New Logo

[indolering]

I've been working with Sudo for a long time about the logo redesign and he has (understandably) expressed frustrations with how slow things have progressed. In this case, I've been dragging my feet because I wanted to make sure things got done the right way this time.

The last few times the logo was the product of whatever was cooked up first. When I last spoke with Sudo, he and his team had to compromise on his design to the point were even he doesn't care much for it, and I blame that on the "death by committee" process.

I'm deeply resistant to changing the logo again just to settle for a marginally better logo, especially given the quality of the new website. Obviously, I'm just one vote, but I would be more amenable to it if we all agreed on a more robust logo revamp sometime in the future.

Usability is 1/3 design, and it turns out that design is fundamentally an engineering challenge. It doesn't look like it at first because it benefits from powerful doses of controlled chaos, much like genetic algorithms. I would like to setup a multi-round competition, one in which we have a few teams submit a LOT of initial quick sketches, we pick a few to iterate on, and then we choose of from those iterations for some final touches. I went through a similar logo design process while interning on Mozilla's Ubiquity project and it turned out really well. However, this would take a lot of time and we would probably need some sponsors to make it worth the artists efforts.

It's analogous to crappy technical standards committees that compromises until there is a spec that no-one cares for, IPSec. Instead, most technical committees try to setup multi-round competitions, like the SHA-3 competition. I think we would benefit from doing something similar here.

So, would anyone be willing or open to that or should just have one final logo vote? (I believe we left a lot of the logos out of the last vote).

[domob]

I'm open to any suggestions - I agree that the logo is very important, but I don't see me in a position to judge what is best to get a good one. I won't have any funds (or artistic talents) to contribute, but I'd take part in voting either in multiple rounds or a "final" logo vote.

[foglight]

im no expert either but also pretty resistant to change after a couple years of hanging out with nmc now. the original logo is very recognizable and i have some connection with it i think the background is little cheesy but the letter and sky blue colors (which makes me think of - openness - freedom - decentralization) are nice i think. anyway, just my opinion... i cannot lead any contests or design well myself, but i will happily commit to donating some nmc (100ish) to the cause if a contest happens. i would think we would want to include the original logo in the vote (if it wins, we can donate the funds to the general dev fund), including some basic enhanced versions of it as well.

[phelix]

There are a couple of OK logos flying around right now, IMHO we should have a quick vote and stick to the winner until we can hold a large competition. Also we should retain some rights on the logo - this is so that we can do something against malicious impersonations of the Namecoin project.

[John Kenney]

Didn't sudo's classic version come out as a fairly clear winner from the informal polls? It's just a refresh of the original logo & still recognisable.

Preventing impersonations is more about trademark & passing off laws afaik. Licensing needs to be clear, but I'm not sure it needs to be strict. There's no 'Namecoin Foundation' or anything to handle copyrights, trademarks or other legal disputes anyway.

[indolering]

Didn't sudo's classic version come out as a fairly clear winner from the informal polls?

I need to look at the exact forum messages, but I don't think all of the logos were represented. I would also like to do some A/B testing and more sophisticated analysis. We shall see if I can get it done.

Preventing impersonations is more about trademark & passing off laws afaik. Licensing needs to be clear, but I'm not sure it needs to be strict. There's no 'Namecoin Foundation' or anything to handle copyrights, trademarks or other legal disputes anyway.

Except that there is, but it basically consists of some papers sitting in on my coffee table. We are, of course, all for liberal use of the media materials, but we do need some control over the information flow. There have been some comments made on our behalf that are both technically incorrect and (IMHO) dangerous.

There are a couple of OK logos flying around right now, IMHO we should have a quick vote and stick to the winner until we can hold a large competition. Also we should retain some rights on the logo - this is so that we can do something against malicious impersonations of the Namecoin project.

Okay, what if I try to collect them all and set something up this weekend?

Also, I'm totally against changing to a purple version of the logo if that is the only major change.

[John Kenney]

You have a point, the purple isn't nice & the original blue is better. The other change in that logo is that it's not italic, that's a change worth considering. The original logo isn't bad & I'd just make some minor change(s) to refresh it, maybe darker blue, slightly different font, not italic. IMO you shouldn't go for something that's a huge change & too complex, or a big design by committee process. White ℕ in a blue circle already has some recognition.

'Namecoin Foundation' is good news, if you can get it organised. Might be worth trying to get a trademark if possible, but an IP lawyer would know more about that than me.

[stp]

I have been a silent follower for quite a while now, but I have to say that this whole discussion about a new logo is really hard to understand for me.
Even though this is my first post, I bought my first nmc back in mid 2011, so I have been around.

First things first: I really like the old and current logo, and personally don't like to see it changed.

As I can see from even the responses in this thread, that people find the new logo iterations 'just OK' should really alarm everyone here.
Why would we change a good old recognizable logo to a mediocre 'OK' version? That only would harm NMC, and further confuse people even more.
There has been enough confusion in the past already, with too many different websites etc...

Personally, I did find all new logo proposals kind of poorly designed (imho, i know people invested some time... but maybe people with a different skill set), they might have been 'OK' but really not great enough to replace an old good working logo with it. If you want to exchange it, we all should be very interested in hiring some graphic designer or marketing company and do it right.

Secondly, I don't understand the need for changing the logo at all (please enlighten me, if you do!).
Is this kind of an ego-trip where somebody wants to see his idea realized?
Honestly, I think the best asset that namecoin has right now, is its recognizability to its old logo.

The only thing that needs to happen is some strong progress on the coding front:
- wallets for all OS's
- light wallets

These things are by far way more important than changing to a mediocre logo in my opinion. Think about it, you don't want to change that logo again in a year or too, so please do it right.... and maybe postpone it until we have found someone that can design, if at all.

Just my two cents.

[indolering]

Well put STP, I'm glad you've decided to finally speak up! Those were my feelings as well, we were trading a mediocre logo for another equally mediocre logo sans the brand recognition. The committee process has sapped most of the innovation Sudo and his team tried to extract.

I propose an incremental update:

• Remove the italics, it makes the logo stronger. Someone was trying to copy the Bitcoin logo which is rotated, not italicized.
• Fix the margins on the smaller version.
• Create a repo with the graphics correctly structured (linked) for clean integration into other projects. I'm thinking a baseline Bootstrap theme as well.
• Create an official collateral page which outlines usage, similar to Mozilla's Firefox logo/branding page.