NumPy logo refresh

[rgommers]

Both @InessaPawson and @shoyer suggested a refresh of the NumPy logo recently. Summer gave that a go, tweaking the colors for more contrast:

Unfortunately she could not keep the logo in SVG. It hasn't been touched in a decade, and was made with some unknown tool that didn't align well with her tools. Does anyone remember who made the current logo, and how?

[rgommers]

In the call on the numpy.org redesign we decided to take the minimal-change-big-improvement (@rougier's 4x4 one filled in with Summer's colors) to use on the website so we can continue.

A bigger change may be in order too, there's certainly a lot of energy here! I think we need to organize this better though - have either some kind of announced competition, or task a professional designer to create one or a couple designs.

My preference would be to do this after the numpy.org redesign and end of GSoD. It feels like we're maxed out on bandwidth right now; I'd also like to have some project funds to spend on a professional designer and we're not unlikely to get those funds from the proposal we submitted to CZI within a couple of months (graphical design is actually part of the budget there).

[shoyer]

If we're going to go for a minimal improvement over our current logo, I would suggest not adopting the shift in perspective. Perhaps we could simply drop transparency and add black outlines on the refreshed logo in the top comment?

[eric-wieser]

+1 on not adopting the perspective shift. IMO, @seberg's left two suggestions in this comment are far more minimal a deviation from the current logo than the one @rgommers refers to

[seberg]

Indeed, I am good with minimal change, but I do not think that specific version is the right one :) (probably none of the current one is quite right, although I think I do probably prefer the stylized white gaps instead of the full 3D rendering).

[rgommers]

Fair enough. In that case we indeed don't have the right one yet - perhaps some surgery on the original SVG is the way to go then.

[eric-wieser]

I tried some in-browser surgery to see what's going on - running the following in the chrome javascript console yields some interesting results:

Array.from($$('polygon')).filter(x => {
    return x.getAttribute('fill') == '#7A88CC' || x.getAttribute('fill') ==  '#7684CA';
}).forEach(x => {
    x.parentNode.removeChild(x);
});

Seems that the grayish blue layers are draw on top of the other layers, not the other way around

[shoyer]

The result of @eric-wieser's surgery, which is already an improvement!

[seberg]

Nice, hacking :). Trying to edit it in inkscape, I see why Summer gave up...

To be honest, I started to mess around with it to and got the svg linked here (deleting most things except the outer edge): https://gist.github.com/seberg/bcdc78ebd9ea57fa2bea989f0b70b2f1 However, if you look closely, the cubes are not actually aligned correctly on the side, they are slightly shifted at the base. Also they are fairly far apart, which works in the 3D, but does not work in a minimalized version probably.

EDIT: Hmmm, maybe the perspective of the old logo just confuses me. If we want to stay very close, I wonder if we have to 3D render something close as a base :/

[zztanzz]

Hi, I would like to contribute to this. Below is my design. The letter 'N' is made of blocks like numpy array at the same time combining on the right side with a python head (top view) as letter 'P' to be NumPy. Additional details to the left side of letter 'N' to show the python tail. Let me know what you think. =)

[konidev20]

Good evening, I would like to contribute the following design towards the new Num Py.

I've taken a minimalistic approach towards the logo. Something like a logomark which can easily be identified by a user.

[isabela-pf]

There’s a lot of great work being done here! I’ve also got a few different directions that I’d love to get feedback on. I’ve listed some of my own pros and cons on each as well.

1. This version is closer to what's been done above to enhance the existing logo. Pros: This is the simplest a 3x3 cube is going to get, but the N helps it look less like a generic cube. It looks one of the closest to the current logo, which could be good to help it be recognizable for people already familiar with it. Cons: A grided cube at an angle has a lot of small parts that are quickly lost when the logo needs to be used at a small scale. It can also be hard to recognize the logo as quickly when there are more details.

2. If the full grided cube risks having too much detail, one approach could be to have a simpler set of divisions. Pros: Less details means it will scale better and be recognizable faster. It still feels like it could be part of a larger grid. It still has volume. Cons: Not a true grid anymore, which might not accurately reflect an array (it would be very helpful to me to hear whether or not this is the case).

3. This version is kind of like turning some of the earlier proposed cubes to face front. Pros: This one reads easier than it’s perspective and detail-heavy counterparts (like 1) and keeps the grid. It would work well without the wordmark as well if needed. Cons: It loses its volume and might not accurately reflect an array as a consequence.

4. If the ‘N’ were to be more prominent in the logo, this is one way it could work. Pros: This is a more distinct logo and it keeps some of the volume of the original logo. It also limits small details. Cons: Even though it minimizes detail, the lines are easily lost at a small scale. Something about it feels a little off and I haven’t figured out what yet to refine it.

