Hi everyone,
I complained to my mother about our problems to find a logo. When I visited the next day she showed me an idea she had (she happens to be an artist - Marianne Greve for those of you into art) and I immediately liked it. I asked here to do it in a little better quality and since she is pretty much an analog person she did them with felt pen on paper... so they are only logo studies/drafts and not the final thing. But it should be good enough to give you an idea.
The logo is purely text based (which is a benefit for many reasons like simplicity and no problem with symbolisms) and should be easy to recognize in any size.
Okay, enough said. I scanned them in and you'll find the drafts on my home page at
http://www.gnu.org/people/greve/fsfe/fsfe.html
What do you think?
Regards, Georg
"Georg C. F. Greve" wrote:
The logo is purely text based (which is a benefit for many reasons like simplicity and no problem with symbolisms) and should be easy to recognize in any size.
[...]
What do you think?
I like it, and I would maybe try whether it looks even better with the "s" below the line or not. -- Reinhard Müller BYTEWISE Software GmbH A-6890 Lustenau, Enga 2 http://www.bytewise.at
----- Original Message ----- From: "Georg C. F. Greve" greve@gnu.org To: discussion@fsfeurope.org Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 8:30 PM Subject: Logos - something entirely new
...
The logo is purely text based (which is a benefit for many reasons like simplicity and no problem with symbolisms) and should be easy to recognize in any size.
I like it too. Much better than the stupid looking gnu. Had something similar in mind, but haven't found a way to put it into pixels. Any of the shown logos would make a really nice letterhead. However for a general purpose logo I would suggest to limit the width a bit more.
Perhaps just FSFe or making the 'europe' smaller.
Perhaps 'europe' _under_ the FSF letters (to get a more compact logo).
- Josef
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:30:57PM +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
The logo is purely text based (which is a benefit for many reasons like simplicity and no problem with symbolisms) and should be easy to recognize in any size. [...] http://www.gnu.org/people/greve/fsfe/fsfe.html
Hmmm... how about using a variation of the new FSF logo,
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/fsf-logo.html ???
I must admit that I don't particularly like the type face used for the new FSF logo, but as the logos of the FSF and the FSF Europe turn out to be sufficiently similar, it might make sense to use a common "base CI".
Yours, Markus.
PS: CI = corporate identity; a term used in advertising to describe consistens and easily recognizable appearance of an organisation
|| On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:54:01 +0100 || Markus Fleck fleck@xmailer.informatik.uni-bonn.de wrote:
The logo is purely text based (which is a benefit for many reasons like simplicity and no problem with symbolisms) and should be easy to recognize in any size. [...] http://www.gnu.org/people/greve/fsfe/fsfe.html
mf> Hmmm... how about using a variation of the new FSF logo,
mf> http://www.gnu.org/graphics/fsf-logo.html ???
mf> I must admit that I don't particularly like the type face used mf> for the new FSF logo, but as the logos of the FSF and the FSF mf> Europe turn out to be sufficiently similar, it might make sense mf> to use a common "base CI".
Well. So far the FSF didn't really have a CI... these are things noone ever thought about until now. If we thought about using a modified FSF logo, we couldn't change the font, though, as that would defy the very purpose of it.
It does show one thing, though. We apparently have a confusion on this list about what a logo is. A logo is normally text-based and non-graphical. The only logo I can think of right now that is graphical is the one of Apple. And that is how simple it would have to be. Also the association must be clear... I don't see how we could produce something THAT understandable by everyone for the FSFE.
Adding a "Europe" to the FSF logo would make it significantly bigger (I think it's very much at the verge of being too big already) and also it would be too much text to read. It probably should not be more text than "FSF Europe" - since "Software" and "Foundation" are relatively long words.
ADDITIONALLY to a real logo we will want some graphics/graphical representation of the idea that we could use on things that have enough space and the web pages and such. So far the things done by Anja come closest to this, imho.
But this doesn't solve our need for a logo. I just said this to make sure everyone understand these are DIFFERENT things. I haven't understood this fully until recently myself, so my old postings were probably partially misleading.
Oh: and I also fully agree we should finally get it moving. ;-)
Regards, Georg
Hi Georg and all,
Georg C. F. Greve wrote on Mar 23, 2001 at 02:04PM +0100:
It does show one thing, though. We apparently have a confusion on this list about what a logo is. A logo is normally text-based and non-graphical. The only logo I can think of right now that is graphical is the one of Apple.
I don't agree with you. I cannot think of any company / organisation logo that has text _only_. They all have at least shape and color. Think Coca-Cola, IBM, Mattel, Canon, ... Coca-Cola is also a nice example where the color and shape is the actual logo (e.g. the Coca-Cola ribbon is trademarked). Many companies use both: graphical logo plus company name written in a special font. Some of the most well-known logos are mainly graphical or graphics-only: Nike, Adidas, Xerox, SGI (old logo), Krupp, Mercedes, Ferrari, wüstenrot, Telekom AG, Sparkasse (the latter three are probably not so well-known outside Germany;-), ...
