From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following is a modified version of what PrinceGloria posted to that page and it may help you choosing "the right logo":

Here are my thoughts on what criteria should an effective logo fulfill:

  1. Be original and easily discernible in all forms, so that wherever and however it is used, it identifies the project it is associated with to the viewers.
  2. Communicate what the project is about well, so that users who come across the logo for the first time anywhere will know this is a community-based travel website anybody can edit. This is kinda opposite to originality - using symbols that are commonly associated with some idea or concept does help.
  3. Communicate everything else well using colours and fonts - this means much more than "playful" in case of this project, for most users coming across Wikivoyage for the first time, who are our most important audience (repeat, repeat, repeat - we are NOT choosing this logo for ourselves!), it has to communicate that this site can be a serious travel information provider and not some side project or blog that they should dismiss or not treat seriously. Once they start using it as a information source and discover the breadth and wealth of it we have, they may start contributing.
  4. Be adaptable to all uses - be it the site's title picture or the smaller icons used for various purposes. Fortunately, we have a number of precedents with other wiki projects, so we know what sizes we need for what.
  5. Be easily adaptable for all language versions, this is obvious
  6. Be visually creative - a logo that somehow defies expectations or does something unusual is generally better perceived, unless you are SPECIFICALLY aiming to look conservative and dull, which we by all means don't.
  7. Be actually nice and visually pleasing

Selection of final options[edit]

How were the final options selected from the rather larger list of possibilities after the recent discussion of the finalists? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please confer to the talk page of the Finalist review page, section Tallies and Problem with balloon variants. -- Rillke (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, another surprise at the last minute. They are now all equally mediocre. I will abstain from further input unless something changes. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peter, how was this a surprise? Unless I misunderstand what you are referring to, this process was written up at Wikivoyage/Logo 2013#Timeline for months, the finalist review pages all stated how this stage would work right at the top, and I even posted several times in your/our home wiki's pub regarding the "voting for variants" process along with encouragements to take part in it :/ --Peter Talk 19:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The news about the unacceptable shape for the new basket came as a surprise. It appeared to be well received and an obvious improvement, now for a poorly explained reason, it has been rejected. I have the page on my watchlist for e-mail notification specifically to prevent surprises, and took part in the discussions and voting, but somehow I didn't get a message after about Saturday, so I assumed nothing was happening. I was wrong. This is a pity, because that basket makes a big difference to me. With the wider tapered basket, the logo tops my list. With the narrow basket it drops to no better than the other two. I can live with any of them, but no longer have a preference. Fortunately all the options I really didn't like fell out in the first round and the legal eliminations. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, gotcha. The legal "surprises" are frustrating, although the fact that they may come up isn't as much a surprise this time around, since we do have legal reviews built into the timeline, and because our existing logo's trademark issue was itself the reason for the new process! I don't think this particular problem was poorly explained, and it makes sense to someone with zero knowledge of trademark law: using a shape that looks like what you would expect to see under any hot air balloon makes the logo less distinct than the one with the unusual vertical dash-like appearance. And less distinct/unique means less trademarkable. I wish I hadn't, then, spent all that time reworking the basket shape, but what can you do ;) --Peter Talk 06:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As they say, shit happens. A pity they have to leave the surprises until it is too late to do anything useful about them. It is really frustrating to go through the whole process and then at the end there is an arbitrary change to the position of the goalposts. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the process should be re-thought in this regard. Either an additional an additional community review after the second legal review or legal reviews the proposals as soon as they are submitted and there is per-user-submission-limit. -- Rillke (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can have another go at finding a new logo in the future. The issue is we cannot keep using the current logo. Thus we at least need a new logo even if it is temporary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope that we can work on more useful things instead of changing logos with the same frequency that we are changing clothes :-D --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. My gut tells me that this whole process has charged the WMF (including payment for the employees and the external consulting) a lot more than $ 1K not mentioning the time the discussion participants, me, the logo-creators and -amenders spent. -- Rillke (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are these really the only choices after all those options I saw proposed?

It seems like few are actually happy with the choices. (the fonts, the colour schemes, the balloon's basket, etc).

Wouldn't it make more sense to choose a silouhette (plane, balloon, compass point triangles with concave), and then after that decide on the details?

I also like the idea of a combination of the plane and the compass points (see here), though I realise I'm a bit late to the table : )

But it would at least be another silhouette option... - Jc37 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to the election procedure to be suggested at Talk:Logo selection procedure, please.
And for everything else, it is indeed too late because on September, 1 we must have a new logo. -- Rillke (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not voting because ...[edit]

I think these are all good so I'm not voting - I'm leaving it to those who have thought this through more carefully. Just thought I'd say this in case someone argues that you didn't get enough votes for a proper result. Filceolaire (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]