incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder <g.a.lau...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving ahead with the AOO logo and rebranding
Date Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:15:35 GMT
On Monday 09 Jan 2012 05:22:11 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 03:55 +1300, Graham Lauder wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 04 Jan 2012 11:14:53 Rob Weir wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > Hi Rob;
> >> > > 
> >> > > JIC someone with a lot of spare time gives a try
> >> > > on this logo thing ... I have some questions.
> >> > > 
> >> > > What would be the implications (if any) of using
> >> > > a legally licensed commercial font?
> >> > 
> >> > Our ability to use such a logo would depend on the specific terms of
> >> > the font license.
> >> > 
> >> > But in general, a commercial font license might lead to restrictions
> >> > on how we redistribute images using the font.  For example, we might
> >> > only be able to redistribute rasterized bitmaps of a logo, but not a
> >> > scalable vector image that included a font glyph definition as well.
> >> > A commercial font might also restrict who in the project is able to
> >> > modify the logo or create derivative logos for the benefit of the
> >> > project.
> >> > 
> >> > I'm not sure any of these are killer objections to the use of a
> >> > commercial font.  But I think we'd want a strong design reason for not
> >> > using a font with few or no restrictions.
> >> 
> >> +1, the old font was a commercial one: Frutiger, which caused all sorts
> >> of issues when being used by the community Artists.  There are plenty
> >> of similar fonts about.  The "best" solution was Liberation Sans at 60%
> >> IIRC.  But that was just to try and maintain the old logo look as close
> >> as possible.
> >> 
> >> My personal opinion is; if we can't bundle the font with the software
> >> then we shouldn't use it.    Of course, it should be added there is
> >> absolutely no reason why a font should be used at all in the main logo.
> >> Taglines and positioners perhaps and a free font should be used in
> >> things such as splashscreens, but the logo can be a graphic that looks
> >> like text.  I've added a couple of proposals based on a graphic that
> >> was created in a vector editor, no fonts used, created as needed.
> > 
> > On that last point I agree - and I suppose I started all this my
> > mentioning which font I used - the final is not font based, it is
> > paths...
> 
> If we don't need to scale the logo, then that is fine.  But text -- at
> least with high quality fonts -- is not scaled proportionately in the
> way you would a simple SVG shape.  In order to preserve a pleasing,
> balanced appearance at small and large sizes, real fonts do much more
> complicated things, e.g. "manual hinting".
> 
> If we want to have the optimal appearance, at various scales, then we
> may need to take this into account.
> 

Unnecessary, the old logo was fixed and always had been, it was never a line 
of text, it was a graphic made up of textual elements.  We are internet based, 
scaling is not really an issue as scaling ratios never get to even 25:1. 
Whereas is in print media and signwriting they are dealing in the 1000s.  If 
we get to the point of hanging the logo in Times Square we can deal with that 
issue when it arises.

Cheers
GL

Mime
View raw message