I found it a bit odd to accidentally see that the logo had been changed when searching for a reference on google.
Yes I do agree that the logo selection process was biased and unnecessary. I heard nothing about it. Is there a design discussion list for ofbiz? Also what the hell is option two aside from a similar logo version to option 1? To me that seems like a biased vote. People will look at both logos as the same. You combine those two logos and it is more than the old logo. Furthermore I feel that there are far bigger issues that need to be dealt with on the ofbiz UI/UX side, working on the theme way back then was a mess. However changing up the logo back to it's 1993...? 1994? Incarnation must be important. I would have loved to see a new creative brand. The selection process did not really produce anything new or creative. We took a step back to the first logo which was dated back when I did the now replaced logo. A bit of two steps back as far as I am concerned. On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > +1 > > Jacques > > > > Le 05/10/2016 à 07:51, Paul Piper a écrit : > >> Perhaps I should add: >> >> I liked the work Brainfood had done in the past with the themes, logo & CI >> it provided. You guys did a good job back then! So I hope that none of you >> guys take these recent moves as a devaluation of your work. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble. >> com/COMMUNITY-VOTE-RESULT-New-OFBiz-Logo-tp4690080p4695566.html >> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > -- Erik Schuessler Vice President / Partner www.Brainfood.com 214.720.0700 e323
