[OSM-talk] new logo

[Robert Martinez]

On 05/17/2010 05:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/5/16 SteveC<steve at asklater.com>:
>    
>> As for why this is better, anyone who has printed t-shirts, conference material or worked in branding will tell you, as I already have that the current logo:
>>
>> * has too many colours
>> * doesn't scale
>> * is too busy
>> * isn't brandable to a colour scheme
>>
>> This isn't opinion, it's just basic design facts.
>>      
>
> while this is all true, it doesn't imply that to design a new logo we
> must completely throw the current design away. I think that the old
> logo is quite good at pointing out what OSM is about (for a part,
> sparing out the collaborative aspect, but still the "data and not map
> or poi"-aspect is important). I would expect from a new logo to be
> 1 individual and unique
> 2 meet all the technical and graphical requirements for a logo
> 3 tell a story / symbolize the idea of OSM
> 4 possibly maintain some continuity with the current logo (ideally the
> new logo would be some progress of the old one)
>
> the proposed design is working only for point 2 but has nothing to do with OSM.
>
>    

I'll use that post as a hook for going into detail concerning my opinion 
as a designer
(excuse the amount of text, but I'm kind of challenged to respond to 
critical voices):


All the things Steve mentioned are both important and true. And I 
designed my logo to meet those, and a few other standards:
It is scalabe, can be colorized, isn't busy (a subset of scalable) and 
does not use many colors.

1. You correctly add the uniqueness as an important attribute. If you 
find something that looks too similar please speak up - this could be an 
absolute no-go no matter what the current fuzz about the logo is. This 
is very important.

2. Then you mention that "technical and graphical requirements" should 
be met, and acknowledge that it does. Thanks! This really is important, too.

3. Then you go on with "story / symbolization of an idea" and I strongly 
disagree. There *may* be some special cases where I might not disagree, 
but the OSM project certainly isn't in that category.

A story has to be told, it has the dimension of time and involves much 
vocabulary. While this must not be inherently bad, it clearly is a 
recipe for failure in all the other important domains like scalability, 
colorization and other stuff.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "symbolization of an idea", and I'm 
even more uncertain what that means in a visual term. This alone drives 
me to the conclusion that every attempt to do this will fail, not only 
because there are probably thousands of ideas and symbols, but also 
thousands of ways to interpret them.

I understand and respect the wish for what you want to accomplish here, 
but my experience says efforts in that direction are in vein. At the 
same time I don't want so say it is WRONG to have such qualities, it is 
just that I prefer not to count them as a quality I think is worth 
working on.
So I would positively surprised if somebody tries and achieves this, but 
I have my reasons not to start thinking or working in that direction 
with this logo.

4. You're kind of right here, too:
"possibly maintain some continuity with the current logo..."
This is absolutely true since it hurts the recognition and acceptance of 
the Project if it changes the logo all the time. You want to avoid that, 
and evolve slowly to meet new expectations or fashion or whatever.
But you say "possibly", and I see no possibility since there are just 
too much elements that make this logo not work.

We enter the real of interpretation again, and this is to a degree 
subjective to my ideas but:
- What does a magnifying glass in a logo mean? Is the map too small? is 
the project just about searching or finding? Did you ever use one of 
those devices with OSM - or at all (other than burning inscets with it 
when you were small)?
Nevertheless I also tried out to fiddle with it and maybe come up with a 
good design that at least works as a bridge to the old logo - because 
that's a value, too after all. but it did not work for me because the 
glass is always an element hiding everything else and adding a new layer 
to a situation where you want to be simple and clean.
- What about the 0s and 1s - is this a binary map kind of the new 
stylish wrtistwatches? or does it want to tell me "hey I'm not analog 
any more - cool what!?..", or is it even a map in binary code only - and 
the sourcecode is not available? Talking of symbols: binary does not 
even have to be 0s and 1s, it is just the only convention that works at 
that scale. But having typographic elements in an illustrative logo is a 
bad idea for a good logo.
- Then there is the paper map, actually a quite good symbol that lends 
itself for a logo (and I did many designs in that direction). So I see 
no real problem here per se. BUT:
If you choose to stick to the paper map you have to get rid of the 
little details, wich essentially leaves you with a plain paper. Now you 
could fold it interestingly and play with light and shadow to make it a 
valuable addition to a good logo, but that would definietely mean to 
destroy the distinct square-ish shape that currently is the most 
dominant element in the logo (concerning its shape).
I see no luck in fighting that issue (and I did long and thoroughly), so 
I don't want to say it is impossible, but I would regard it ineffective 
to let others work in that direction and expect good results.

That's it from my semantical perspective about the possibility to keep 
old stuff from the logo. As you see I'm not completely against it, but I 
come to the conclusion that it is not worth to keep things that really 
don't work.

I spare you all the technical reasons why formal issues like gradients, 
colors, outline thickness, contrast, sizes, numbers of objects, shapes 
are inconsistent and not enhancing the qualities of a good logo. Nor do 
they good when the logo is in practical use on moving objects, printed 
or on or near other vissual information and so on.
I just say the style needs to be redone anyway (and so far I haven't 
heard critical voices concerning that).


But lets not focus on the drawbacks of that logo, I think you already 
get the picture.
Lets talk about what you get with the new logo:

First there is the drawback that there has to be a change (and that 
isn't a small issue) - it is sad, but it is worth it.

Regarding the practical advantages that were discussed here I think it 
is save to say that the logo performs well. You can have a look at my 
presentation image here:

http://mray.de/sites/default/files/logoproposal_big.html


Facing all the semantical criticism here (and dropping the bold 
suggestion I have no idea about the project) we have exactly two items:

The pin and the segment of a globe/map.

Now you might argue there is EVERYTHING missing in this logo except 
those two things, and it therefore is bad and incomplete.

But I argue the situation is complete: It has a medium and information. 
And it is a map with a pin.

This is the reduction that makes sense for me, because you cannot go any 
further.
Yes there is people behind this project with hearts and feelings and 
efforts and ideologies, and workflows and techniques and lots of other 
stuff. But that by no means fits in the logo, and in my eyes would just 
makes it inflexible to new things to come. The OSM needs a logo that is 
does NOT incorporate symbols or elements that only mappers, or coders, 
or other groups can identify with - there should always be lots of 
people with different activities that should feel represented. And they 
should be with map and pin if they're part of OSM.

So what I offer also is a reduction in quantity, while the old logo has 
a map with folds, a magnifying glass with reflections, a digital 
representation, forrest, streets and a lake on the map.
So I partly understand you feel kind of robbed, because my logo has only 
a pin on a map.

Now, could everybody still in doubt please do a simple google image 
search for "good logo" and check for logos that tell a story! I bet 
you'll hardly find any.
If you do so you'll probably notice something else: there is typography.
The old logo completely lacks that but doesn't perform worse because of 
that! Formally. But practically this results in lots of problems when 
you have to use it.
My logo comes with an optional type combination (using a OFL licenced 
font btw) and can be expanded and adapted to sister-projects. Maybe this 
will come in handy when some day OSM gets proper branding.
My logo would fit almost any new brand, in contrast to the old one.

So what I offer to contribute is a working, professional flexible logo 
made specifically for this project.

If I still couldn't convince you with my view then I don't know what 
else I can do in order to engage the community.

(Who decides now?)


kind regards,
Robert Martinez