Thorsten Wilms wrote: I think I like the last best. -Eric Rz.

Hi all, I have serious reservations towards changing the logo font. I see the new logo complementing the old one, not entirely obliterating it, and quite frankly I do like the uniqueness of the font. For this reason I'd say let's keep the font as-is. Other suggestions are: 1) We need in effect 2 logos: a) One with tiny letters next or under the penguin--this one would be for links to our site b) One where the penguin we will put on our site to replace the current title 2) Hence, I consider this to be the proposal for the "B" logo. If this is so, I'd suggest that the penguin height is the same as the first letter ("L") of the text. I'd also add that tiny bit of ground under penguin's feet that in a grayscale fashion disappears by going rightwards somewhere right before the first letter of the text ("L") or right under it).* *Please note that these are suggestions. I am not sure this will actually work, and the existing stuff just may work a lot better. I would simply love to see these 2 variations together with the one already proposed right next to each other simply for comparison sakes ;-). Best wishes, Ico

I can see your point now :-). G can be almost interpreted as a Q. You are IMHO also right about making penguin a taller than the text. I do prefer the ground line better as it provides some sense of ground and links the logo with the text better. With all that being said, I personally prefer the 3rd from the top which has G adjusted and the penguin is taller than the text. Perhaps fixing the top part of A in linuxAudio.org so that it does not look like it's sagging down, but rather running in parallel with the "belly" of the letter "a" could possibly fix that. Letters in versions below the aforesaid third seem to be too spaced out and the text seems IMHO more ordinary. I think you are also right about this as well. How about placing waves completely out of the penguin's mouth? FWIW, I've attached my ugly hack-visualization that addresses the soundwaves and the letter "A" concerns. Best wishes, Ico

On Tuesday 25 Apr 2006 20:09, Thorsten Wilms wrote: http://affenbande.org/~thorwil/wordpress/2006/04/25/linuxaudioorg-banner-3/ Given the general focus on Free Software, why not use a Free Font? Like this elegant design, not too serify for display use, which our text looks pretty good in: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium Or Raph Levien's Inconsolata, a fixed-width font that looks remarkably good printed and at display sizes: http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html That one probably wouldn't go with the tall, thin penguin though. FWIW I'm not particularly keen on any of the posted suggestions. The Interstate "g" is indeed gimmicky, but the modified version looks childlike and unbalanced. And I can't stand the Arial "a" or, well, pretty much anything else about Arial (or whatever Arialalike that is). Chris

On Wednesday 26 Apr 2006 10:27, Thorsten Wilms wrote: Maybe, but they're both just retracings of other fonts. I don't know about that; they can work well. Google and Sibelius, for example, have serif fonts that work. Still, I'm not exactly sold on it -- it's mostly the original (more original, anyway) free aspect that I like. Chris

Thank you all for the useful feedback! I'd say 2nd from the top with the sound waves fixed is IMHO still the best choice. In response to other font-related conversation that has transpired in the follow-up e-mails, please allow me to suggest that we stick to the existing font as much as possible in order to preserve at least some of the founding legacy. Otherwise, we will be setting a precedent that every time we redesign the logo, we'll in effect do a total redesign from ground-up, which is one of greatest deterrents to any branding effort. Although I think we should welcome everyone's input on this, IMHO Chris's font is too Sibelius/OSX-like, which will encourage continuous comparisons, and as soon as we go down that path, we lose half of our "branding" prowess, which ultimately results in a counterproductive effort--we thwart what we seek to achieve before we've even gotten there. Apart from that, I also feel that it is perhaps too "traditional" which (again IMHO) detracts from the idea of a consortium that revolves around the bleeding edge technology. I think we're also getting very close to the LAC deadline, so I'd say also for the sake of getting this thing done and over with on time, let's focus on putting finishing touches on what we already have and if that proves to be inadequate, we can have another brainstorming session after LAC targeting the font aspect. Best wishes, Ico