Project Identity 2.0

[reynhout]

We have a couple months before the planned release of GalliumOS 2.0.

Now seems like an appropriate time to discuss any branding/identity changes we'd like to consider. Either stuff we didn't get to earlier, or just for major rev differentiation, etc.

[ghost]

I think the text part of the logo could look better, so I've done some experimentation with my favourite font family.

I started with "GalliumOS" in bold.

This looks OK, but I think the letters are too far away from each other.

That looks cool. Next I tried making the 'G' and 'OS' lowercase.

Hm... Maybe if the OS part has a different weight?

So, what do you think? I kept it black since I was messing mostly with the font.

[dvdmuckle]

Fifth one down looks good, strikes a balance between thin and too thin. Fourth down kinda gets into OSX looking territory.

[reynhout]

Quick thoughts: all lowercase is too informal and gets mangled in usage. Since people will need to capitalize it for their own sensibilities, we should canonicalize it that way.

I like the different weights for Gallium and OS. The Gallium part looks a bit heavy in these samples.

Thoughts on font: I might just be distracted by the weight or tracking, but it reads a bit imprecise to me. That uppercase G feels really weak, though.

[ghost]

@dvdmuckle @reynhout Good points. How about this?

Hmm.... I think the G still looks a little weak...

[reynhout]

I like that much more. Some rough kerning between the G and a... The weak G still gets me.

[ghost]

Hm... Now I think the G looks too strong.

[reynhout]

Oh I don't mean the weight, sorry. The weakness comes from the poor differentiation between C and G.. Some fonts have variants for Gg etc... Weight should probably be consistent.

Are you still adjusting the tracking there? Wondering if the font kerning is bad or whether it's an Inkscape artifact (G-a-l).

[ghost]

Oh, no, I was only adjusting the weight. I think it is the font. I will convert the font to curves before exporting it from Inkscape, so even if it was an Inkscape artifact, that would end up in the final product. How about this?

Here, I adjusted the spacing on 'a', 'i', 'u', and 'm' (spacing determines the amount of space after a character)

[reynhout]

That's more consistent but a little too tight maybe? Otherwise I do like it. Now the lollipop i-dot is distracting me. Maybe I should get some more sleep. :)

[ghost]

Now that you mention it the 'i' is bothering me too, but I think it would be stupid if we replaced it with a square. Maybe a smaller circle?

[reynhout]

Yeah a square would be all wrong. It just seems a little big. Now we're deep in the weeds though. :)

[ghost]

As for the 'G', well, I'm not sure what to do about it. I think that if we altered it, it would look out of place with the rest of the font. As for the spacing, I think it looks pretty good. It's a little tight, but I would rather have it too close than too far away. How is this?

I adjusted the spacing on the 'm' a little bit.

[ghost]

I had an idea. What if we alter the colour of the OS part instead of the weight? Thoughts?

Maybe both weight and colour?

[reynhout]

I think it needs to work in monochrome first. Can't depend on color to get the form and balance. But I definitely need to sleep on existing ideas.

[ghost]

Yes, that's probably a good idea.

[nickostendorf]

rough sketch up, but I thought it looked more like a 'G' here. As reynhout said before.

[ghost]

Eh... It doesn't look horrible, but as I feared, the G looks out of place with the font.

[nickostendorf]

Yeah I can agree with that. It seems to be a little more blocky looking while the rest of the font has more curvature

[ghost]

I made this for shorthand. Maybe it could be used for something, or not. I don't know.

[lyam23]

Nice work. Looks like you're drawing very close to a final selection. For what it's worth I think you're on the right track and this is my preference. I also prefer it spelled out for branding.

[hugegreenbug]

@elioqoshi Any comments?

[elioqoshi]

Please guys, why do we still keep doing this when I already addressed this quite some time ago that this is not okay to just fiddle around with the identity whenever you feel like to. The original branding is perfectly fine, why do you even need to change it? It doesn't make any sense. We started 6 months ago and now we want to rebrand? What evolution have we been going through? Are you not satisfied with the original logo? Because that's another issue we can discuss then if that's the case.

