Web 2.0 Logo

[Nicu Buculei]

Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> 
> Aside from the usage guidelines several others have already mentioned...
> 
> Other logo overhauls I've seen lately (Intel, Pepsi, Xerox, off the top 
> of my head) certainly are more of a 21st century update, if you will, 
> but what you have is basically the same logo, same fonts, just.... 
> stretched and pulled.   It is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure 
> what makes this any more "web 2.0" than the existing logo, or, 
> alternately.... I'm not sure what it is you are trying to convey about 
> the brand/project via the logo. 

Our logo has pretty much a "classic" look, with a simple shape and 
limited of colours, as it the best to use in "traditional" media. What 
is usually called "Web 2.0" logos, are "shiny" logos, using gradients, 
shadows, a varied palette of colors and complex shapes, something that 
will works best on the web.
(well, our logo is not exactly "classic", is more something in between, 
we are using 3 colors).

The "Web 2.0" logos are usually perceived to be more "cool", more 
"modern" but also they have a number of downsides, for example the 
number of colors is a tough constraint for us when designing T-shirts 
for various events (see for example the FUDCon T-shirts, adding another 
color would significantly increase the price, so decrease the number of 
shirts made within the given budget).

I would argue our logo is relatively new, so it would be a bad idea to 
talk about a complete redesign but probably is not harmful to talk about 
small evolutionary improvements.

> I agree, however, that it would be cool to have a standard template of 
> sorts (if one does not already exist) for bb/forum post signatures.  
> Standard background, fonts, a spot for a picture/avatar/whatever, an 
> appropriate link & tagline, etc.  I would speculate that a good deal of 
> potential contributors / users are not so much mailing list users, but 
> possibly more bulletin board posters, if you will, and having something 
> that is well done that people could use as a sig certainly couldn't hurt 
> in efforts to spread the word.

I think is possible to create a large number of good looking derivatives 
(banners, forum signatures, etc.) still using the official logo, foe 
example have a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/PromoBanners

> But as I said, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here that wouldn't 
> be accomplished by using the standard logo in that situation.

I guess is a natural tendency for a designer to play with a graphic and 
try to "improve" it, just as a hacker will play and "improve" a piece of 
code. I did myself some "improved" versions of the logo :p

-- 
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/
photography: http://photoblog.nicubunu.ro/
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/