Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add refactored logo + new font #173

Closed
jhnns opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 11 comments
Closed

Add refactored logo + new font #173

jhnns opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 11 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jhnns
Copy link
Member

jhnns commented Sep 16, 2016

@bebraw @gregvenech I've refactored the current logo, you can find it here. I've replaced the gradients with solid colors, refactored the shape of the cubes and changed the font. I think, the new logo works better with small sizes, because now the icon has a recognizable shape and the font has a strong character (can you say that in English? At least in German it makes sense 😁).

I would prefer to keep it flat for now because imho there are other priorities. But I'm totally open to experiment with unobtrusive animations and very very light gradients. We can easily add them later.

My vision for the new brand design is to keep it very minimalistic, with a lots of whitespace. I haven't found the time to experiment with fonts, but I suggest to use the logo font for the headlines. If you have any questions regarding the font, you can ask @TheLarkInn. Please do not commit any font files to the repo, we need to sort out the licensing stuff first.

Since the used logo font is rather heavy, we could also use thick black/light blue strokes as separators or graphical elements.

I'm away on holiday for the next 2 weeks, so I won't be able to give feedback. But I'm really curious about your thoughts :)

@skipjack
Copy link
Collaborator

skipjack commented Sep 16, 2016

...because now the icon has a recognizable shape and the font has a strong character (can you say that in English? At least in German it makes sense 😁 ).

Haha yea I get what mean.

I would prefer to keep it flat for now because imho there are other priorities. But I'm totally open to experiment with unobtrusive animations and very very light gradients. We can easily add them later.

That's fine, I believe @bebraw still has some work to do on antwar before we can add scripts easily or use the <interactive> feature anyway (see this issue).

Please do not commit any font files to the repo, we need to sort out the licensing stuff first.

I'm about to make another big push to get the styling of this repo in good shape, see this issue. If you guys get licensing sorted out soon, i can add it to that list and hit it soon. If not we can always add it later.

Aside from the Logo and font, would you like me to port the existing mockups over to that repo? I can at least start incorporating the new logo and font in the designs to see how it looks. (There's a few other things I wanted to fix anyway)

@jhnns
Copy link
Member Author

jhnns commented Sep 16, 2016

I'm about to make another big push to get the styling of this repo in good shape, see this issue. If you guys get licensing sorted out soon, i can add it to that list and hit it soon. If not we can always add it later.

No, I just meant that if we push any content to the repo, we must make sure that our license does not conflict with the other license. And if it does conflict, we must explicitly exclude these files from the license.

Speaking about the license, I just saw that we don't have any? @bebraw

Aside from the Logo and font, would you like me to port the existing mockups over to that repo? I can at least start incorporating the new and font there. (There's a few other things I wanted to fix anyway)

Where do you want to put the mockups? In case you wanted to put it into the media repo, I'm not sure. I thought that this repository is meant to be an up-to-date reference for "production-ready" files. I think it's fine that these mockups are under your namespace.

@bebraw
Copy link
Contributor

bebraw commented Sep 16, 2016

Speaking about the license, I just saw that we don't have any? @bebraw

Yeah, one hasn't been chosen yet. I would suggest one from the Creative Commons family. You can customize it based on needs quite easily. That would work for media (logo etc.) too.

@skipjack
Copy link
Collaborator

@jhnns ah ok. I thought you might have been trying to centralize all the design assets in one repo.

@skipjack
Copy link
Collaborator

@bebraw let me know once the license is there and I can work on getting this done.

@bebraw
Copy link
Contributor

bebraw commented Sep 27, 2016

@jhnns I think we may have to wait @jhnns on that. I'll bring this up in the next meeting. Vacations are going to delay this. 😢

@skipjack
Copy link
Collaborator

Yea no rush. Just trying to knock the issues out that I can.

@bebraw
Copy link
Contributor

bebraw commented Sep 27, 2016

Ok, cool.

@jhnns
Copy link
Member Author

jhnns commented Oct 11, 2016

I've added the license for our logo (webpack/media#3).

Now when we add the new logo and the geomanist font to the repository, we need to make sure that these are excluded from the docs license.

@skipjack
Copy link
Collaborator

@jhnns I've added the font (in regular and and medium) as well as the images in #225. The license is the last thing and then we can close this.

@jhnns jhnns mentioned this issue Oct 19, 2016
@jhnns
Copy link
Member Author

jhnns commented Oct 19, 2016

Awesome, thank you @skipjack :)

@jhnns jhnns closed this as completed Oct 19, 2016
hzuhyb pushed a commit to hzuhyb/webpack.js.org that referenced this issue Feb 18, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants