[Mageia-artwork] [RFC] Proposed logo guidelines

Romain d'Alverny rdalverny at gmail.com
Wed Jan 19 10:49:10 CET 2011


On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 01:28, Olivier FAURAX <olivier at faurax.fr> wrote:
> Le 18/01/2011 00:31, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 00:02, Caroline Garlatti <cgarlatti at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Le dimanche 9 janvier 2011 17:52:28, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
>>> Indeed, I was working on it. You can see my first draft here:
>>> http://www.kalypo.com/share/
>>> We have tried to:
>>> - rebalance the logo: increase the size of the text and reduce the cauldron
>> Actually, the size of the text made smaller relative to the cauldron
>> (see http://blog.mageia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mageia_logo.jpg
>> ) :-p
> Yes, the cauldron is bigger, but also wider.

Well, that's the other way around. :-) The text has been made smaller,
to have the "m" aligned within the inner border of the cauldron
(that's an important setting in this realignement), and the same "m"
has been used to set the space around the icon (crucial setting too).

> The cauldron border size was took from the size of the letter (bottom
> border of the "e"), the new version breaks the link between the cauldron
> and letter size.

Yes, but it will anyway if we change the font (and that may be an
option). I understand that the initial link makes sense, and that's a
good way to build the icon, but that too can be an intermediary step
and the icon may live on its own later on (that is, the icon strutural
definition may stand alone, separate from the initial "e").

> To me, this suggests that the name an "annex" of the logo, like if ti
> was of less importance.

Not of less importance, but balanced/contrasted; it makes both more
remarkable: the icon is not a letter, but a distinctive sign, that may
be on the left, or above the text.

May be it can be rebalanced again, but you can't have a name that
outweights the icon. Plus, negative space (around the full logo,
around/between each of its components) is crucial.

>>> - introduce a color . This proposal offers the possibility to have one logo but
>>> different color for each group (cf- Romain's mail_brand/logo management,
>>> official/derivative)
> We need to know where we are going with colors.
> Do we have some input from marcom ?

Not at this point. We'll add this point to discuss in the marcom
meeting on Thursday. However we must go fast; or (it's likely to be
this way given the time constraint) we will have a collector edition
of tee-shirts for FOSDEM (understand it as, with a logo that is not
the final official one). That may sound problematic at first, but it's
not; time goes on and we already did that (have Mageia tee shirts with
a temporary identity) for OWF back in October; and the
finalized/updated logo will replace all instances.

> I made some tests during the logo elaboration :
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ofaurax/5118935357/in/set-72157625195368021/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ofaurax/5119536536/in/set-72157625195368021/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ofaurax/5159964096/in/set-72157625195368021/
> The blue and orange are ok, but seems childish to me (I imagine them on
> a toy).
> It's ok if we don't want to suggest something "rock-solid" or corporate.

Define "corporate", "childish"; it's like "pro" or "commercial" it's a
word that's become difficult to define, especially since most of its
usage is in a negative, contradictory or depreciative context.

So I would rather prefer we stay out of subjective interpretations
first and build from a similar set of rules as for the logo: initial
intentions, some strict requirements, open tracks, and see what comes
from this. That is, we build and define the story behind the logo,
rather than only leave it open to interpretations from here and there.

As an exemple of requirement: do not use or rely on Mandriva colour
scheme (blue/orange/yellow); or of any other major Linux distribution.
It does not prevent to use the same colours, but it requires to do so
in a really distinctive manner/rearrangement.

> Note that the bubble in orange seems more natural, as we expect lighter
> colors for bubbles.
> For the letters, perhaps we might color "m", "g" and "a" of "mageia", as
> this is its package suffix.

I'm not sure we should go further than marking more than one letter
(or even a single one, actually). It makes the full logo confusing. It
may still be relevant for bubbles/i-dot.

>> With the time, I don't know if the color-coding will be enough to
>> differentiate official/derivative uses.
> I think that color is not enough to differentiate.
> We'll discussed that in another thread.


> - changed the font : this one is less wide (the "e" is no more rounded)

That was voluntary, because we wanted to use the same font for
headlines ; in some context, it's easier not to have to change the
font default properties. Or, it requires to have a precise track of
what has been altered so it can be reproduced.

> - filled the bubbles
> The new border size of the cauldron with the filling of the bubbles
> makes the icon heavier, especially the bubbles (I don't imagine tham
> popping anymore).

The gradient may contribute to the popping/lightness effect, no?

> I think that we need to fill them, or at least put a color in them, but
> we might not lose the lightness of them (as this represents the boiling
> of ideas).

On the other hand, filling them makes the whole icon less complex
(that's especially relevant for small size icons).

>> Anyway, we have two interesting refinement directions I guess:
>>  - caroline, with the gradient, filled-in bubbles, and color uses,
>>  - alexn83, with the font change (alexn83, I don't remeber, do you
>> have the font reference, or is it reworked?) and the match of the i
>> point with the bubbles
> I'll try to put my remarks in another refinement as a showcase, if I
> find some time.



More information about the Mageia-artwork mailing list