2,751
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 6:
Line 6: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:DesignTeam/Logo-ideas moved to Talk:Design Team/Logo Ideas
:Yeah, I feel like playing into the simple stroke/fill visual style is a good way to go, since that in itself is part of Sugar's identity. I agree with your comment regarding the kerning between the 's' and the 'ugar', but played with a number of possibilities and didn't find any I liked better. Feel free to glance at my [[Media:Logo_sketches.eben.jpg|sketches]] for insight into my process, and potentially food for further discussion. I feel that the "sugar cube" logo needs the 's' when it's used alone, but perhaps we could pull the 's' out of the cube for the logotype version. Also, I was aiming to find an identity of Sugar itself; do we need a "Sugar Labs" logo independent of that? Could we license the Sugar logo under CC and simply use a logotype with "labs" appended, perhaps in a lighter gray? -[[User:Eben|Eben]]
:Yeah, I feel like playing into the simple stroke/fill visual style is a good way to go, since that in itself is part of Sugar's identity. I agree with your comment regarding the kerning between the 's' and the 'ugar', but played with a number of possibilities and didn't find any I liked better. Feel free to glance at my [[Media:Logo_sketches.eben.jpg|sketches]] for insight into my process, and potentially food for further discussion. I feel that the "sugar cube" logo needs the 's' when it's used alone, but perhaps we could pull the 's' out of the cube for the logotype version. Also, I was aiming to find an identity of Sugar itself; do we need a "Sugar Labs" logo independent of that? Could we license the Sugar logo under CC and simply use a logotype with "labs" appended, perhaps in a lighter gray? -[[User:Eben|Eben]]
:"Labs" could just be a little word beneath "sugar". As for the kerning problem, I don't know yet how to best solve that. Do you mind putting the source file (SVG?, AI?, EPS?) online, so I can play with it a bit? --[[User:Simon|Simon]] 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:"Labs" could just be a little word beneath "sugar". As for the kerning problem, I don't know yet how to best solve that. Do you mind putting the source file (SVG?, AI?, EPS?) online, so I can play with it a bit? --[[User:Simon|Simon]] 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:Just a thought: Why not use just the symbol with the s in it and typeset ”Sugar“ and/or „Sugar Labs“ additional - like f.e. the Superman-logo, it contains only an S, without uperman afterwards ... --[[User:Helga|Helga]] 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it too (as well the colour blue as new maincolour) ... --[[User:Helga|Helga]] 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it too (as well the colour blue as new maincolour) ... --[[User:Helga|Helga]] 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. What does the cube represent? And, alas, I don't think the kerning works in any of the sketchs. Can I be so bold as to suggest something along the lines of the word Sugar Labs in an outline font using the line weights from the Sugar icon design rules? perhaps each letter in its own color dyad taken from the Sugar palette? --[[User:Walter|Walter]]
:The cube is a "sugar cube". At least, that's the logical association intended, while attempting to retain a simple form in the Sugar icon style. I think that rendering the complete text in that style will feel quite heavy -- perhaps only the first letter? I also retain the goal of coming up with an icon ''for Sugar'', and not specifically for Sugar Labs (Though a modification to the icon could certainly serve that purpose). The fact that Sugar lacks an identity seemed to be the reason this process was initiated. Finally, I think it's important, regardless of what we choose, that there is an iconic form that we can use to represent sugar without associating the word "Sugar" with it. Think of an apple with a bite, a flying window, or a penguin. These logos all stand alone, and I think we need something equally succinct. Regarding kerning, by the way, I do offer that it might be worth pulling the 'S' out of cube in the logotype, which eliminates the kerning issues, as seen in a few of the sketches. -[[User:Eben|Eben]]
::I think the distinguishing feature of Sugar is collaboration. So something that suggests multiple elements working together is in part what I had in mind with the multiple letters rendered a la a Sugar icon. I don't think a Sugar cube means a whole lot. Maybe cubes in the form of a Soma puzzle might be more apropos? --[[User:Walter|Walter]]
::: The Soma puzzle is an excellent idea, kind of like a child's blocks done in a more structured way. A rubrics cube would be another iconic form that could be adopted, but it's probably a little too complex visually. --[[User:rhyre|Ralph]]
Thought of trying something [[Media:Sugarlabs_project.png|different]]. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Petriceanu|Petriceanu]]
I really like the direction that Murray Altheim's idea is heading... --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
== Sugar CRM ==
I've always thought the Sugar was an unfortunate collision in open-source namespace with the [http://www.sugarforge.org/ Sugar CRM], but there is not much you can do about that now. However, you should be careful to avoid mark confusion. Sugar CRM does have [http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/open-source/trademark-information.html trademarks] that they can rightfully defend, including the word mark "Sugar" -- when used in the context of a Sales, Marketing or Customer Service business software application and [http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/images/tm_images/SugarLabs.png this registered mark] (specific to the font, etc.) on a stylized "Sugar Labs" logo as well as [http://www.sugarcrm.com//crm/images/tm_images/sugarcrm_tm.png this registered mark] with a cube. I'm not saying anything currently proposed necessarily interferes with their marks (I'm not a copyright lawyer), but you should be aware of their marks so as to avoid confusion, and you don't want to mess with nice guys who make a good CRM and give it away anyway. [[User:Cjl|Cjl]] 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
== Crowded namespace ==
'''sugar-lab.com'''
According to their web-site [http://www.sugar-lab.com/index.html sugarlab corporation] is a progressive entertainment studio that embraces both traditional entertainment and emerging media developments, including open content creation models. I don't know who Lisa Voldeng is, but I wouldn't want to mess with any of their "uberbabe superhero pantheon".
'''sugarlab.com'''
You've also got a dead page for a [http://www.sugarlab.com/ digital media studio], but probably not the same one from the whois info.
'''sugarlabs.com''' is being squatted on by a domain troll.
'''sugar-lab.net and sugarlab.net'''
gives you [http://www.sugar-lab.net/blog/ someone's blog], I think, and I can't tell what [http://www.sugarlab.net/ this is].
== Potential prior art for "Simplified" logo ==
http://www.shareaholic.com/