commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: Updating the logo
Date Sat, 07 Sep 2019 18:25:10 GMT

Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 19:47, sebb <> a écrit :
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 18:28, Gilles Sadowski <> wrote:
> >
> > 2019-09-07 19:11 UTC+02:00, sebb <>:
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > I think we should point out that we already have some suggestions for
> > > the main logo in
> > > If some or all of those are acceptable, then that will save some work.
> > >
> > > I don't think we necessarily need to incorporate the feather in the
> > > component logos, but we should ask about that.
> >
> > If not for the feather, what do we have to identify "Commons"
> > with Apache?
> The current page layout has two logos:
> Commons on the left, with the feather.
> (This needs to be replaced, as it is ancient)

We seem to differ in what a logo is/should be.  IMO, on
that page, the "logo" is the feather.  The combination with
a URL and a name makes a sort of "header" (and it is used
as such on the web page).

I was wary of endless discussions, so I based my version of
the new logo on the foundation's new graphics for the feather
but without changing the main idea of the logo, i.e. I left
Commons's feather in the same position as on that page.

> It clearly associates Commons with Apache.

Well, if according to the new "visual indentity" rules, we must
keep the feather in the same position, that will be Apache's
logo, not Commons'.

> The component logo is on the right.
> Many of these don't have feathers, but are they used stand-alone?

I dont understand what you mean by "standalone".
All the components's logos are a combination of the text "Commons"
and something specific to the component (most often just its "base"
What I suggest is basically the same: a combination of the
"Commons" logo (to be provided by Sally's team) and something
each component will have to come up with.

If not for that, what would be a component's logo?
Just the text ("rng", "math", "lang", ...) is fairly boring (and it is *not*
a logo, per the definition I use).

> > IMO, the main requirement should be that the logo for Commons
> > can be easily combined to create logos for the various components.
> Perhaps, but that might make the logo rather busy.

Not if we have a good (TM) logo.
[Conversely, if it looks crowded, that's a sure indication that the logo
is not good.]

> If the logos are to be used on the website only, then I see no need to
> combine them.

See the visual identity document which Mark provided, for all kinds
of uses.  A good logo must look fine in all these situations.  [And whether
we'll actually ever want to print it on a T-shirt is irrelevant to its quality.]


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message