Hi,
Little bit of a different thread today--but something's been kind of biting at me over the last couple of weeks and I thought it'd be best to get it out there :)
What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and being consistent with it?
I'm not suggesting a drastic change, like substituting puppies for the flower. I'm looking at a more subtle change, as in moving from our current logo to something like[0]. Originally, I didn't like the SVG version but over time it's managed to grow on me quite a bit. Although, I stil think the text could use tweaking, something closer to the current color would be nice. There's a couple of pretty big reasons I think we should switch to this (or something like it):
1) It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design ideas) takes care of that. 2) It fits much nicer with the other WMF logos (other than the puzzle globe, which will never match :) 3) We've already started selling stickers based on the SVG version[1], so it might be good to update it on MediaWiki.org to match.
So...thoughts? Should we do this more formal-like in an RfC or something? Other colors you'd like to paint the bikeshed?
-Chad
[0] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2.svg [1] http://shop.wikimedia.org/products/wikimedia-project-stickers-pack-of-12
On 12 June 2012 22:47, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and being consistent with it?
Very little, I'd hope. I think the SVG rendering is horrible compared to the photo version.
- It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at
higher resolutions,
Well, it will if you scale it up from 135px ... the original photo's in pretty darned high resolution.
and at lower ends becomes rather featureless.
Would pixel-tweaking help? What applications are you thinking of?
- d.
I support that fully. On Jun 12, 2012 5:48 PM, "Chad" innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Little bit of a different thread today--but something's been kind of biting at me over the last couple of weeks and I thought it'd be best to get it out there :)
What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and being consistent with it?
I'm not suggesting a drastic change, like substituting puppies for the flower. I'm looking at a more subtle change, as in moving from our current logo to something like[0]. Originally, I didn't like the SVG version but over time it's managed to grow on me quite a bit. Although, I stil think the text could use tweaking, something closer to the current color would be nice. There's a couple of pretty big reasons I think we should switch to this (or something like it):
- It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at
higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design ideas) takes care of that. 2) It fits much nicer with the other WMF logos (other than the puzzle globe, which will never match :) 3) We've already started selling stickers based on the SVG version[1], so it might be good to update it on MediaWiki.org to match.
So...thoughts? Should we do this more formal-like in an RfC or something? Other colors you'd like to paint the bikeshed?
-Chad
[0] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2.svg [1] http://shop.wikimedia.org/products/wikimedia-project-stickers-pack-of-12
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I support this, for all the reasons listed below. I don't think I can find any problem in doing so either...
-- Lewis Cawte
On 12/06/2012 22:47, Chad wrote:
Hi,
Little bit of a different thread today--but something's been kind of biting at me over the last couple of weeks and I thought it'd be best to get it out there :)
What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and being consistent with it?
I'm not suggesting a drastic change, like substituting puppies for the flower. I'm looking at a more subtle change, as in moving from our current logo to something like[0]. Originally, I didn't like the SVG version but over time it's managed to grow on me quite a bit. Although, I stil think the text could use tweaking, something closer to the current color would be nice. There's a couple of pretty big reasons I think we should switch to this (or something like it):
- It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at
higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design ideas) takes care of that. 2) It fits much nicer with the other WMF logos (other than the puzzle globe, which will never match :) 3) We've already started selling stickers based on the SVG version[1], so it might be good to update it on MediaWiki.org to match.
So...thoughts? Should we do this more formal-like in an RfC or something? Other colors you'd like to paint the bikeshed?
-Chad
[0] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki_logo_reworked_2.svg [1] http://shop.wikimedia.org/products/wikimedia-project-stickers-pack-of-12
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 13/06/12 07:47, Chad wrote:
- It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at
higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design ideas) takes care of that.
In the proposed logo, the lines between the petals are hard to see at 135px, and are almost invisible at 75px. With no shading, it just looks like a yellow blob.
The solid brown circle in the middle draws the eye, it seems large and dominating, and it doesn't match the colour of the original.
I'm not opposed to switching to a vector logo, I just think we should try to do a proper job of it, say by contracting a graphic designer. It doesn't need to be expensive.
