faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Some suggestions
by rat on Friday 18/Apr/2008, @14:30
|
These are good suggestions, but I would respectfully disagree with your original point -- that they are unrecognizable and therefore not effective.
I agree that they don't necessarily mean much, and are not recognizable so far, but give it time. Think about logos in general, and look at all the logos from Microsoft (one of the best marketing teams on the planet imho). They really don't tell you much about the product. They become recognizable as the product becomes known. The only thing they have in common, is that they are unique and look nice.
Same as the koffice icons. unique and look nice. This is important when dealing with brand recognition. Once you associate the brand with the logo, then you can recognize the logo with the brand. Think about every logo out there. How many truly tell you anything about the product? Some, but not many. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Some suggestions
by Anon on Friday 18/Apr/2008, @15:30
|
I see your point, but I have to beg to differ:
Word looks like a W - and a sheet of paper
Excel looks lik a sylized XL on a spreadsheet background
Powerpoint looks like a Piechart which makes people think presentation
Access has a key, which is a symbol for locked/secured data
Outlook looks like a clock - since it's primarily a calendar
Publisher has a big P and looks like a Page layout document.
Even Office newbies understand theses symbols.
Icons/Logos should be self explanatory. Only if the company/product is big and well known it can afford abstract (albeit very, very pretty :) ) meaningless symbols.
I also think that Logos and Icons should be RELATED. That helps a lot.
Please no flame!
Thanks for helping out with ODF btw.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Some suggestions
by rat on Friday 18/Apr/2008, @17:25
|
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
My point is that if I saw a yellow clock, I don't think I would have considered that it was calendar program (outlook), but now that I have seen Outlook and the yellow clock a thousand times, I can associate the two.
>Only if the company/product is big and well known it can afford abstract (albeit very, very pretty :) )
I agree here. No company starts out big. And few companies change their logos significantly (key word) when they do get big.
>I also think that Logos and Icons should be RELATED. That helps a lot.
Definitely agree.
Honestly, I don't know if I'm right or not, but imho, I think the koffice logos are very nice, and I certainly respect the position that they should look more relevant to what the program does, but I just don't agree.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Some suggestions
by Bob on Friday 18/Apr/2008, @18:03
|
> Same as the koffice icons. unique and look nice. This is important when dealing with brand recognition. Once you associate the brand with the logo, then you can recognize the logo with the brand.
I agree the logo doesn't need to look like what the application does; I would argue that it does help a lot when it does though (e.g. a logo that obviously looks like it's got something to do with TV will perk your interest if you're on the look out for TV stuff). This point aside, I don't agree the koffice icons are unique from each other. They look nice, but they all look very very similar. They don't look like object (e.g. a wolf, a dragon, a pie chart) that your brain will recognise and label, but random lines with random coloured bits. I could look at some of them, wait 1 minute and I wouldn't be able to pick it out from a line-up from other koffice icons. Most people are never going to be able to tell them apart. The amarok wolf is unique and memorable for example.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
