2:33 a.m.
control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the GNOME
logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center. This is a
good idea, but I see two problems:
1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo
usage guidelines [1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
--
-Elad Alfassa.
9:25 a.m.
On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the
GNOME logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center.
This is a good idea, but I see two problems:
1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo
usage guidelines [1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
Elad, Thanks for bringing this up!, However, I dont have a functioning
f19 machine at the moment, would you be able to upload a screenshot so
we can see the logo as it is currently presented?
WE i think we should also just file a bug against this component in
Fedora. Is that the correct course of action?
--ryanlerch
9:41 a.m.
On 04/03/2013 10:25 AM, Ryan Lerch wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the
> GNOME logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center.
> This is a good idea, but I see two problems:
>
> 1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
> 2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own
> logo usage guidelines [1].
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
>
Elad, Thanks for bringing this up!, However, I dont have a functioning
f19 machine at the moment, would you be able to upload a screenshot so
we can see the logo as it is currently presented?
WE i think we should also just file a bug against this component in
Fedora. Is that the correct course of action?
--ryanlerch
After a quick look into the patch that changed the logo, it seems that
it is using the following file (the image itself is supplied by the
fedora-logos package):
/usr/share/icons/Fedora/scalable/places/start-here.svg
That file is just the logomark (the F bubble), without the "TM"
If we do want the full logo (fedora + bubble) here, i *think* this is
the file that should be used (once again the file itself is supplied by
the fedora-logos package):
/usr/share/fedora-logos/fedora_logo.svg
Can anyone else throw any insight on what logo we should present here?
cheers,
ryanlerch
12:15 p.m.
Ryan Lerch (rlerch(a)redhat.com) said:
On 04/03/2013 10:25 AM, Ryan Lerch wrote:
>On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
>>control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of
>>the GNOME logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop
>>control center. This is a good idea, but I see two problems:
>>
>>1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
>>2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our
>>own logo usage guidelines [1].
>>
>>[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
>>
>
>Elad, Thanks for bringing this up!, However, I dont have a
>functioning f19 machine at the moment, would you be able to upload
>a screenshot so we can see the logo as it is currently presented?
>
>WE i think we should also just file a bug against this component
>in Fedora. Is that the correct course of action?
>
>--ryanlerch
>
After a quick look into the patch that changed the logo, it seems
that it is using the following file (the image itself is supplied by
the fedora-logos package):
/usr/share/icons/Fedora/scalable/places/start-here.svg
That file is just the logomark (the F bubble), without the "TM"
Ideally if it's doing that it should pull from the hicolor path, so
it can be easily changed by downstream redistibutors without patching
the code.
Bill
1:01 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Ryan Lerch <rlerch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 04/03/2013 10:25 AM, Ryan Lerch wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
>
>> control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the GNOME
>> logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center. This is a
>> good idea, but I see two problems:
>>
>> 1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
>> 2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo
>> usage guidelines [1].
>>
>> [1]
https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines<https://fedorapr...
>>
>>
> Elad, Thanks for bringing this up!, However, I dont have a functioning
> f19 machine at the moment, would you be able to upload a screenshot so we
> can see the logo as it is currently presented?
>
> WE i think we should also just file a bug against this component in
> Fedora. Is that the correct course of action?
>
> --ryanlerch
>
>
After a quick look into the patch that changed the logo, it seems that it
is using the following file (the image itself is supplied by the
fedora-logos package):
/usr/share/icons/Fedora/**scalable/places/start-here.svg
That file is just the logomark (the F bubble), without the "TM"
If we do want the full logo (fedora + bubble) here, i *think* this is the
file that should be used (once again the file itself is supplied by the
fedora-logos package):
/usr/share/fedora-logos/**fedora_logo.svg
Can anyone else throw any insight on what logo we should present here?
cheers,
ryanlerch
______________________________**_________________
design-team mailing list
design-team@lists.**fedoraproject.org<design-team(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/design-**team<https...
