struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "" <>
Subject Re: New logo
Date Fri, 07 Mar 2014 06:40:59 GMT
The Logo looks nice. Has a slight reference to the art work of M.C. 
Escher. Great work.

Blue is always nice ;-)

The typography however gives the whole logo a not too modern touch, 
because it uses letters with serifs. I wonder if this will match nicely 
with the serif free home page of struts 2?

Best regards
Markus Fischer

Am 07.03.2014 06:50, schrieb Lukasz Lenart:
> Link if attachment is missing
> 2014-03-07 0:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Pratt <>:
>> I must have missed it, I don't see anything??
>>    (*Chris*)
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Lukasz Lenart <>wrote:
>>> Work continues, 3rd version of logo, wdyt? I think dark-blue version
>>> would be also nice.
>>> 2013-11-26 8:59 GMT+01:00 Lukasz Lenart <>:
>>>> I have passed your comment to designer - anyway we have time and we
>>>> can always start over when the first logo won't be good enough ;-)
>>>> Reagrds
>>>> --
>>>> Łukasz
>>>> + 48 606 323 122
>>>> 2013/11/24 Rene Gielen <>:
>>>>> Am 20.11.13 14:52, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:
>>>>>> On 12 Nov 2013, at 16:51, Lukasz Lenart wrote:
>>>>>>> 2013/11/12 Cameron Morris <>:
>>>>>>>> I love the look of steampunk and rickety old bridges, but
I think it
>>>>>>>> sends
>>>>>>>> the wrong message for a project fighting the perception of
being old
>>> and
>>>>>>>> legacy.  I'd say the more modern looking the better.  However,
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> more modern bridges look so space age it might be hard to
tell that
>>> they
>>>>>>>> are bridges if they are made into a small icon.  Perhaps
some of
>>> these
>>>>>>>> might spark an idea:
>>>>>>> Hmm... you know everything new someday will be old anyway ;-)
>>>>>>> rather say let's focus on having cool logo and not the message
>>>>>>> sends ;-)
>>>>>> +1 on the cool logo NOW instead of wasting more time.
>>>>>> Its always funny with us devs. We have a crap logo for years.
>>>>>> Somebody shows up and contributes a fantastic logo (compared to the
>>>>>> other one).
>>>>>> Suddenly all devs become designers and social media communicators.
>>>>> You are right with our out-of-style old logo, and that things should
>>>>> change here. But why exactly are we in such a hurry? Going too long with
>>>>> an old logo does not mean that a new logo should replace the old one
>>>>> soon as it is just "better". IMHO we would want to replace it with
>>>>> something that satisfies us for years. It should be cool and catchy now
>>>>> and in five years. "Fantastic compared to the other one" is IMO not
>>>>> enough. Do we want old-time users to be surprised to find better logo
>>>>> now, or do we want anyone stumbling over our site or a Zeroturnaround
>>>>> web frameworks survey to think "hey man, nice logo!"?
>>>>> I'm not a social media designer, and for that reason I need to interact
>>>>> with a designer. I need inspiration and suggestions to formulate in turn
>>>>> which directions to go for the next iteration. Since I'm not a designer,
>>>>> I'm for sure too lame with my own cool logo proposal.
>>>>> Over all the years I was involved with design tasks, I've seen design
>>>>> emerge after some iterations in a process similar to what I outlined
>>>>> above. I have never ever experienced being given a first proposal that
>>>>> makes it directly to production.
>>>>>> Personally I am super-happy that we have such a great proposal.
>>>>>> And if we don't have another option (one of us devs IS a designer
>>>>>> does some work)
>>>>>> we should definitely consider it.
>>>>> I'm super happy with the work being done, and I like some of the ideas
>>>>> incorporated in the first proposals. I like the fact that someone steps
>>>>> up and is kind enough to donate work and creativity, and I am super
>>>>> thankful for that - and, to be honest, it makes me bit shy to provide
>>>>> too much criticism, especially since it is not my profession the actual
>>>>> work is all about.
>>>>> I went back and forth many times the last two weeks to think and
