Ought-o. This can’t be good.
Drupal is getting a wordmark, and it looks very web 2.0. It’s still going through it’s finial stages of development, but, I have some quick concerns about it.
- “This will not be a design by committee process – the Designer will have the final word”, that’s worrisome.
- Drupal is many things, but, it still doesn’t have the power to change the laws of physics (that’s coming in Drupal 8
). The “droplets” shouldn’t be coming out of the u for no reason. I mean, no one wants a logo that looks like it’s sweating. - Why is the d a different color? Please tell me you don’t plan on using that seporate from the rest of the word mark?
- the space between the d and l feels awkward, as does the shape of the letter p and a, it looks like they are they, watching you
- Learn from others mistakes.
I can’t wait to see the next draft!
Related articles by Zemanta
- DRAFT: Drupal.org Experience Strategy
- Drupal.org – Initial thoughts on the Information Architecture
- Drupal.org redesign wireframe for projects
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=78b497d0-5226-4f75-b1a7-6d46a4674040)
The designer has the final say? I thought that was with the drupal association that hired them. Am I wrong on that?
When it comes to design we need to have trust in the designer we have (who happens to be a good one) to make something that works and is good. Our cheese will be moved, so to say. To many cooks in the kitchen isn’t going to work. We don’t want this design to die the death of a thousand opinions.
The wordmark looks like it sweating? I guess I didn’t see that. It looks like a spash to me. I may not see the cause of the spash but it looks like the effect of the splash. If it were sweating wouldn’t the wordmark have pit stains
.
Nice catch on the d being a different color. It’s color is #232020 while the other letters are #040505. Is there a reason to do something like that? Is it easier on the eyes or something like that?
I’d be careful to tell a designer to learn from other mistakes. When you hire a top of the line designer you should treat them that way which means some respect. I understand your concerns and look forward to some responses to them. But, I’d be careful not to tell a top of the line designer how to do their job. That’s impolite and disrespectful.
Although I am far from comfortable with the current wordmark plans, there are a few points which are not fair here.
The Druplicon and the current Drupal typo (as in the font and text by the Druplicon) was done by a designer, and no community was involved at all. Not that the designer had the final word, nobody else could have a word.
Well, try to drop a stone into a bottle of water and you’ll see what happens
(I agree as it is on the plan it could be interpreted as sweating). I’ve seen some mockups advocating the use of the “Drupal: make waves” tagline instead of the community plumbing one, which again evolves around the same “drop” concept.
Top line designer or no, it’s still going to be the community who in the end says: “Let’s make a different logo, we don’t like this one”
Robin
@Gabor, oooo, I like the “make waves” concept!
Robin
The Drupal community is why we can’t have nice things.
Whoever heard of a community-driven design that worked?
Stick to writing modules, plzthx.
Also, I think the logo looks unbalanced, leaning forward in left-to-right direction.
Please let the designer make the final decision (even if I disagree with the esthetic qualities). Logos designed by committee tend to be ugly as sin.
Last time I checked sweat drips downward.
Although I do agree the logo is very web2.0ish I still think it looks better than what exist now.
Although I think people are digging too deep into this. It’s just a logo, it won’t change what drupal is or what drupal does.
I thought this was vaguely familiar, but I couldn’t place it. Then I remembered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplo
Just sayin’, is all…
I love it.
…Am I the only one who does?