I do like most of the designs (some more than others), and even the ones I don’t like as much are good. I would however prefer the new logo to be an evolutionary step from the old one:
Just like plasma 6 is an evolutionary step from previous versions, the new logo should keep the core design and be a visual reminder that it’s still plasma, but improved.
To put this into an actionable description:
The new logo should keep the general form of a right-pointing triangular form right of three circles that are arranged counter-clockwise direction in increasing size.
I chose triangles, but I only like the one with lines like on a notepad or a cap. This logo in general looks nice when it’s colored. The solid colored version looks dull and uninteresting.
In fact I generally like all logos EXCEPT for squares and circles.
Yeah, the original thread was just a noncommital “hey, how about this idea” and this follow up thread felt like it snowballed into a “sounds great, let’s do it”. Like it often does in a community project.
The community aspect of KDE and attributing contributors via flairs in the forum is great. It somewhat misses out on decentralized, hive mind aspect of KDE though, and in this case it gave the wrong impression.
But maybe something good comes out of it. No matter the intend: if it is put X way then it may be perceived Y way. And this can be avoided by doing Z in the future.
I would personally suggest firstly coming up with a creative brief and then give time to the designers to find a direction to come up with a logo instead of selecting a random icon. Note that this is just my opinion.
If we have to select one i would say the thingy i guess.
Hard agree. Also, logos are designed to meet goals; having a room full of people (who aren’t design professionals) choose which they think it prettiest is of little to no utility in terms of achieving those goals. Imagine if programming were treated this way: A selection of competing implementations were lined up in front of a group of laymen and they vote on whichever they think sounds the best.
If one is selected and the devs do decide to move forward with it, I hope that the person whose design is chosen also knows how to make the concept workable at any size, with any print process on paper, signage substrates, and fabric, has proper swatch books and a calibrated monitor so that they can specify pantone, CMYK, and RGB values, and can provide fully fleshed-out usage guidelines.
I agree to this to a certain extent , at the same time color selecting and properly adjusting the color so that it works neatly across usage is more of a last part , coming up with concept that has a clear direction is more important. Without a proper design/creative brief this is very hard to make. The same goes for the visual aspect of kde plasma .
I think kde plasma should have a design brief/brand brief (to create a polished, updated brand guideline) created first so that the design part of the project has a clear direction , which would provide a consistent identity to the project and would also help in creating a great logo . While kde has the biggest feature list and is very advanced in terms of technical aspects even when comparing to gnome, it lacks a clear design direction which should be given a focus to, because that’s an essential part of the DE.Pardon me if i have crossed any lines here.
Despite of my initial enthusiasm about a new Plasma 6 logo I do have to agree with Niccolò here.
But perhaps a proper way for a new logo could be the goal for Plasma 6.1 then?
I still think Plasma 6 does “deserve” a new logo in the future.
color selecting and properly adjusting the color so that it works neatly across usage is more of a last part
Agreed, just pointing out that there are also technical considerations also.
coming up with concept that has a clear direction is more important. Without a proper design/creative brief this is very hard to make.
Absolutely. That’s more or less what I meant when I said “logos are designed to meet goals.”
I agree with you entirely; I only meant to phrase my argument in a way more intelligible to non-designers to communicate these key points:
Design is not just pretty pictures; it is carried out in order to meet clear objectives (implying that random brief-less submissions can’t possibly do this)
It also involves technical considerations that a random submitter of a logo concept may not be able to fulfil
Because laypersons are not design professionals, they are likely not privy to the design goals (assuming there are any), nor qualified to determine whether a design meets them, and therefore public opinion on design matters such as this are only likely to result in killing an idea through bikeshedding rather than providing any genuinely useful feedback
Also, worth mentioning that color alone doesn’t determine suitability for a print process. There are lots of factors there that even most designers don’t know without extensive print experience. I started out in a print brokerage so that’s very much my wheelhouse.
Triangles and Circles completely fail to create any visual branding. They are not logos, they are cool images to put instead of a logo. They are faceless. Squares is only slightly better.
If Plasma’s logo has to be recognizable, it has to be Fold, Half gear or Thingy.