I attached the screenshot below. IMO, the full logotype (fedora+bubble)
would look *way* better in this screen
--
-Elad Alfassa.
1:34 p.m.
On Wed 03 Apr 2013 02:01:21 PM EDT, Elad Alfassa wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Ryan Lerch <rlerch(a)redhat.com
<mailto:rlerch@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 04/03/2013 10:25 AM, Ryan Lerch wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
control-center-3.8.0-2 <tel:3.8.0-2>.fc19 added the Fedora
logo (instead of the GNOME logo) on the details panel of
the GNOME desktop control center. This is a good idea, but
I see two problems:
1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates
our own logo usage guidelines [1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/__wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines>
Elad, Thanks for bringing this up!, However, I dont have a
functioning f19 machine at the moment, would you be able to
upload a screenshot so we can see the logo as it is currently
presented?
WE i think we should also just file a bug against this
component in Fedora. Is that the correct course of action?
--ryanlerch
After a quick look into the patch that changed the logo, it seems
that it is using the following file (the image itself is supplied
by the fedora-logos package):
/usr/share/icons/Fedora/__scalable/places/start-here.svg
That file is just the logomark (the F bubble), without the "TM"
If we do want the full logo (fedora + bubble) here, i *think* this
is the file that should be used (once again the file itself is
supplied by the fedora-logos package):
/usr/share/fedora-logos/__fedora_logo.svg
Can anyone else throw any insight on what logo we should present here?
cheers,
ryanlerch
_________________________________________________
design-team mailing list
design-team(a)lists.__fedoraproject.org
<mailto:design-team@lists.fedoraproject.org>
https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/design-__team
<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/design-team>
I attached the screenshot below. IMO, the full logotype
(fedora+bubble) would look *way* better in this screen
--
-Elad Alfassa.
That logo (other than the lack of the TM) also looks quite large for
the dialog that is displaying it.
Attached is a couple of mockups of a smaller version of just the logo,
and a version with the logotype as well. IMHO, just the bubble looks
better balanced than the logotype because the distroname underneath is
centered.
Note that the attached mockups are just visualisations of ideas, and
should not be interpreted as a final suggestion to implement.
cheers,
ryanlerch
1:35 p.m.
On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the
GNOME
logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center. This is
a good idea, but I see two problems:
1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo
usage guidelines [1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
It would certainly be nice in the future when the Fedora logo's display
and appearance is being modified that the appropriate Fedora team (in
this case, the folks who maintain the logo) were consulted.
Is this fair to suggest? Can we make this a policy?
~m
8:41 a.m.
Máirín Duffy (duffy(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the GNOME
> logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center. This is
> a good idea, but I see two problems:
>
> 1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
> 2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo
> usage guidelines [1].
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
It would certainly be nice in the future when the Fedora logo's display
and appearance is being modified that the appropriate Fedora team (in
this case, the folks who maintain the logo) were consulted.
Is this fair to suggest? Can we make this a policy?
It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos
present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's
mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
Bill
9:09 a.m.
On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the
logos
present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's
mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the
guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A
specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage
guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM.
There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've
gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but
it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the
TM-less logo in this instance.
~m
9:29 a.m.
Máirín Duffy (duffy(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos
> present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's
> mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the
guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A
specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage
guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM.
There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've
gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but
it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the
TM-less logo in this instance.
What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be used, the
logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would
be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without
any modification.
Bill
9:33 a.m.
Bill Nottingham (notting(a)redhat.com) said:
Máirín Duffy (duffy(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
> On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos
> > present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's
> > mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
>
> It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the
> guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A
> specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage
> guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM.
> There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've
> gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but
> it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the
> TM-less logo in this instance.
What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be used, the
logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would
be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without
any modification.
... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions
of any logos.
Bill
9:37 a.m.
