Squeak logo refreshing (was: [squeak-dev] Reminder hackontest.ch)

[cedrick beler]

I'm sorry to open this thread again...  but seeing the page of hackontest (http://www.hackontest.ch/)...and all other open source logo.. I find squeak a bit outdated and this contrasts even more when in the first sentence, you can read " Squeak is a modern, open source full-featured implementation of the powerful Smalltalk programming ..."

squeak logo
http://www.hackontest.ch/resource/.thumblogo/SqueakLogo.png

I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a 3D look maybe could be nice, and will also fit squeak evolution with croquet for instance...

there could some similarities with the gimp icon... but with a mouse instead ;)
http://www.hackontest.ch/resource/.thumblogo/wilber_1.png

Are there any 3D artist there ?
Could the board manage this move ?

Thanks

Cédrick

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 07.05.2008, at 12:14, cdrick wrote:

> I'm sorry to open this thread again...  but seeing the page of  
> hackontest (http://www.hackontest.ch/)...and all other open source  
> logo.. I find squeak a bit outdated and this contrasts even more  
> when in the first sentence, you can read " Squeak is a modern, open  
> source full-featured implementation of the powerful Smalltalk  
> programming ..."
>
> squeak logo
> http://www.hackontest.ch/resource/.thumblogo/SqueakLogo.png

Well, that's a poor rendition. It's the T-Shirt version reduced to  
icon size, which of course looks poor, in particular in black on a  
dark gray background as on the page you mentioned. WHen scaled down  
properly from the original vector art, you would increase stroke width  
which makes it look a lot better at small sizes. See below.

> I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a 3D  
> look maybe could be nice, and will also fit squeak evolution with  
> croquet for instance...
>
> there could some similarities with the gimp icon... but with a mouse  
> instead ;)
> http://www.hackontest.ch/resource/.thumblogo/wilber_1.png
>
> Are there any 3D artist there ?
> Could the board manage this move ?
>
> Thanks

There are 3d-ish renditions of the logo:

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/SqueakMacGold-bf.1.png
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/Squeaky160-bf.png
http://hw001.gate01.com/~thoru/squeak/img/slogo0.gif







- Bert -

[Karl-19]

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>
> There are 3d-ish renditions of the logo:
>
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/SqueakMacGold-bf.1.png
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/Squeaky160-bf.png
> http://hw001.gate01.com/~thoru/squeak/img/slogo0.gif
These are nicer that the plain flat one. The Squeaky160 seems to look to
the side, maybe it's the color of the eye that make it look like that.
The logo is kind of tricky because the highlight of the eyes is not a
highlight of the 3d rendering.

Karl

[cedrick beler]

2008/5/7 karl <karl.ramberg@...>:

Bert Freudenberg wrote:

There are 3d-ish renditions of the logo:

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/SqueakMacGold-bf.1.png
http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/Squeaky160-bf.png
http://hw001.gate01.com/~thoru/squeak/img/slogo0.gif

These are nicer that the plain flat one. The Squeaky160 seems to look to the side, maybe it's the color of the eye that make it look like that. The logo is kind of tricky because the highlight of the eyes is not a highlight of the 3d rendering.

Yes I agree... :)

Thanks for the links...

Cédrick

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 07.05.2008, at 13:53, cdrick wrote:

> 2008/5/7 karl <karl.ramberg@...>:
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>
> There are 3d-ish renditions of the logo:
>
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/SqueakMacGold-bf.1.png
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/2170/Squeaky160-bf.png
> http://hw001.gate01.com/~thoru/squeak/img/slogo0.gif
> These are nicer that the plain flat one. The Squeaky160 seems to  
> look to the side, maybe it's the color of the eye that make it look  
> like that. The logo is kind of tricky because the highlight of the  
> eyes is not a highlight of the 3d rendering.
>
> Yes I agree... :)
>
> Thanks for the links...

They're actually from

        http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2170

I personally like the colorful one, but I am admittedly biased.

- Bert -

[tim Rowledge]

On 7-May-08, at 3:14 AM, cdrick wrote:
>
> I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a 3D  
> look maybe could be nice,
Could someone please explain to me why a '3D look' is 'more modern' or  
'refreshed'? Generally all it achieves in my opinion (and yes,  
Virginia, I am a professional) is a tackiness and ersatz  
contemporaneity that simply means having 'refresh' it again a short  
while later.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim@...; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Fractured Idiom:- ICH LIEBE RICH - I'm really crazy about having dough

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 07.05.2008, at 17:28, tim Rowledge wrote:

> On 7-May-08, at 3:14 AM, cdrick wrote:
>>
>> I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a  
>> 3D look maybe could be nice,
> Could someone please explain to me why a '3D look' is 'more modern'  
> or 'refreshed'? Generally all it achieves in my opinion (and yes,  
> Virginia, I am a professional) is a tackiness and ersatz  
> contemporaneity that simply means having 'refresh' it again a short  
> while later.