[elioqoshi]

Also, if you want to do things on your own, that's okay too, but it doesn't make sense to have a Creative Lead, when I'm left out of the discussion (there are too many issues going on here, I mostly notice issues where I'm assigned to). A quick email would suffice to let me know that this needs to be discussed or similar (in case you are not sure about my time involvement).

[reynhout]

Because nothing is ever finished, and nothing is ever perfect. Because very large changes and a ton of work are going into 2.0, and it is fitting to re-examine many decisions.

No plan has been made to change anything, we are still happy with the design work on 1.0. But there is value in differentiation between major releases, and now is the right time to think about it. I hope you'll be a part of the conversation.

You were not left out of anything, any more than any of us is -- here and IRC are where we communicate with each other. I apologize for not tagging you in the initial comment, but it would not have been appropriate to assign this ticket to you at that time.

[hugegreenbug]

@elioqoshi We are including you in the conversation and we value your input.

[elioqoshi]

Okay, sorry for being dramatic but I was expecting smoother communication regarding this after having discussed it in the similar logo issue before.

When I created the logo, I created it having in mind that it will be used by us for the foreseeable future. I've never seen any project change their logo because a new version was released. Mozilla Firefox had 3 logos in 12 years: 2004, 2010 and 2013. Are we going to have a new logo every year? Because that wouldn't make sense.

If you think there is something which can be improved in the current logo, let's discuss that so we can wrap that up and leave the logo alone for some years.

@reynhout why wouldn't it be appropriate to assign that ticket to me at that time?

[reynhout]

@elioqoshi no offense intended. This ticket is not specifically about the logo, logotype, treatments, or brand identity at all.

...at the same time, I don't think anything is so sacred that it should be outside the scope of consideration.

Here are my motivations for suggesting the conversation:

• Now is the time to consider large changes. The 2.0 release is a couple months away, so we have time to review new ideas now. We didn't have that time before, and since 2.0 is our only currently-scheduled milestone, we don't know when our next chance will be.
• Our goal should be to deliver a complete and coherent user experience, or to at least draw lines around the areas of concern which we lack resources to address.
• Our project identity is much more than just branding, and there have been changes since November which deserve review and possible recalibration.
• Visual differentiation between major releases is a legitimate goal. Your example of Firefox is instructive -- logo aside, there have been multiple firstrun messaging changes, as well as UI shifts in the service of features. Another example is Ubuntu, who tweaks their visual design for major releases. And the obvious example is Apple, who effectively rebrands with every major release.
• Many of the 2.0 changes will be invisible. Our upstream has shuffled their project identity between vivid and xenial. We might consider doing so also.
• I would like to consider adding a codename for our releases. This would be an obvious collateral opportunity.

Again, I intend no offense. This is the discussion I think we should have. I'm not trying to make work for you -- not at all. I was explicitly not volunteering anyone for the work, but soliciting discussions to see where we stand, today. It's important and we haven't focused on it in a while.

[elioqoshi]

@reynhout Thanks for the points. I don't bring this up due to being offended (I know that designers easily get offended) but more for the well being of the project. I don't mind putting extra hours in if it makes sense for the project in overall.

Rebranding in terms of look and feel and changing the wordmark are 2 different things. I completely agree that we need to have a consistent look and feel, but the wordmark is not part of that (it's a much more critical element). Having said that, if you think that the wordmark is not fitting and we can have something better, let's go with it. I don't mind working on that if we have solid arguments on why we should change that. Not sure if using the Ubuntu font is the best thing here, but considering we are based on Xubuntu, it would make sense.

[elioqoshi]

Here is the logo with the Ubuntu font, a lighter blue, and an optimized monochrome icon. What do you think?

[elioqoshi]

No comments?

[ghost]

I like the Ubuntu font because the curvy font is more appealing to my eyes. I personally think it looks a lot nicer than more standard sharp and boxy fonts. That's why I like that font.

