On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Hope you don't mind that I also found the cycle to recreate mailet >>>>> products >>>>> logos using the same font we used for the main logo and changed it to >>>>> use >>>>> relative links to the subproduct images instead of cloning resources >>>>> (anyway >>>>> the root content is only intended to publish our website so I see no >>>>> harm >>>>> in >>>>> directly linking content from subproduct) >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~bago/mailet/ (reload if you already loaded >>>>> this) >>>>> (I also added a newline before the description) >>>> >>>> the difference in font was quasi-intentional (i don't have that >>>> particular font but i would probably have opted for a different font >>>> in any case) >>>> >>>> IMHO the same font is used then the design needs to be more balanced >>>> and harmonious: >>>> >>>> 1 the font needs to be the same size as 'james' >>>> 2 'API' needs to be changed from black to a colour >>>> 3 the colours need to be chosen more harmoniously (rather than >>>> constrasting) >>>> 4 the tone weight need to be the same throughout (and should match the >>>> 'james' tone weight) >>>> 5 the capitalization should to be removed (from 'Standard' etc) >>> >>> I didn't want to collect more work ;-) >>> >>> I'll put back your logos tomorrow, but please cut the images correctly >>> (they >>> all have the first j incomplete) >> >> no, leave them >> >> if you let me know the details of the font, i'll probably take a look >> at making at least some of the improvements i indicated > > When I had to change the logo 2 years ago no one was able to tell what was > the font and give me an "original" (vectorial) copy, so I did a search and I > found this: > http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/florentine/urw-t-regular/ > > About your points. > 1) I guess they will be too big and maybe they are no more appropriate in > the higher baseline. When I completed it I thought it should have been > smaller ;-/
if they're in the same font then it would probably be more balanced if the product names were on the baseline > 2) I agree. I was about doing that using the gray from the second central > feather. > 3) I liked the choice of colours from the feathers. I can't think at better > colours. yes reusing the feather colours is be more harmonious > 4) I guess the "tone weight" is the same, maybe the aliasing make it appear > different. > 5) I agree. > > BTW I'm not a designer, simply I didn't like the previous logos (didn't like > mainly the random horizontal placement, the bad crop) :-) a corollary to Mazzocchi's law: never waste time perfecting something you want others to improve > so I took the freedom > to update them (as I created all of our "derived" logos). You seem to know > the matter better than me. i'm not sure i'd say that ;-) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