>>>>> re-think if I like the logo, how it might be seen, and what well founded
>>>>> criticism I could give. In my review I tried to both incorporate what
>>>>> as a non-professional know about design, as well as what I as a
>>>>> "professional design recipient" (read: consumer) feel when I see the
>>> logo.
>>>>> Some of my thoughts:
>>>>> Most common to me seems a combination of a dedicated logo icon with a
>>>>> clean writing for the brand, or just an elaborate writing without logo
>>>>> icon. From time to time you see some font gimmickry to make a pure
>>>>> writing recognizable. But I have failed so far to come up with a example
>>>>> for a iconified design building a writing and a font design.
>>>>> Have a look at those two sites (scroll to bottom on both)
>>>>> There a good bunch of logos, both of companies and open source projects,
>>>>> that look cool, clean and modern, yet timeless.
>>>>> If you want to follow newest hipster logo trends,
>>>>> might be a source for inspiration. Nevertheless, this seems to be not
>>>>> much on the timeless side...
>>>>> That said and reviewed many times during last week, I'm more in favor
>>>>> for the combination of an icon symbol combined with with a clean and
>>>>> modern typographic font for the brand name Struts.
>>>>> Stepping back a bit when viewing the proposed designs, what strikes me
>>>>> most is that iconified graphic elements are used to construct a font.
>>>>> How does this font look like? It does not seem to follow all of the well
>>>>> established rules for font design. If you color it completely black from
>>>>> the outline and reduce it to the font shape, it does not look like very
>>>>> "clean" typography, even a bit clunky. But besides (or even more than?)
>>>>> graphical details and tasteful colouring, the shape makes the first
>>>>> impression to a viewer. I doubt that it is a good idea to bind the font
>>>>> shape of a writing to iconified graphics as building blocks, as this
>>>>> limits how elaborate the typographic shape itself will look like.
>>>>> Designing a font is a science by itself, you can find tons of
>>>>> information on the web. Just for some reading giving an impression:
>>>>> As for me, this breaks down to: I have tried to like it, but - as
>>>>> proposed so far - I don't. This is my honest personal view. And I also
>>>>> think it is a great starting point to go into design iteration. It
>>>>> teases me to think, it gives the inspiration someone like me needs to
>>>>> imagine and maybe phrase what he thinks the final logo (or a next step)
>>>>> should look like.
>>>>> Earlier in this discussion, Dave came up with an interesting Google
>>>>> search for an isolated logo icon to maybe be combined with a clean brand
>>>>> writing:
>>>>> Those two for example could be excellent templates for an iconified logo
>>>>> graphic:
>>>>> Also a very reduced and iconified bridge could be interesting for a logo
>>>>> icon.
>>>>> I suck badly at crafting graphics, but if time permits I'll give it a
>>>>> try to express my thoughts in some graphical draft. But basically my
>>>>> overall thoughts go into a direction like the Typesafe or Hazelcast
>>> logos.
>>>>>> As far as I understood it, this contribution is backed by Lukasz
>>>>>> company. I am very grateful
>>>>>> for the huge effort they already put into this.
>>>>> +1
>>>>>> Instead of discussing completely new approaches and ideas which might
>>>>>> lead to even more discussion,
>>>>>> we all should answer these two question:
>>>>>> 1) Can you live with the proposal logo?
>>>>> just me: actually no, but it's a great start :)
>>>>>> 2) If yes, do you prefer the dark or the bright version?
>>>>>> My answer to 1) is YES!!!!
>>>>>> My answer to 2) I LOVE BOTH
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Łukasz
>>>>>>> + 48 606 323 122
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> @grobmeier
>>>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> --
>>>>> René Gielen
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> --
>>> Łukasz
>>> + 48 606 323 122
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message