On 04/04/2013 10:33 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own
versions
of any logos.
My team and I are more than happy to discuss any new or modified usages
of the logo and produce appropriate artwork, getting it added to the
fedora-logos package as necessary, for any packager who has the need and
comes to us.
~m
9:53 a.m.
Máirín Duffy (duffy(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
On 04/04/2013 10:33 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> ... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions
> of any logos.
My team and I are more than happy to discuss any new or modified usages
of the logo and produce appropriate artwork, getting it added to the
fedora-logos package as necessary, for any packager who has the need and
comes to us.
I understand your desire to have input into how the logo is used. My point
is that if the logos provided *as the only logos that software in Fedora
can use* aren't suitable to use as is, it amounts to merely playing
"GOTCHA!"
with people who are trying to use the right thing that the design team
has already provided them.
If fedora-logos doesn't provide an actual version of the logomark that
corresponds to the guidelines, it's not the fault of other groups for
using the only version that's there.
Bill
10:01 a.m.
Bill Nottingham (notting(a)redhat.com) said:
Máirín Duffy (duffy(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
> On 04/04/2013 10:33 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > ... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions
> > of any logos.
>
> My team and I are more than happy to discuss any new or modified usages
> of the logo and produce appropriate artwork, getting it added to the
> fedora-logos package as necessary, for any packager who has the need and
> comes to us.
I understand your desire to have input into how the logo is used. My point
is that if the logos provided *as the only logos that software in Fedora
can use* aren't suitable to use as is, it amounts to merely playing
"GOTCHA!"
with people who are trying to use the right thing that the design team
has already provided them.
If fedora-logos doesn't provide an actual version of the logomark that
corresponds to the guidelines, it's not the fault of other groups for
using the only version that's there.
I'll file an RFE for fedora-logos to replace the large sprite with
the one from the logos page on the wiki - that should solve this issue
at least.
Bill
10:06 a.m.
On 04/04/2013 11:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I'll file an RFE for fedora-logos to replace the large sprite
with
the one from the logos page on the wiki - that should solve this issue
at least.
Please do not take any PNG graphics from the logo usage guidelines wiki
page, as they are not meant to be used this way.
Please email logo(a)fedoraproject.org to obtain the correct graphic. This
has been the official process to obtain logo artwork since 2006 or so,
and there are legal reasons as to why we can't just put the full logo
pack up on the wiki (would certainly save a lot of manual work if we
could!!)
~m
10:15 a.m.
Máirín Duffy (duffy(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
On 04/04/2013 11:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> I'll file an RFE for fedora-logos to replace the large sprite with
> the one from the logos page on the wiki - that should solve this issue
> at least.
Please do not take any PNG graphics from the logo usage guidelines wiki
page, as they are not meant to be used this way.
Please email logo(a)fedoraproject.org to obtain the correct graphic. This
has been the official process to obtain logo artwork since 2006 or so,
and there are legal reasons as to why we can't just put the full logo
pack up on the wiki (would certainly save a lot of manual work if we
could!!)
Oh, sure - the fedora-logos maintainer should get the official versions
rather than screenscraping the wiki. I'm just saying that if guidelines
state:
"The 'TM' trademark symbol must always be visible and readable for both the
Fedora logomark (infinity symbol) and the Fedora logotype ('fedora' text) in
the placements shown in these guidelines."
then the scalable logomark in fedora-logos should probably be the one that
actually contains that, and the weird logomark that's in fedora-logos that
uses a gradient for the infinity symbol (!?!?!) should probably be nuked
from orbit. By doing that we still may not be providing the *right* version
for every use by in-Fedora software, but we at least won't be providing an
clearly wrong version of the logo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948319, FWIW.
Bill
10:05 a.m.
On Thu 04 Apr 2013 10:53:30 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I understand your desire to have input into how the logo is used. My
point
is that if the logos provided *as the only logos that software in Fedora
can use* aren't suitable to use as is, it amounts to merely playing
"GOTCHA!"
with people who are trying to use the right thing that the design team
has already provided them.
