File talk:LogoJuergenAugust03 4.png
The last one! But the others are nice too. Just very different, I think. Renke
Nice colors, friendly, unobtrusive and not like any company logo I can think of. The third version is quite appealing (the large and small dots could symbolize full-blown articles vs. stubs, for example), but maybe the W shape must be made easier to recognize (color?). --Morn
Love the first one. -- I am Jack's username, 2003-08-29t00:29z
The first one looks a bit too much like http://www.wienerschnitzel.com/ ridetheory
The second one is nice. The last one however is sublime. Get rid of the W in the dots -- use something else as a language neutral symbol, and give us some more 3d variant angles, please. This is a wiener.(pun intended) -Stevertigo 19:44, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Voted for first one. Last 3 of these look like they get ideas from logos of Winter Olympic Games(Salt Lake City and Tokyo). Munford 16:31, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The first one, which seems to have quite a bit of popularity, is unsuitable as an International Logo, as it is centred around a W shape - not all Wikipedias have a W in their name. -- Kwekubo
I vote for this guy to actually implement whichever logo idea wins. It's his eye for colour, spacing and typography that sets these candidates apart, not any strong visual idea. Markonen
I think the first one isn't international enough (its a latin W)
I would like to strongly suggest to the creator of this entry to submit some additional variations, especially in terms of color. It seems that the second and third variants are at somewhat of a disadvantage due to their being yellow, while the first and fourth versions, being green and orange, respectively, stand out far better against the white background. The additional color gradient in the fourth version is also something that might be investigated as a variant for versions one to three.
An alternate means of making the logo more prominent with respect to the type might be to use a lighter color, such as gray or dark blue, for the text. Finally, black-and-white versions might make it easier to appreciate the geometric forms of the logo candidates, rather than be guided by their differences in color. A good logo, I think, should be just as effective in black-and-white as in color. --145.254.37.110 21:00, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I like the 4C version, but it would look cleener with the W dots in another color. I've put a example below (Bisho 8 Sep 2003)
Yuck, that version is causing pain in the eyes! -- Tillwe 20:00, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- That could have been phrased a little nicer, don't you think? I believe the contrast is a little too strong in this variant. I like the fact that in the original color scheme, you actually have to discover that the W is hidden in the dots.—Eloquence 21:12, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
((Exactly what I wanted to say! ;-P -- Tillwe 20:00, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)))
I love the last one in the final submission. I hope it wins. Dgrant 21:26, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
aah - beautiful[edit]
Reminds me of 'Its a SONY'
imho, versions 1-3 are clearly the best drafts in this this competition.
a) use of just two colours - the shape is unique & very recognizable - very good symbol, even if you reduce it to just one colour
b) clear proportions (can be scaled to nearly any format with very little loss)
will still be clearly recognizable on a fax / as a favicon / ..
c) friendly and neutral look - open in every direction
d) version 2 & 3 - the single parts forming a whole new gestalt - adds up to more than the sum :)
e) excellent font-choice (syntax, i think) - a sans serif type (looks quite fresh), but oriented in its shapes at a humanistic renaissance antiqua (eg. garamond), that means harmonic proportions. unfortunately, there's just a latin version available - no cyrillic / asian characters.
- uli
ps: if you want it 3d (version 4) - please get rid of the fades inside the dots. brrrrrrr :) however - i think the first three versions are strong enough - an extra »movement« into space is not required.
idea: imagine a dynamic logo of version 3 - all points are changing diameter over time, but the points forming the »W« stay (nearly) constant in their diameter. this would add some subtle liveliness and, maybe, make the »W« more recognizable.
a word from the designer
hi and thank you for your comments and critics. i was in holiday (france:-) till september 17 and unfortunately could not respond to your messages or do some changes of the designs. of course it was a nice surprise to find my contributions on the final list
please let me reply to some comments
- i like simple and plain designs easy to recognize, therefore i do not really like designs with too many layers, colours and typefaces mixed with each other. i think, legibility is an important part of a design with typography.
- i like the comments of uli; they match with my ideas behind the drafts. as for 4d, i agree with uli concerning the colour fades, if chosen this is worth a try.
- i agree with Tillwe concerning the visibility of the "W" in the dot field. the ambiguity of seeing/not seeing the "W" is important for the "tension" of the logo.
- 145.254.37.110's comment on providing a black/white version is right, the best way to chose a logo and it’s text/image composition is to present it in black/white first. his/her critic of the colour is right, yellow may be less visible with white background, i think it equally work well with putting more orange to the yellow. i would not work with the common logo colours like red or blue. of course, the typography can be "softened" by using dark grey instead of black.
- Kwekubo has an argument which i have not thought of, if there are wikipedias which have no "W" in it’s name, the first one will not work. i think the dotty ones could work, just by letting appear another letter out of the dots while keeping the same shape of the dot network.
