Re: New GCC logotype development. (Was:Re: New GCC logotype version1.6 (Sorry, I forgot to attach the image).)

[Vladius <boxforsr at inbox dot ru>]

Richard Kenner wrote:

>    I think it is quite clear to understand. I present a better 
>    solution. Something that is better than the current logo is supposed to 
>    answear "Why to change the logo". "Because it is better" - is the answear.
>
> Let me try.  One way to try to understand what people are asking you
> is to answer the question "in what way is it better?".  What criteria
> are you using to judge the "quality" of the logo?
>  
   Well, it appears to be more friendly. Shades are made in an 
attractive way. Oh, it is so hard. Seems like I just can't express 
everything  in words. Is it possible for artwork to express its sense 
and mood in formal sentences? It can't be simply arranged among shelves.

> You haven't simply taken the existing design and made it "better" in some
> objective way, but have made a different design.
>  
   That is so hard to explain it. Grownups(statistically-average) are 
so limited in creation process. They got used to rules and methods and I 
just don't know how can I desrcibe the idea in those terms.

> The purpose of a logo is to assist in the "marketing" of the thing the
> logo refers to.  You can't design a logo in isolation without understanding
> the marketing aspects of the logo.
>  
   Yes, I understand that. And I really think it is. Looks glossy and 
sparkling, isn't it? =) Let's discuss it then.

> What you are being asked is to explain in a few sentences your philosophy
> of what the logo should repesent and contrast that with the philosophy
> represented by the current logo.
>  
   GCC's friendly look, as a free compiler. GCC's friendly look, as a 
creation tool You can learn and use. GCC's friendly look, as an 
open-source project You can modify and contribute to.