I don't know what file you're using as a source when you scale up the logo: I couldn't find Brion's full-resolution original on Commons. It's in /trunk/artwork in Subversion, admittedly only at 612px width, still too small for print, but definitely better than trying to scale it up from 135px.
-- Tim Starling
On 13/06/12 10:03, Tim Starling wrote:
I don't know what file you're using as a source when you scale up the logo: I couldn't find Brion's full-resolution original on Commons. It's in /trunk/artwork in Subversion, admittedly only at 612px width, still too small for print, but definitely better than trying to scale it up from 135px.
I converted it to PNG and uploaded it to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mediawiki-large.png
-- Tim Starling
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 13/06/12 07:47, Chad wrote:
- It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at
higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design ideas) takes care of that.
In the proposed logo, the lines between the petals are hard to see at 135px, and are almost invisible at 75px. With no shading, it just looks like a yellow blob.
The solid brown circle in the middle draws the eye, it seems large and dominating, and it doesn't match the colour of the original.
Indeed, it could use some cleanup. That being said, I like the original *intent* of it.
I'm not opposed to switching to a vector logo, I just think we should try to do a proper job of it, say by contracting a graphic designer. It doesn't need to be expensive.
We've also got quite a few talented graphic artists amongst the community, as well as a couple of people inside the Foundation who are good at this too. Perhaps we should see what they can come up with first :)
I don't know what file you're using as a source when you scale up the logo: I couldn't find Brion's full-resolution original on Commons. It's in /trunk/artwork in Subversion, admittedly only at 612px width, still too small for print, but definitely better than trying to scale it up from 135px.
It would seem a product of me using a poorly sized image and expecting it to scale. The example in your followup e-mail does look fine at larger resolutions.
-Chad
2012/6/13 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and being consistent with it?
I like the general idea of moving to SVG, but the current SVG image is too blocky.
Something like [1] with less blocky petals may change my mind.
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikitech-logo.png
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Agreed. If we want to do this, then it needs to be done right.
I fully support the idea of switching to a fully SVG logo as well though. Vectors are almost always the proper choice for logos.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
-----Original Message----- From: wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Amir E. Aharoni Sent: 13 June 2012 02:29 To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Changing the MediaWiki logo?
2012/6/13 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and being consistent with it?
I like the general idea of moving to SVG, but the current SVG image is too blocky.
Something like [1] with less blocky petals may change my mind.
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikitech-logo.png
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Chad wrote: <snip>
What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and being consistent with it?
That was asked back in Nov 2010:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/5063...
I haven't change my mind: if we want to clone the existing one, make sure the end result is colourful and as good as the current one.
Organizing a logo context, just like we did for the Wikipedia logo, is probably the best idea. Thanks Trevor for remembering us about it.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Chad wrote:
<snip> > What support would there be for changing the MediaWiki logo and > being consistent with it?
That was asked back in Nov 2010:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/5063...
I haven't change my mind: if we want to clone the existing one, make sure the end result is colourful and as good as the current one.
Organizing a logo context, just like we did for the Wikipedia logo, is probably the best idea. Thanks Trevor for remembering us about it.
I think a contest may indeed be in order then :)
-Chad
On 13 June 2012 21:29, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Organizing a logo context, just like we did for the Wikipedia logo, is probably the best idea. Thanks Trevor for remembering us about it.
I think a contest may indeed be in order then :)
The key objection last time was that the current logo looks alive, all proposed replacements look dead. Just please note that for the contest ...
- d.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 21:29, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Organizing a logo context, just like we did for the Wikipedia logo, is probably the best idea. Thanks Trevor for remembering us about it.
I think a contest may indeed be in order then :)
The key objection last time was that the current logo looks alive, all proposed replacements look dead. Just please note that for the contest ...
So we'll have some contingency in the rules saying "if they all suck, we'll just stick with the current one." Easy enough.
-Chad
On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Chad wrote:
I think a contest may indeed be in order then :)
Clearly more unicorns are required.
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org