Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Logo contest"

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
You can see well this logo also when it's little. [[Image:Free.png|75px]]--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 22:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)
 
You can see well this logo also when it's little. [[Image:Free.png|75px]]--[[User:Bob4|Bob4]] 22:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)
 +
 +
: Nice, just a tad sharp -- can it be made to look less aggressive?--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 22:54, 22 May 2006 (CEST)

Revision as of 22:54, 22 May 2006

I think, that before we start such a contest we should discuss future logo policy. I do not particularly like idea of having two logos instead of one. This seems to be diluting "brand recognition" without any special gains.JaroslawLipszyc 01:17, 3 May 2006 (CEST)

Who like my logos? :) I'm working on others. ;)--Bob4 10:37, 21 May 2006 (CEST)

I like them, esp. FC3.png -- but I'd prefer them to be more visually distinct from the Debian logo: openlogo-nd-50.png --Erik Möller 11:43, 21 May 2006 (CEST)
Ok, I understand. I will modify that image. --Bob4 12:18, 21 May 2006 (CEST)
Erik, what about this? FC10.png --Bob4 16:48, 21 May 2006 (CEST)
Interesting - nice pastel colors, but will that approach work in grayscale? I might prefer the "petals" to flow into each other, using transparency and perhaps turning off the gray border. I have to admit I don't like the bounding box very much in this version. The black lines on the lower left look like a barcode, making the whole picture look a bit like a package ready to be sold. Perhaps try some radical variations here (circles instead of rectangles etc.)? I think the logo still would need a certain whoomp, something to make it stand out -- perspective perhaps, or color (the fact that you use pastels would let some high saturaton color stand out).--Erik Möller 00:55, 22 May 2006 (CEST)
A logo must be simple, because you see a little logo: I'll think to a more simple logo. --Bob4 01:22, 22 May 2006 (CEST)

You can see well this logo also when it's little. Free.png--Bob4 22:06, 22 May 2006 (CEST)

Nice, just a tad sharp -- can it be made to look less aggressive?--Erik Möller 22:54, 22 May 2006 (CEST)