[TYPO3-english] Rebranding: Get the green back

[Rasmus Skjoldan]

Hey,

Martin Bless wrote:

>> That printing and displaying the green color has always given us
>> problems
>
> I understand that two colors may be more expensive in print than
> one. But that's the price for having a more expressive logo.
>
> I understand that some people somewhen are not capable of printing
> two colors correctly. Do we have to adapt to those people?

In short, yes. Think it was wrong to do something that complicated back 
then. It actually is rather complex when you think about it. To me, with 
a graphic designer background there's a lot of implicit knowledge that 
goes into printing or making a jpg - but if you have to externalize all 
that and put it in a style guide you end up with directions that are so 
overwhelming that people just don't bother and use the logo as they want 
/ have time for at any given moment.

> I've never ever seen a misprint that would question my inner
> representation of that nice and beautiful orange/green
> "symbol+word" brand "(symbol) TYPO3" that I like.

I have :-) But glad you liked our work from last logo change.

> Actually when I really try hard to think of badly reproduced
> colors this one comes into my mind. Here it's the orange being
> more troublesome: http://www.typo3ugms.de/ But of course it's
> clearly not a fault of TYPO3. I'd never conclude "we better
> simplify our logo to avaoid *that* kind of error".

I totally understand the argument. I do think, however, that we have to 
produce a CI without so much C in it :-) It's corporate thinking to try 
and establish "advanced" visual markers that need pro designers to 
implement even the smallest thing.

Actually there are faulty colors here and there on typo3.org... Which 
says it all to me.

> Some may be more annoyed by the green in misprints, others by the
> deviations of orange. That's personal experience and preference.
> The solution to this is: Print the right colors. It's only two.
> And RGB and CMYK values are known. Let's correct the error where
> it occurrs. We from the "official side" of the TYPO3 community
> should be able to handle those two colors and avoid misprints.

Some years ago I functioned as design team lead for some years. Which 
meant that every case of severe CI adherence ended in my inbox. There 
was no way we could enforce change of that many errors and 
misconceptions. People have made the most absurd examples of logo and 
color misuse :-)

> - Why didn't you tell the public?
> - Where do you communicate?
> - Where do you keep notes on what's - basically - going on?

As said, I will definitely take steps to be even more open about what's 
going on from my side.

My focus is on end results and making things work for *all of us* - 
which also means clients and agencies focused on sales - that focus is 
*extremely* different from community-focused communications.

> Of course I don't mean you should work publically or show all
> sketches and scribbles. What a horrible thought. But who else but
> you (read as: whoever is working on something) can let people know
> *that* something is going on? I have the design mailinglist in my
> newsreader. There wasn't much activity. I didn't see something
> like: "What do people think? Would it be ok to give up the green?"

Think we'll be restarting the old brand list...

>> Since we're a community with almost no centralized CI control, we need
>> something that's as simple to handle as possible - to all kinds of
>> people, with and without graphic design skills.
>
> Oh NO, that *cannot* be the way to go. Are you saying we have to
> create our logo for the graphically most incompetent and unskilled
> users?

Yes. Absolutely... If we don't do that we end up getting more of what we 
have now.

> Do you notice that in effect you're saying: "The average TYPO3
> community member isn't able to handle a two colored logo"?

Yes. Color is just difficult to control. Ask any design lead at a major 
corp. Think about how much time H&M spend controlling their one red logo 
color.

>> I would have come up with a
>> much simpler CI system - making it harder to break it. A more
>> simplified, yet emotionally consistent CI would not have taught us all
>> in the community that design and aesthetics are so friggin' important
>> :-) I think, we shouldn't have taught ourselves that design aesthetics
>> are THAT critical.
>
> Hhm, it seems you're actually supporting me. Aren't you saying
> that the aesthetics ARE THAT critical?

No. I'm saying we need something simpler so we're not constantly 
teaching ourselves to spend so much time on aesthetics.

> Yes, exactly, that's what
> I'm feeling and that's why I want that green back. It's NOT for me
> personally. I'm fighting for the TYPO3 movement.

Me too. Guess we just think different things are important. But I'm glad 
we're having the discussion.

>> As a designer, I obviously think design can do good
>> things - yet in a community environment, it's somewhat troublesome and
>> extremely time-consuming to have a complex CI and give great weight to
>> the importance of keeping it consistent. Now, I'm pushing to simplify
>> stuff - to make it easier to work with.
>
> Same argument as above. "Community isn't able to handle a two
> colored logo".

Which I believe is correct. But many design departments have trouble 
handling 2 colors as well.

>> Throughout the process leading up to these newly announced changes, some
>> people recommended throwing out the TYPO3 name entirely
>
> While at the same time claiming that "TYPO3 is such a strong
> brand" where every product wants to benefit from?

It was just to explain how different opinions people have had about it.

>> That all meant, that it was important to achieve this balance:
>>
>> Enable people all over the world to sell, design and develop web
>> projects using new and current TYPO3 products with and without the
>> parent name, revitalize the overall public image of software coming from
>> our brand - while ensuring our own community acceptance of the changes
>> and continuous growth.
>
> As I said: This thread is not good to discuss that.

To me, these things are very connected - so for me, it's fine to broaden 
the approach. Just talking about the green for the green's sake is not 
all too relevant.

> You wrote: """
> Right now, TYPO3 is slowly but increasingly seen as older, complex
> software in parts of the world. We need to react to that - in both
> branding, design and most importantly product experiences.
> """
>
> By "fading out" the green - which makes it less shiny IMHO? I
> don't think so.

I think orange has always been the main color of the two. So let's 
strengthen the use of that.

> Trying to summarize for me:
>
> - green was removed more "to make things easier" and "just so"
>
> - taking away the green removes a lot of identity, beauty,
> aesthetic, recognizability and: "personality". Isn't that
> weakening the logo?
>
> - all orange is all orange and doesn't add to the personality

Don't agree on that.

> - I see a lot of *emotional* +1 votes FOR the green

That's what you see on the screen, yes. Yet there are thousands of 
people interacting with the TYPO3 brand who don't give their + or -1 on 
all this. I'm also thinking a lot about all the people who don't yet 
know TYPO3 at all. I want them to experience TYPO3 as new and fresh and 
modern.

> - And I see that *you* *emotionally* dislike the green.
> Which is totally ok. But does that feeling alone justify the
> removal of the green?

It's definitely not about my feelings.

> And remember all those orange/green instances of the logo out
> there in the wide (web) world:
>
> What makes you so sure that the green of the logo is gone in one
> or two years? (what already admits that there at least a time of
> one or two years where logo versions conflict).

It went fine the first time. Just tried googling it and I can't even 
find the original 1st or 2nd logo anywhere.

> Perhaps people stick to the green. Don't forget about the many
> derived creations: websites, videos, graphics, cards, ...
> Take just one as an example: http://www.typo3-installer.de/

I'm acutely aware of how much change we're asking for.

> I'm very sure the green will be around for a *very* long time. It
> had it's basis in the TYPO3 logo. And it will always remind us of
> TYPO3. But it doesn't have a basis at TYPO3 any more. Do you think
> that's clever? I don't.

I think it's super to keep using the green as part of our visual identity.

> Wow, long posting. I hope you and others value my effort.

I certainly greatly value this feedback.

Best,
Rasmus

>
> Martin
>