I'm all for a classic look. But you have to admit that the Squeak logo  
looks particularly bland in the list at

        http://www.hackontest.ch/

Going 3d-ish and colorful would be one way to pep this up, another to  
use a white background and slightly stronger strokes (and possibly  
removing the exclamation mark, moving the text to the right side, or  
omitting it altogether).

- Bert -

[cedrick beler]

2008/5/7 tim Rowledge <tim@...>:

On 7-May-08, at 3:14 AM, cdrick wrote:

I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a 3D look maybe could be nice,

Could someone please explain to me why a '3D look' is 'more modern' or 'refreshed'?

I knew this would be interpreted like this...

It's just a feeling I expressed seeing squeak logo in this web page (compared to others)... I should have said more contemporary probably.. and probably this was almost due to the rendering (as Bert noted)... black on gray etc... but yeah designing and choosing a logo is something hard and somewhat "useless"...

 

Generally all it achieves in my opinion (and yes, Virginia, I am a professional) is a tackiness and ersatz contemporaneity that simply means having 'refresh' it again a short while later.

This is the whole logo and graphics story I think. But if graphists exist, who have design rules to respect, there must be a reason. IMO , one is to catch people attention, give a whole picture with the help of a symbol... In this sense, I'm sure the actual logo is ok, but on the other hand, people have to be very open-minded and curious to give a try... I could'nt say the word it brings to me... I forgot...  Anyway, as we don't want squeak to become mainstream. It's better it stays a kind of secret weapon, so this is not a problem ;)

Cédrick

ps: Every corporation, systems, products make they image evolve over time. Seaside for instance had already 3 different logos (http://www.seaside.st/about/trivia/logos). I'm glad they didn't keep the 2002 one ;) ... no offense to anybody, I'll be terrible at designing one... and even choosing... Just impressions...

 

[Markus Gaelli]

Better?
http://www.hackontest.ch

Thanks for the critique,

Markus

> 2008/5/7 tim Rowledge <tim@...>:
>
>>
>> On 7-May-08, at 3:14 AM, cdrick wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a 3D
>> > look maybe could be nice,
>> >
>> Could someone please explain to me why a '3D look' is 'more modern' or
>> 'refreshed'?
>
>
> I knew this would be interpreted like this...
>
> It's just a feeling I expressed seeing squeak logo in this web page
> (compared to others)... I should have said more contemporary probably..
> and
> probably this was almost due to the rendering (as Bert noted)... black on
> gray etc... but yeah designing and choosing a logo is something hard and
> somewhat "useless"...
>
>
>
>> Generally all it achieves in my opinion (and yes, Virginia, I am a
>> professional) is a tackiness and ersatz contemporaneity that simply
>> means
>> having 'refresh' it again a short while later.
>
>
> This is the whole logo and graphics story I think. But if graphists exist,
> who have design rules to respect, there must be a reason. IMO , one is to
> catch people attention, give a whole picture with the help of a symbol...
> In
> this sense, I'm sure the actual logo is ok, but on the other hand, people
> have to be very open-minded and curious to give a try... I could'nt say
> the
> word it brings to me... I forgot...  Anyway, as we don't want squeak to
> become mainstream. It's better it stays a kind of secret weapon, so this
> is
> not a problem ;)
>
> Cédrick
>
> ps: Every corporation, systems, products make they image evolve over time.
> Seaside for instance had already 3 different logos (
> http://www.seaside.st/about/trivia/logos). I'm glad they didn't keep the
> 2002 one ;) ... no offense to anybody, I'll be terrible at designing
> one...
> and even choosing... Just impressions...
>
>

[Karl-19]

tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> On 7-May-08, at 3:14 AM, cdrick wrote:
>>
>> I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a 3D
>> look maybe could be nice,
> Could someone please explain to me why a '3D look' is 'more modern' or
> 'refreshed'? Generally all it achieves in my opinion (and yes,
> Virginia, I am a professional) is a tackiness and ersatz
> contemporaneity that simply means having 'refresh' it again a short
> while later.

Jump on the web 2.0 wagon, man! It's way rad! :-)
Seriously, trends pass faster and faster and soon you are back to square
one again. A logo should be nice, but if thats the main issue for not
using a programming environment, the problem is not the logo but the judge.

Karl