From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:34:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20140412123419.GD14820@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <534578b2e22e2_af197d3081@nysa.notmuch> <20140411114017.GC28858@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140411132448.GA5845@nysa.casa.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Andrew Ardill , Junio C Hamano , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 12 14:35:02 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WYx9C-0002oy-Hr for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:35:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753028AbaDLMeW (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:34:22 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58530 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752511AbaDLMeV (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:34:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 29558 invoked by uid 102); 12 Apr 2014 12:34:21 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:34:21 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:34:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140411132448.GA5845@nysa.casa.local> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:24:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > I would actually like you (everyone) to be honest and answer this > question; > > Have you actually analized the logo? Or are you just arguing against > change, because the logo is already used by git-scm.com, and related > stuff? Is this rhetorical? If not... Yes, I really thought about the logo and like it. Many of your complaints are about how git concepts map onto the logo (for instance, the direction of the graph nodes). That is _one_ way of evaluating the logo. But there are other criteria, as well. For example, is the logo pleasing to the eye? Is it memorable and recognizable? Things like "pleasing" are subjective, but there are patterns across humanity. Graphic artists have studied this for some time and have guidelines for layouts, contrast, balance, proportionality, etc. For example, in the git-fc logo you mentioned, you rotated the logo from git-scm.com. I find it less visually pleasing than the original. It seems somehow more "wobbly" to me with the two branches sticking up. Now, that is my completely subjective opinion. I do not know very much about graphic design, and whether guidelines could help there, nor did I conduct any empirical research. So maybe it is just me, or maybe one design is universally more pleasing than the other. But I think that visual art considerations should be at least as important in a logo as whether the logo pedantically matches the tool's output. -Peff