[Qgis-developer] Final Logo Pick

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Larry Shaffer <larrys at dakotacarto.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Tim Sutton <lists at linfiniti.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Larry Shaffer <larrys at dakotacarto.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Tim Sutton <lists at linfiniti.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> I have to say when I compare them to our existing logo, none of them
>> >> really do it for me. Perhaps we need a new mandate to freshen our
>> >> exisiting logo rather than to try to create something new. Our current
>> >> logo may have issues but it is:
>
> ------snip 8< -------------------------
>>
>> > Sorry, again, but I think the current logo falls far short of those
>> > goals,
>> > and any focus on revamping it is just prolonging the inevitable decision
>> > to
>> > move to a better one.
>>
>>
>> Just to clarify - I am not opposed to replacing the logo at all. I
>> just want to replace it with something that properly addresses our
>> needs rather than taking an option we are not happy with simply
>> because of the 99designs competition deadline. Currently there isn't
>> an entry in my opinion that does this - for me anyway.
>
>
> I agree 100% that a logo should not be settled upon, but happily selected,
> regardless of any competition deadline. It's a very important decision. I
> have a couple of ideas to overcome the current impasse:
>
> 1) Run off - Currently there seems to be two popular designs, but a general
> consensus that neither is the 'right' one. There could be a short-term 'run
> off' competition that allows those two designers to try and come up with
> better designs, in an attempt to find a good solution for 2.0 release.
> Again, this should not mean the result has to be binding, i.e. the winner's
> logo used.
>
> 2) Use current logo - For 2.0 release, just use the current logo, as is.
> After 2.0 release, I suggest the forming of an design committee to manage
> another go at finding a new logo, and for the reasons mentioned below.
>
> 3) Design committee - Kudos to Nathan for his efforts on the competition and
> getting everyone involved in the process. In retrospect I think a logo by
> popular consensus, as a means of getting to final logo selections, may not
> be the best course of action. In many organizations there are people with
> design background or knowledge who work on making the initial selections to
> bring to the community or those who make decisions.
>
> For example, the popular #50 has a inherent design flaw of being 95% black,
> even though the rest of the design is OK. Such a committee could have
> spotted this early on and asked the designer to work on a fix, before the
> logo was presented to the community/PSC to vote on.
>
> I suggest such a committee be formed and comprised of 3-5 people who's job
> is to manage and make initial decisions on:
>
> * Project logo, design style, fonts
> * Marketing material design style
> * Documentation/web site template style and fonts
> * Program's general icons, toolbar icons, splash screen and style
>
> A design committee will allow a cohesive 'look' for all parts of the project
> to start taking shape. The committee should probably answer to and be under
> the purview of the PSC marketing advisor, and have specific abilities
> bestowed upon it members to vote internally to act on smaller decisions
> without needing full PSC approval.
>
> Basically, I feel design by community popular vote is not a good approach:
> too many cooks in the kitchen. This committee could be formed now, with an
> initial goal of handling the current logo situation. While personally I have
> a lot of design experience and would like to be on such a committee, I
> understand my current conflict of interest regarding the logo, and would
> recuse myself regarding its decision.
>
> An active community member who has clear public examples of quality,
> design-oriented work would be Anita Graser. So, I would nominate her to be
> on such a committee.
>

That all sounds like a very reasonable approach. I think this kind of
filtering would be good as in retrospect there was such a high noise
to signal ratio in the design competition I didn't find the process
worked well for me. Hats off to Nathan for all the effort he put into
it, but a more filtered and considered approach as described above
sounds good. It would be also good to have a more rigorous set of
criteria - the emotional response to a logo should be the last part of
the process not the first, basic design principles should first be
ticked off.

+1 on your suggestions above

Regards


Tim


> Regards,
>
> Larry
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tim



--
Tim Sutton - QGIS Project Steering Committee Member (Release  Manager)
==============================================
Please do not email me off-list with technical
support questions. Using the lists will gain
more exposure for your issues and the knowledge
surrounding your issue will be shared with all.

Visit http://linfiniti.com to find out about:
 * QGIS programming and support services
 * Mapserver and PostGIS based hosting plans
 * FOSS Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux
Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
==============================================