[reynhout]

Project identity is a nebulous concept, perhaps it was a poor choice of title. Still, until/unless we coalesce on any set of things that are worth addressing, this is the only sort of discussion to be had. Here are my thoughts:

meta

• codename Ubuntu uses the vivid and xenial codenames for the releases corresponding to our 1.0 and 2.0. There are (mostly hidden) places where we need a text label of some sort, and we've been borrowing vivid so far, but that is sometimes unclear or causes collisions. We could have our own labels (perhaps starting with the same letter as Ubuntu's?), and these could remain hidden, or be used publicly. If public, there might be opportunities to incorporate it into various identity areas.

visual design

• overall visual design It's a new major release, and there are many changes under the hood. I think the initial visual impression should reflect that in some way. I liked some of the higher saturation colors that were discussed a few months back. Maybe there is a middle path? I don't think radical changes would be appropriate here, just a slight shift?
• wallpaper I think we should include a new default for 2.0. I also think the skyscraper is great, but this is pure differentiation. The skyscraper should remain as an option of course.
• theme and icons I think these are great. We should probably remove the "Arc-Darker-GalliumOS" theme, which is not darker and doesn't seem to add anything over "Arc-GalliumOS".
• logo/logotype I'm pretty neutral on this. I think the existing logotype is great -- I appreciate the sharp precision of it, and I think it reflects well on the purpose of the project. The Ubuntu font is a bit softer and friendlier, which is not a bad thing either, in moderation and carefully executed. I still dislike Ubuntu's 'G'.

website

• visual design If we use any new colors or tones, they should flow through to the website.
• art updates If new default wallpaper, primary image should reflect.
• general Could use some reflow, particularly on the download and donate pages. Download page will be updated to include BitTorrent links, so there's some content shuffling needed as well.
• usability I'm not a fan of the JavaScript requirement. The fade-in is a fine effect, but it should degrade to more than a blank page.

applications

• login greeter The replacement lxdm is visually OK but not in character with the rest of the design. Fonts are wrong, background is plain, widgets are unstyled. First experience is merely OK.
• screensaver XScreenSaver is visually subpar. This has been discussed separately, and it's difficult to improve significantly. The major problem is the lack of antialiasing in Xlib font rendering. Should we improve XScreenSaver as much as possible, or is there another option?
• audio applet I still feel the usability of pasystray is poor for a toolbar applet (but acceptable for a Settings configurator). Are server/source/sink selections the essential functions here? Someone recommended the pulse audio control from MATE, but I haven't looked at it yet.
• installer slideshow Ubiquity shows Xubuntu slides (currently disabled to just show text updates). We hoped to get to this for 1.0, but the schedule change pushed it out. We would need some graphics and some copy to make it a GalliumOS installer.
• system updater Do we have any candidates for an update reminder app? I include this under project identity because it's one of the few places where users interact with the OS directly, and our servers indirectly. Any candidates should be conscientious of the GalliumOS identity.

...that's all I can think of at the moment. Some of these won't be important enough to prioritize, but these are the things on my mind that might be worth consideration. If there's broad agreement (or general ambivalence plus individual motivation) on a particular item, we should pursue it further.

Please add any other ideas, or responses to the above. Thanks!

[elioqoshi]

@reynhout Very interesting points, thanks for taking the time to write these down. In the meantime, I updated the logo with the Ubuntu font and I must say this looks quite better.

[elioqoshi]

re: codename what about "verbatim" @reynhout ? re: logo wordmark with Ubuntu, I can tweak the G, what do you think?

[elioqoshi]

Here is a wallpaper test I did today.

[reynhout]

I think that looks awesome. I love the gradient blue in the logotype. That background texture would be a great replacement for the login greeter background too.

[reynhout]

Re: codenames, we're stuck with variations on "vivid" for 1.0, but 2.0 is wide open. And starting with X is optional of course, it just seemed like a nice way to be clear which Ubuntu codenames they map to. One request is that any codenames are shortish and typeable, since that happens a lot.