[isabela-pf]

Because I wrote a lot about logos working at small sizes, here’s a tip on how I evaluate them! You quickly can approximate scale by either zooming out of the image or moving yourself away from the logo and squinting at it. A good rule of thumb is to try and look at it at about the size it would need to be to be a favicon and judge from there. I encourage you to try this with the work I’ve presented (or any logo, really) and see how well you think it’s working.

[InessaPawson]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas for the new NumPy logo, @isabela-pf ! Out of the proposed, I prefer the first version the most. I’d like to suggest some tweaks though:

1. A neo-grotesque sans-serif typeface would look better with a grided cube.
2. Move the letter N to the left side of the cube. Since most modern languages are written left to right, it’s the left facet that most users’ eyes will land on first.

[rgommers]

Thanks for the design ideas and evaluation tips @isabela-pf! The "should work at small size" makes a lot of sense; the current logo definitely doesn't do that very well (the individual cubes just turn into a blue blob).

You quickly can approximate scale by either zooming out of the image or moving yourself away from the logo and squinting at it

I can't walk away far enough from a large monitor:) It could be helpful for follow up designs to post them also so they show up really small by default. E.g. put them all side by side with a large rectangle around it the side of the GitHub comment box.

Regarding the color scheme, please note that for the website @InessaPawson designed a much nicer new palette that we switched to: https://github.com/numpy/numpy.org/issues/33#issuecomment-624580339

Here's how the website looks (top and bottom of front page) right now:

If you have more design rules or evaluation tips to share, that'd be great. I think you can also venture further from what was posted earlier on in the thread. We started from the old logo which is pretty outdated and I'm sure breaks lots of design rules, and then people started posting more ideas that evolved from that old logo without much of a plan to how to tackle a redesign. One thought that came to mind is that yellow is pretty poor as a color probably; it's low-contrast and if one puts it on a presentation the colors sometimes disappear depending on projector used. If there's another color in the new website color palette, or one that complements it well, it would probably make sense to use it.

[rgommers]

Oh and, out of the four ideas you posted I personally like (3) best. I'm not sure you need to keep the big "N" around though - it seems a little odd to have a big capital letter as the focus of a logo in 2020 (and yeah, I know Google pulls it off with the G:) ).

[shoyer]

Version 3 of these new logo ideas is actually my favorite, too.

[InessaPawson]

@isabela-pf For the latest on the homepage design see PR #221.

[isabela-pf]

Thanks for everyone’s patience with my reply. I think I caught all the feedback and have a more up to date grasp on the website redesign.

For this round I was working off what I thought worked best from the ones people liked last round— particularly the grided squares—while removing letters. Just squares looks too general to read as a logo, so I started working with other elements that reintroduce the feeling of multidimensionality and expansion. I also took the liberty of plopping the proposals into the current website screenshots to show them at different scales.

1. 

This is the version I think is strongest formally and conceptually. Pros: Scales well. Has a good amount of contrast for light backgrounds. Still has a relationship to the original cube and its dimensionality. Cons: Blue on (slightly greener) blue means they look close to the same color on smaller scales.

2.

This is the same logo, but this time the color palette fits with Python’s. I’m always concerned about using yellow because it has such low contrast on light backgrounds, but framing the yellow with blue makes me feel a little better about the legibility. Pros: Scales well. Has less contrast for light backgrounds, but enough to be seen. Still has a relationship to the original cube and its dimensionality. Cons: Concerns about yellow on light contrast.

3.

This is not my favorite option, but I wanted to still get some other ideas out here in case it touched on an idea that someone thinks is working. Pros: Scales fine. Keeps idea of an expanding grid as the focus. Cons: The yellow is easily lost on light backgrounds. The relationship with the original cube is getting pretty distant. I don’t know if it conceptually reads well.

[isabela-pf]

I’m open to playing with the color combo options on these logos, so if you let me know if there are any of these you’d like to see refined more.

It’d also be helpful to mention a reason or two why you like a logo option so that I can make better choices for the next round. This comment can be as simple as you want, but it will help me make sure I’m making choices based on what the community values instead of guessing.

[rgommers]

Nice, thanks @isabela-pf!

I like the first (blue on light blue) version the best. The design is very clean, I think it's an improvement over anything that was posted before. And the two blues make for a nicer color scheme than blue-yellow I think. The two colors are still clearly distinguishable at smaller scales in your website screenshot, so I'm not worried about that.

[joelachance]

+1 with what @rgommers said! I also like the first one with both blues.

[stefanv]

I have two minor concerns with logo nr 1, but don't let me derail the selection if everyone else agrees:

1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/HermannGrid.gif/330px-HermannGrid.gif
2. Microsoft's logo in the middle

[bsipocz]

A small comment from the sidelines: for a long time I didn't recognize numpy's logo, and didn't even see the N in it either. Once someone pointed it out it suddenly became trivial and logical.