On the other hand, product logos usually are text-based with color and shape. Mattel's selection of fashion dolls makes a good example ("Songbird Barbie", "Songbird Teresa" and so on). Ferrero's and and Mars' selection of sweets ("Kinder Schokolade", "Kinder Überraschung", "Milky Way" chocolate bar or nut cream) are further examples: the name is important to identify the product, and the writing is used to clarify the relationship with the other products in the line. But for the FSFE logo I would rather look at company and organisation logos, not product logos.
This is a list of sponsors of a local school project in Essen, Germany. You might consider it a random collection of company logos in the present context:
http://www.europa-schulen.essen.de/deu/foerderer.html
non-graphical. The only logo I can think of right now that is graphical is the one of Apple. And that is how simple it would have to be. Also the association must be clear... I don't see how we could produce something THAT understandable by everyone for the FSFE.
An apple is an obvious choice for Apple. But it is only well-known and understandable because Apple has been promoting themselves for a long time and with a large marketing budget. If Apple was still a small company the logo would not be known, and it could as well stand for a grocery chain. I mean, we also need a good logo but no matter how good it is, it will not be well-known at the beginning. It is in our hands to make it as understandable as Apple's.
Adding a "Europe" to the FSF logo would make it significantly bigger (I think it's very much at the verge of being too big already) and also it would be too much text to read. It probably should not be more text than "FSF Europe" - since "Software" and "Foundation" are relatively long words.
Agreed. _If_ we use a text-based logo it should have "FSF Europe" only, not the full name.
But IMO the logo should not be purely text based, at leat not purely latin letters. It poses the question: Why latin writing, not kyrillic or greek? Why FSF Europe and not FSS Europa (Freie Software Stiftung Europa), for instance? I vote for a graphical logo with maybe additional text but if we create a text-only logo IMO we should include all three types of writing.
In my opinion the FSFE logo needs to be different from a company logo. A company's name is well-defined (not language dependent) and is the first "brand name" the company needs to promote. Therefore, some (not all) companies use their specially written name as a logo. Also, text-based logos are much easier to create in series. However, the most important thing FSFE wants to promote is free software, not the name "Free Software Foundation Europe", specializing to English language, latin letters. Of course, we don't want to be a nameless organisation. I just mean that the logo should focus on the message FSFE wants to promote, not the name itself.
Consider the cross for Christianiti, for example. This symbol (logos are a modern invention) is recognized everywhere, it is simple, it refers to an important aspect of the religion (it is not just a pretty, random symbol) and you refer to the religion it represents in _your_ language. Other "logos" that come to my mind are the rune and pigeon for the peace movement or the flags for the various countries.
Also, letters don't scale as well as graphics. If the letters are sufficiently small you cannot read them any more. The only thing you can see is their shape. This works with very unusual shapes and strong colors (think Coca-Cola) and with graphical logos (Nike, Adidas, Apple), but letters that are primarly meant for reading need a minimum size.
Best wishes,
Anja
Hi again,
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Anja Gerwinski kindly wrote:
--snip--
Georg C. F. Greve wrote on Mar 23, 2001 at 02:04PM +0100:
It does show one thing, though. We apparently have a confusion on this list about what a logo is. A logo is normally text-based and non-graphical. The only logo I can think of right now that is graphical is the one of Apple.
I don't agree with you. I cannot think of any company / organisation logo that has text _only_. They all have at least shape and color.
Well, some seven or eight years ago I've been involved with graphics and if I remember it right, a letter-only identifier for a organisation or company is called "signet", whereas a logo is *usually* a symbol, but *can* combine that with letters or text. But I might be wrong on that. Anyone got an exact definition? ;-)
[...] But for the FSFE logo I would rather look at company and organisation logos, not product logos.
The UNESCO has a (great) Logo combining text and graphics: http://www.unesco.org UNICEF, too: http://www.unicef.org Ammnesty International has a Graphic based Logo (barb wire around candle) http://www.ammnesty.org Greenpeace has more of a signet, not a logo, but the 12 monkeys had a great logo ;-)
Greetings,
--Georg
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Georg Jakob wrote:
I don't agree with you. I cannot think of any company / organisation logo that has text _only_. They all have at least shape and color.
Well, some seven or eight years ago I've been involved with graphics and if I remember it right, a letter-only identifier for a organisation or company is called "signet", whereas a logo is *usually* a symbol, but *can* combine that with letters or text. But I might be wrong on that. Anyone got an exact definition? ;-)
I have to agree. In Italian we have two separate words for that (even if I see they are regularly mistaken one another): "marchio", as trademark, for a composite image, and "logotipo" or "logo" as logotype or logo, to mean some typefaced composition for the firm name. I'll take it the two concepts necessarily blend.