[elioqoshi]

@reynhout Thanks! Yeah, let's go with a new name for 2.0 which starts with v however. How about "vital" ?

[AdrianSandu]

@elioqoshi: if we stay with the latest update of the logo, perhaps we should also update the sources so that every work done from now on is using the proper assets.

We have this repository for the artwork - https://github.com/GalliumOS/galliumos-artwork. Can you update it or pass me the files and I will update it myself?

[elioqoshi]

Yes sure, but we need to get agree on it first that we go with this. Need input from @hugegreenbug and @ColtonDRG too at least

[ghost]

I am a huge fan of the latest logo concepts you posted. They look excelent in my oppinion. @reynhout makes a reasonable point about the uppercase G looking a little odd, but I think it would be hard to alter it without making it look out of place. Besides that, it's perfect in my eyes.

For 2.0, we should use a name that starts with X, not V, because it will be based on Ubuntu Xenial. Update: Put a little more thought into it. Since GalliumOS was named after the element Gallium, following the theme of Chromium being named after the element of the same name, how about using an element for the codename of the release too? The only element that starts with X off the top of my head is Xenon. Any thoughts?

As for the website, I agree that it needs some work. Most of the pageflow on the site needs to be adjusted and Javascript should not be a requirement. It's fine if the site is enhanced by Javascript, but it should not be dependent on it. I do have some ideas, but they will require a little bit of re-designing (mainly of the navigation area) so I will pitch them at a later time when I actually have some screenshots to see what you think.

As for the updater, I think we should make a minimal updating application with a very simple and useful GTK+ or Qt based frontend that interacts with apt behind the scenes. We want something lightweight but still functional. Also, we don't want to run any additional daemons, but we should have some way of reminding users to update. Perhaps a cron job would work?

That's about the extent of my input for now, but I'll continue pondering the other issues reynhout brought up. If anyone has any questions, mention me in the first line of your comment (that's the best way to get me to notice, thanks to IRC notifications).

[reynhout]

If anyone has ideas for codenames, please discuss ASAP.

@ColtonDRG "xenon" is good, but future Y and Z elements might not be loved by all:

ytterbium  yttrium  zinc  zirconium

I like yttrium and zinc well enough.

Another idea is words that end in X...more options there. Or we can invent new words, or use words with no X'es. Names of birds. I don't care, but "xenial" will get confusing, and "xenial-galliumos" is OK but long.

egrep -i "^x.{0,6}$" /usr/share/dict/words | grep -v [:ridiculous_words:]

xenon   xeric   xurel   xylem   xylic
xenyl   xoana   xylate  xylene  xylol

egrep -i "^.{0,6}x$" /usr/share/dict/words | grep -v [:ridiculous_words:]

annex   calix   Felix   infix   onyx    radix
apex    calyx   flux    influx  Oryx    redux
Beryx   convex  Galax   matrix  panax   salix
borax   equinox helix   minx    paradox vortex

There are also compounds of gallium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gallium_compounds

Thoughts?

[reynhout]

OK. Consensus is Xenon. Back to your regularly scheduled Identity discussion.

[ghost]

Ok, xenon it is. We should now determine weather this should be used for any sort of marketing, or only internally. Also, we should come to a consensus on the new logo. I am fully in favour of using @elioqoshi's latest mockups.

[elioqoshi]

Yes, let's go ahead with this

[ghost]

Okey. Want to upload all the files we might need somewhere where I can find them so I can commit them?

[AdrianSandu]

@ColtonDRG We have this repo here https://github.com/GalliumOS/galliumos-artwork

[ghost]

Yes, that was where I planned to put them.

[elioqoshi]

@ColtonDRG here we go GalliumOSLogos.zip

[adrinux]

Xenon? oh. Reading this thread I was getting quite excited by the idea using actual Gallium compounds - Gallium oxide, Gallium chloride etc. Though that may have ended up being poor for search purposes and certainly can't map to ubuntu versions.