get positive feedback from some people and negative
> feedback from others.
>

I personally like constructive criticism. Because that's how things
improve. But just saying that logo has to be flat, or this or that
color, or it cannot have shadow or the likes are not very
constructive. Rather than saying how a new suggestion would fit into a
larger scheme of things would be more useful.

Otherwise, there is no problem at all.

J. Mak
-- 
http://jozmak.googlepages.com/