Inkscape Logo "swoosh" looks awkward over dark backgrounds

[Martin Andersen]

Inkscape logo: This may be up to artistic interpretation, but the included Inkscape logos have a white bit under the ink mountain which I think should be transparent, ie combined, as it's supposed to represent the background, which is fine when the logo is on white, but looks wrong when people put it on anything else. I've seen it on a lot of artwork with coloured backgrounds, and it looks wrong.

Attached are the default logo files in clipart with the shape Combined with the main shape, ie the hole is transparent.

[JiHO (jiho)]

On 2008-January-09 , at 15:06 , Martin Andersen wrote:

> This may be up to artistic interpretation, but the
> included Inkscape logos have a white bit under the ink mountain
> which I
> think should be transparent, ie combined, as it's supposed to
> represent
> the background,

to me this part of the logo is not supposed to represent the
background. I rather interpret it as snow toping the mountain of the
represented landscape. as such I think it should stay white. I'm
curious how people interpret it.

JiHO
---
http://jo.irisson.free.fr/

[prkos (prkos)]

I also thought it was snow, but now when I think of it it might be kewl to have it transparent. I played with the color (to match the bg) and somehow it seems more 3D when it matches bg, the mountain looks more distinct from the ink.

[MenTaLguY (mental-deactivatedaccount)]

Speaking as (one of) the original designers, the original intent was that the little "swoosh"/"smile" was a white highlight reflecting off the wet ink, rather than being knocked out of the mountain. I have mixed feelings because it does actually look a little awkward when the logo is over a darker background; usually logo treatments keeping the non-knocked-out swoosh have put a lighter border or "halo" around the logo to compensate.

[MenTaLguY (mental-deactivatedaccount)]

(for one-color treatments, both the snowcap and swoosh are knocked out)

[MenTaLguY (mental-deactivatedaccount)]

s/usually logo treatments/usually effective logo treatments on dark backgrounds/

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

It had occurred to me it might be a highlight, and I think it might be better that way, but somehow the shape and the top edge of the shape following the edge of the mountain, and not having a blurred edge makes it seem more like a "hole" in the river of ink. It is ambiguous I guess.
I don't know the history of the logo, but I came across the one from Andy Fitzsimmon's blog which has a clear hole: http://andy.brisgeek.com/archives/18
If you look at some of the About screen entries, there's some ambiguity as to the interpretation. For instance, For instance, Archaemic has a 3D-shaded version where he sees it as a hole, and is shaded as such. For the final About screen, it needs top be considered what the "official" position is, and changes maybe requested for the About screen contest winner.

Some suggestions as to make it more like a highlight:
1. Slightly raise the reflection, so the edge of the mountain intersect the middle of the highlight.
2. Taper the highlight at both edges so it looks like more like a highlight.
3. Possibly blur the highlight slightly, Gradients, tints and strategic blurs are not uncommon in modern logos.

I will attach some versions for you to consider:

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

BTW, maybe I've been looking at it for too long, but I don't fully agree with the new title. It does look awkward on a dark background, but because it doesn't fool me into thinking it's a highlight and not a hole, which is what I see on a plain white background too. When i made my report, I thought it represented a hole in the inklflow, hence my suggestion that the shape not being combined was a bug and looked wrong on non-white backgrounds.

[Troy James Sobotka (troy-sobotka)]

Good god. Is this a bug?

Close this.

Anyone who shares the notion that a given logo must present on both black and white should probably walk into the modern era. At the very least, read a good book on contemporary art and design.

This is absolutely backwards, ridiculous, and cluttering up an already daunting bug list.\

Two pennies from someone who is currently sorting through bugs to see if he can help out.

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

I am a graphic designer for what it is worth, and I've read more than a few good books on art and design as it happens. If you think considering how a logo looks on different backgrounds and avoiding ambiguity is "backwards", then you are the clueless one.

[Rygle (rygle)]

Be cool guys... I made heated comments once before and lived to regret it.

[MenTaLguY (mental-deactivatedaccount)]

My degree was in graphic design, and I agree with Martin. I think this is a perfectly reasonable discussion, even if it is a bit trivial compared to "real" bugs (which is adequately reflected by "Importance = Low").