It's not just a desire to have input into how the logo is used. If you
don't understand the logo usage guidelines (and experience has taught
me that very few people actually take the time to read and understand
them) it is very easy to misuse the logo, whether or not you use
'approved' artwork. It's not about trapping people into making a
mistake, it's about using the logo correctly.
If fedora-logos doesn't provide an actual version of the logomark that
corresponds to the guidelines, it's not the fault of other groups for
using the only version that's there.
Bill, I think you missed my point.
It is simply not possible - even if every single logo graphic file in
fedora-logos was vetted and approved (and I'm pretty sure they have
been) by the folks in charge of the logo as being appropriate for their
current usages - for us to say that packagers can use any file in that
package and not have to worry about breaking logo usage guidelines. We
have no way of knowing ahead of time the specific contexts those
packagers mean to use the logos in.
For example, some of the logo files in fedora-logos have no padding
whatsoever around the logo. The logo has a clearspace guideline that
dictates a bare minimum margin around the logo in any usage. The
version of the logo without any padding was created for a specific
usage in which the application calling the logo added the necessary
margin in the application code. Someone could very easily come along
and use this padding-less version of the logo and be violating the logo
usage guidelines if they didn't consult the guidelines or talk to
somebody familiar with the logo's usage who could have advised them of
the appropriate padding to use or of an alternative file that has the
padding pre-included. This happened quite recently in the reverse - the
Fedora logo mark + word mark was shoved in the upper left corner of the
GNOME 3 panel in GDM, and even though that panel is approx. 22 pixels
tall, the logo literally displayed as somewhere between 7-9 pixels tall
- because a version of the logo that was padded was used in an instance
where an unpadded version of the logo would have been more appropriate!
Just because a version of the logo is 'approved' and meets the
guidelines, doesn't mean it's approved and meets the guidelines for all
possible usages, nor is such a thing actually possible. Logo usage is
far too contextual to just slap a bunch of graphics in a package or a
repo and be guaranteed when anybody uses them that they'll be used
correctly. I gave you the greyscale version of the logo as a specific
example of how this might be so: the guidelines do state that you
should be using the color version of the logo, but there are specific
scenarios in which your usage of a greyscale logo would be approved, in
which case you could use the greyscale version. If we put a greyscale
version in fedora-logos, though, that certainly opens the possibility -
if we let any packager use any graphic in that file however they want -
of violating the logo usage guidelines, because without consulting with
the folks maintaining the logo and/or reading and understanding the
usage guidelines, it would be quite possible to use the greyscale logo
when the more appropriate logo to use would be the full-color version.
~m
9:36 a.m.
On 04/04/2013 10:29 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be
used, the
logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would
be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without
any modification.
The logo in the package with the TM was put there for a specific,
approved purpose. Just because a graphic is in the fedora-logos package
doesn't mean it's a free-for-all to use however you want. For example,
we have an approved version of the logo that is in greyscale, and there
may be limited instances in which you would want to use a greyscale
Fedora logo in Fedora - that doesn't mean that in writing or modifying
an application in Fedora that you can just snag that greyscale logo and
not be in any violation of the logo usage guidelines or the intended
usage of the logo. The vast majority of usages of the Fedora logo (which
I admit are dwindling down to 1 or 2 at this point) should be in
full-color, and the usage of the approved greyscale version is meant to
be really limited.
The context in which the logo is displayed, outside of whether or not it
has a TM, is also important, and really should be discussed before it is
changed. I believe all of these changes to the logo's display taking
place without any discussion is a big reason why the changes have blown
up into these long and upsetting threads.
~m
4040
days inactive
4041
days old
design-team@lists.fedoraproject.org
18 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bill Nottingham -
Christopher Meng -
Elad Alfassa -
Máirín Duffy -
Ryan Lerch