At least this is what I've been told time ago (from one who should be knowledgeable...)
-- andrew
Anja,
|| On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:06:28 +0200 || Anja Gerwinski anja@44615166.theo-phys.uni-essen.de wrote:
It does show one thing, though. We apparently have a confusion on this list about what a logo is. A logo is normally text-based and non-graphical. The only logo I can think of right now that is graphical is the one of Apple.
ag> I don't agree with you.
Funny how you say that and then _exactly_ back what I have said. :)
Maybe it's something language-based or so....
ag> I cannot think of any company / organisation logo that has text ag> _only_. They all have at least shape and color. Think Coca-Cola, ag> IBM, Mattel, Canon, ... Coca-Cola is also a nice example where ag> the color and shape is the actual logo (e.g. the Coca-Cola ribbon ag> is trademarked).
These are all perfect examples for text-only logos. Of course the style it is done in is crucial, but nonetheless it is readable text. Nothing more. The logo-suggestions I have put on my home page go in this direction. Normally one would create ONE final version out of this and that'd be the logo. Style, colors and such should not be changed later.
ag> Many companies use both: graphical logo plus company name written ag> in a special font.
Yes. You can have a logo (text written in a special, recognizable way) and some graphical representation. There is almost always a text-version available even if they mainly use graphical ones like the examples you cited below.
ag> Some of the most well-known logos are mainly graphical or ag> graphics-only: Nike, Adidas, Xerox, SGI (old logo), Krupp, ag> Mercedes, Ferrari, wüstenrot, Telekom AG, Sparkasse (the latter ag> three are probably not so well-known outside Germany;-), ...
Yes, but *each* of them is *extremely* simple. About 10000 times more simple than anything we have so far. Which is exactly the point I was making.
Also there is normally also some logo in text-form that they use for written documents although the sometimes resort to having their name written in a standard font - they won't change the font in that case, though, so it is (again) a text-logo.
non-graphical. The only logo I can think of right now that is graphical is the one of Apple. And that is how simple it would have to be. Also the association must be clear... I don't see how we could produce something THAT understandable by everyone for the FSFE.
ag> An apple is an obvious choice for Apple. But it is only ag> well-known and understandable because Apple has been promoting ag> themselves for a long time and with a large marketing budget. If ag> Apple was still a small company the logo would not be known, and ag> it could as well stand for a grocery chain. I mean, we also need ag> a good logo but no matter how good it is, it will not be ag> well-known at the beginning. It is in our hands to make it as ag> understandable as Apple's.
Of course not. But it would need to be as simple, recognizable and high-quality. This is VERY hard to do. Nothing we've produced so far comes even near it.
ag> But IMO the logo should not be purely text based, at leat not ag> purely latin letters. It poses the question: Why latin writing, ag> not kyrillic or greek?
Because people won't be able to read it then. Being readable is a major plus for a logo.
ag> Why FSF Europe and not FSS Europa (Freie Software Stiftung ag> Europa), for instance?
Because "FSF" is a well-known acronym and makes clear we are the sister organization of the American FSF. The constitution deliberately says the name is "Free Software Foundation Europe." It'd be stupid to pick something else for the logo.
ag> However, the most important thing FSFE wants to promote is free ag> software, not the name "Free Software Foundation Europe", ag> specializing to English language, latin letters. Of course, we ag> don't want to be a nameless organisation. I just mean that the ag> logo should focus on the message FSFE wants to promote, not the ag> name itself.
That is not the purpose of a logo.
ag> Consider the cross for Christianiti, for example.
Which is a good example that not only companies have good logos. The cross says NOTHING about the message of the Church but by centuries of work they have made us associate this simple symbol with their message. This is what logos are there for.
ag> This symbol (logos are a modern invention) is recognized ag> everywhere, it is simple, it refers to an important aspect of the ag> religion (it is not just a pretty, random symbol)
Which is why we need to resort to a text-based logo - there is no symbol as simple that we could use for the FSF.
In the end it boils down to you having supported my arguments 100%. Strange.
Whatever we pick, it'll have to be VERY simple.
_If_ we pick a graphical logo it will need a text representation in the letters that most people in Europe can read: latin ones. NOTHING we have seen so far is simple enough to be used as a graphical logo, however.
That's why I'm vouching for a text-based logo. Not necessarily those that I have put online as intuition-fodder, but definitely something that would have to have as much recognizability and power.
In addition to this text-based logo we could then have some graphical element that we normally use for all kinds of things - in the case of a real text-based logo it wouldn't have to be as simple as a graphical logo. Having a graphical logo would make that impossible. Personally I would prefer the "Europa on GNU" artwork by you for this.
Regards, Georg