Rockbox Logo...

[karashata]

I like it, but I think the somewhat greenish-yellow should be changed to match the current logo's more orange-yellow...

[denny]

Thanks for the comments guys. I did the colour from a guess (I'm colourblind which doesn't help sometimes). Here's one that matches the orange of the original:

[gevaerts]

The colours are indeed better now.

[saanaito]

Definitely my favorite so far. Excellent job.

[AlexP]

I really like that too

[Llorean]

Could we see that latest logo with a lower-case "box", and perhaps (I'm not sure how this will look) shaving the point off the upper left corner so that it's also a right angle?

[soap]

Could we see that latest logo with a lower-case "box", and perhaps (I'm not sure how this will look) shaving the point off the upper left corner so that it's also a right angle?

Perhaps also some shading on the right side of the note so the line between it and the yellow background is more distinct @ lower resolution?

 

[hayden]

One thing I'd like to ask Hayden: Ignoring the "they can scale down to smaller images" factor since that's pretty much irrelevant, what exactly is your goal with the image redesigns? My personal perspective on your redesigns is that you're basically attempting to take any life out of them and make it "a boring word and an icon", which I know sounds really negative, but it's the impression I get from it, and I'd like to hear what your intent with it was to understand. At that point maybe I can offer some constructive feedback instead.

Hi Llorean,
In the first place my goal (as with my general approach to design) was to try and say something as efficiently and/or eloquently as possible. Looking at the current logo I didn't feel that all the elements were necessary or clear enough in their intent in order to 'say' what rockbox is. Most well designed logos aren't made up of arbitrary decisions, which means they can be interrogated. What is the meaning of x, what is the hierarchy of elements etc etc.

To use denny's example (which I think is great) his logo to me says 1) music 2) box 3) construction which I think is pretty much the right order - and additionally it doesn't use a whole lot of extraneous elements to communicate this.

I suppose that my desire to see a change in the logo comes from not understanding the current one
- why the textured nature of the box?
- why the (architectural) lines ? is that the strongest way to talk about the idea of construction or evolution ?
- why does the music (note) element appear to be secondary to (or less important than) the others ?

Secondly, the huge changes (eg since 2.4) aren't reflected in how rockbox is presenting itself. All the amazing work going on behind the scenes is staying behind the mask so to speak.

If you felt my suggestion lacked life then obviously I missed the mark, and I'm glad to see denny's response getting positive feedback because I think it goes a long way towards solving some of the perceived 'issues'. Though to throw it on top of an old blue and white bb forum would do it a disservice 

h

[Llorean]

Ah, I see one of the difficulties here then, from your comment about the forum (which isn't phpBB at all, but SMF). Some of us look for information first, and have the imagery as decoration. Some of us value the decoration, and ignore the information (such as the bits that tell you this is an SMF forum).

Almost all the "amazing work" between Rockbox 2.4 and 3.0 really is behind the scenes. I would hazard that a large percent of it is things "under the hood" as it were, that users won't notice. The most user-noticeable features is obviously the new theme, and while that was first released with 3.0, the featureset that theme demands has existed for years (since the H300 port got bitmap graphics, more or less).

So, while you're trying to communicate "It's shiny and new and sleek" I personally (and I suspect several of the developers) would like to communicate "This is the product of many peoples' work. It is planned. It is a piece of software we put together from many peoples' contributed pieces. It plays music."

Make no mistake, the project plays music, but what it is is a piece of open source software developed by many people over a long period.

Heck, some people probably don't even play music on their MP3 players. I'm sure a lot of people use it for audiobooks, as it's surely a decent way to have voice-navigated use of audiobooks.

Speaking of "Communication", what elements of your logo actually communicate anything about what Rockbox is? I see an R and a musical note, and that's about it. Nothing about that communicates "software" or "a continually developed project" or "many rough edges are to be expected" or anything else about the project other than "there's a letter R, and it involves music."

[GodEater]

Heck, some people probably don't even play music on their MP3 players. I'm sure a lot of people use it for audiobooks, as it's surely a decent way to have voice-navigated use of audiobooks.

Don't forget the RockDoom / Rockboy crowd either

[ZincAlloy]

Speaking of "Communication", what elements of your logo actually communicate anything about what Rockbox is? I see an R and a musical note, and that's about it. Nothing about that communicates "software" or "a continually developed project" or "many rough edges are to be expected" or anything else about the project other than "there's a letter R, and it involves music."

but are logos supposed to communicate that much? most logos I know are very simplistic and abstract. some text and/or a graphical symbol.

[Llorean]

http://images.google.com/images?q=logo

Logos can vary quite a large amount in the terms of graphical detail and information conveyed. Some logos exist to grow brand awareness, these are often very simple and easy for someone to remember.

That's probably not our goal here, though.

Other logos try to convey information. Since our logo is, primarily, just a page header, it really needs to reflect the project more than act as a brand awareness front, I think.

And, frankly, all the Rockbox logo is, anyway, is "Formatted text and a symbol." The bit of code on the side, and the box that contain it are more presentation than "logo". The drive here, from one group, seems to be, from my perspective "remove the formatting so the text doesn't carry any symbolism" and "create a logo that says nearly nothing about the project itself".

[denny]

Could we see that latest logo with a lower-case "box", and perhaps (I'm not sure how this will look) shaving the point off the upper left corner so that it's also a right angle?

Perhaps also some shading on the right side of the note so the line between it and the yellow background is more distinct @ lower resolution?

 

As requested :






I blunted the point but a right angle looks very unbalanced (i can still mock one up if you would like) and the 'box' is now lower case as per the original. Added a shadow around the right hand side of the note too. Not really sure which version I prefer personally, I like them both. Thanks for the interest .

[karashata]

It just gets better and better as it goes...

The only thing I can see potentially being a problem is the black border being lost in the black background on the DAPs themselves.  Then again, I think the current logo already has this problem on the DAPs too...

Then again, perhaps it isn't so much of a problem...

[denny]

Thankyou

I think to avoid that problem, and to deal with the fact its not a quadrilateral logo like the original, it would have to be displayed in a white strip or rectangle. Or perhaps given a white outer glow on a black backgrounded bmp so it would appear to merge seamlessly with the boot screen black... but this is just fanciful talk methinks.