Anja's most recent logo "Gnu, Europa, and map"

Peter Gerwinski peter at
Sat Mar 31 11:20:23 UTC 2001


Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> I explained two times what _is_ wrong with it.
> You have not really addressed my concerns.

I did so. I suppose you are talking of these concerns:

| We need a logo which can be understood in max. 100x100 pixel _on
| screen_.  It would be a huge advantage to even have it smaller or
| have a small version with even less details.
| we need simpler drafts or a generally different
| directions for our ideas.

My answer was:

| * When scaling the logo down to smaller sizes and resolutions,
|   details can be left out:
|    - First, the writing ("Omnis enim res ...") can be replaced by
|      a single line.
|    - Second, the shadow on the lines of the drawing can be
|      removed.
|    - Third, the map can be replaced by a solid color background.
|    - Finally, the lines can become thicker.
|   The logo remains recognizable.

Anja also answered and demonstrated that the logo still can be
understood in even 50x50 pixel on screen:

| My latest logo suggestion (uploaded in February) meets these
| requirements. It works well from high resolution, full color to black
| & white only to web page button size. I created some smaller versions
| to demonstrate it and cleaned up the web page. They are here:

> I still think that the logo has too much details

IMHO this depends on the intended use of a logo.

If you have a company selling boxes, the logo must be as simple
as possible because it must be recognized within tenths of seconds
while the customer is running through the store (examples: Nike,
Adidas, Nivea).

OTOH, if you have an organization "selling" philosophy, a more
complex logo stresses the seriousity of the organization. The logo
is present on WWW pages and letterheads for a longer time while the
"customer" reads the letter or waits for the rest of the WWW page
being downloaded. IMHO a "more interesting" (and thus perhaps more
complex) logo is a plus here (examples: unicef, FBI,

> and is not looking serious/professional enough.

I see no difference between the process with Anja (and others) who
suggested a wide range of sketches for the logo, addressed requests,
etc. and the process with someone else doing the same while getting
paid for it.

Also please remember:

| * This is a draft. Anja promised to make high-quality vector
|   versions of this logo, once she knows that she is not working
|   for the recycler.

I still consider this draft suitable for our purposes. We can use it
together with the text "FSFE" or "Free Software Foundation Europe"
in a well-readable font (I'd suggest a boldface sans-serif font) or
separately - or only the text, just as the situation requires.


    Peter, speaking for himself and not the FSFE

PS: BTW, yet another plus: Anja did her work using
    Free Software exclusively. :)

-- - G-N-U GmbH:
Maintainer GNU Pascal - - gpc-20010331
GnuPG key fingerprint: 9E7C 0FC4 8A62 5536 1730 A932 9834 65DB 2143 9422
keys: - AntiSpam:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list