Anyway, from the examples you gave, Martin, raising and tapering the highlight does seem to help a bit. I'll have to experiment a bit and see how well it works by itself in simpler one- and two-color treatments. "Modern" shaded versions are fine, but a logo does need to be able to stand on its own without special effects.

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

I agree fully. This is hardly an urgent request, it just seems it is the only place to raise the point formally. It occurred to me when I was looking at the About Screen contest for 0,46, none of which are on a white background, and many of which apply shading. When there is highlights around the "swoosh", then obviously others see it as a hole. I'm fine with it either way. I did some research afterwards and came up with a page by Andy Fitzsimon, who seems to be associated with the project:
"The Inkscape logo has been re-aligned"
http://andy.brisgeek.com/archives/18
Looking at it, it seems to be much the same as the "official" one, except for the shading and the "swoosh" is a hole. Hence my report.

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

Oh, and incidentally, check out the official "About " screen for 0.46, it seems to use Andy's version, with the "swoosh" as a hole. Either way, it's a minor matter that needs clarification.

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

One final example: The Desktop logo, at least on Windows, has a clear hole.

[MenTaLguY (mental-deactivatedaccount)]

Here's a serious question: if we decide that the swoosh shouldn't be a hole and/or reposition it, how do we get the fix propagated?

The "official" two-color treatment of the logo in SVN does not have, and in theory that is the "authoritative" version that everyone should have been basing their treatments on, but obviously they aren't. If we modify the logo again, how do we promulgate the changes? There are still treatments based on the original 2002 logo floating around. :(

[MenTaLguY (mental-deactivatedaccount)]

er, does not have a hole

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

I don't know if anyone in particular is responsible for the design, and hence can answer the curious question of "hole or not", or if everyone has just gone by their own perception, but once there is an official version, firstly obviously any official version(s) ship with Inkscape, including any "web 2.0" or whatever you might call them shaded version, and maybe web buttons. Is Andy Fitzsimon as mentioned above involved in the logo design? If so, his blog should reflect the official version, as the examples I mentioned seems to have used his. He should also be asked to post an update notice to the archived "re-aligned logo" page ( http://andy.brisgeek.com/archives/18 ) notifying of a newer version and linking to it.
Next, inkscape.org should have a Resources page where all official artwork is available, including any web buttons or other marketing material (for instance; have a competition for a marketing flyer to be distributed at Unis etc). A note should say this is the official logo, and an example on a coloured background might even be shown in case it makes a difference, along with any other official variant or suggested treatment; eg you could have a white "halo" outline on black backgrounds, or reverse the logo to white. Then in future competitions it can be noted to use the official logo distributed with Inkscape and also link to the official Resources page. If people start Googling for shaded versions or the like (maybe they're just unaware of the version Inkscape comes with), that's when inconsistencies start to creep in. The page mentioned above has the sound of being an Authoritative version.
Finally, any associated web sites, like openclipart.org or inkscapeforum.com etc, should ensure any Iogos they have for download or use on their pages are the official version. I haven't checked Openclipart for the logo, but conceivably multiple old versions could linger, like there may be old Sodipodi stuff.
News of an update to the logo, however small, can be posted on inkscape.org along with a link to the resources page and emailed to any associated sites for their news section, such as maintainers of inkscapers.deviantart.com which lots of inkscapers subscribe to, or inkscape.deviantart.com, and inkscapeforum.com (run by microUgly).
Personally I don't mind whether it's a hole or not, but for the sake of avoiding ambiguity and for the sake of good consistent branding, it's something that should be considered.

[MenTaLguY (mental-deactivatedaccount)]

Agreed about consistent branding.

Andy and I are the two designers most active with the Inkscape logo at present (I was also on the design team for the original logo). Obviously I am in the "no hole" camp, but I'm not really sure where Andy falls. I have a vague recollection that we may have eventually reached a "no hole" consensus some time back. I'll confer with him.

[Martin Andersen (msandersen)]

Ah, To Hole or Not To Hole, that is the question...
Whether to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous holes...

Wars have been fought for less, you know.

(Sorry Sharespeare...)