However, whenever I distributed numfocus stickers, basically I hardly ever met anyone who recognized the numpy logo, so I think it would be great to generate at least one layout with the chosen logo that has numpy spelled out as well, so that version can be used for stickers, and on posters and in talks whenever numpy is mentioned.

[InessaPawson]

I have two minor concerns with logo nr 1, but don't let me derail the selection if everyone else agrees:

1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/HermannGrid.gif/330px-HermannGrid.gif
2. Microsoft's logo in the middle

Both are of concern to me as well. The abbreviated version of the Microsoft logo came to mind immediately. It will become even more apparent in the black and white version.

[InessaPawson]

It’s nearly impossible to come up with an original idea using basic geometric shapes. Paying homage to the original NumPy logo by preserving the angled cube would be a less demanding and still elegant solution to this design problem.

[eric-wieser]

• This version is closer to what's been done above to enhance the existing logo.

  Pros: This is the simplest a 3x3 cube is going to get, but the N helps it look less like a generic cube. It looks one of the closest to the current logo, which could be good to help it be recognizable for people already familiar with it. Cons: A grided cube at an angle has a lot of small parts that are quickly lost when the logo needs to be used at a small scale. It can also be hard to recognize the logo as quickly when there are more details.

Even at a small scale (substituted above), the image looks quite recognizable as a gridded cube and an N in my opinion

[isabela-pf]

Since we have two logos standing out to people, I cleaned up both concepts for the original grided cube update and the last round’s front-facing double grid. I think these changes strengthen both approaches and respond to critiques more directly.

1. Starting with smaller changes first, this is the front-facing logo again. I adjusted the spacing in the center squares to address concerns about potential optical illusion properties and Microsoft logo similarities. It now matches the spacing of the outer grid, too.

2. I also went back to the original updated of the grided cube. As requested, I flipped the placement of the N and remade it with Lato.

The biggest changes are the color and the grid. Even though I was experimenting with keeping yellow for the color scheme’s relation to Python, I’ve decided against using it because of the contrast issues. I also switched from the 9 square grid to a 4 square grid to lessen the amount of small elements in the logo while making sure to keep the grid element. I actually worry that this approach looks close to the Windows logo, especially since we are using similar blues. Still, I don’t think sticking with the 9 square grid is a good choice.

I mentioned favicon sizing a couple comments back and forgot to provide a mockup for that last time, so here they are now.

I've also mocked up a favicon for the original grided cube to show why I made the edits it did for it this time around. I saw a few comments where people thought it had satisfactory scaling, and compared to the current logo it does. But it still needed to be better than it was. I think this favicon mockup demonstrates its contrast issues and how the sheer number of small parts makes it harder to read and stand out negatively from standard icons around it.

[isabela-pf]

I also want to introduce one-color versions of the logo directions at this point. You’re probably most likely to see this in a colored footer of a website or somewhere similar.

If a logo can’t stay recognizable and accurate when in one color, then it isn’t usually a strong choice for a logo. This helps give a chance at thinking about these logos in different situations (and hopefully might help make some decisions, too).

[stefanv]

I really like this last concept work, thank you @isabela-pf. I like the second one, but the cube looks a bit strange, and I thin it is because there is no perspective (even very slight narrowing to the back may help avoid the block looking like it is bulging out). One another aspect: we are not limited to a cube. We can remove one row of blocks, add more on one side than another, etc. Just mentioning that we have that freedom, in case that makes it easier.

[eric-wieser]

One another aspect: we are not limited to a cube. We can remove one row of blocks, add more on one side than another, etc. Just mentioning that we have that freedom, in case that makes it easier.

I wonder whether we're also fine with changing the number of divisions for the different sizes? For a large logo, a 3x3x3 or 4x4x4 is fine, but I agree for a favicon a 2x2x2 or maybe a 1x1x1 looks better.

[rgommers]

I like both new designs better than what came before; the 2-D version still seems the nicer of the two new designs here. The 2-D version is also pretty much unrelated to the Microsoft logo, while the right side of the cube does resemble it.

If a logo can’t stay recognizable and accurate when in one color, then it isn’t usually a strong choice for a logo.

Nice - thanks for continuing to educate us in logo design principles!

[isabela-pf]

I’ve been trying to narrow down options so far, but I’m bringing up this new (-ish) one because it pulls elements from the two logos that people have liked so far. This might be a good compromise. I tried this concept both with and without the ‘N’ and am proposing this one since it provides a little more connection to the current logo. Here it is with the same set of mockups and a one color version so it can be fully compared to past options.

I also agree with comments on the last batch that said the perspective was getting messy, so this cube has been redrawn and cleaned up. Not having the grid on the cube helps too.

To review, these are the two I’ve seen continued interest in mocked up next to this new proposal. So we have some common language, I’ve listed the unofficial names I’ve been referring to each option as in my notes. ^I’ve been calling this one the classic cube. ^This one front-facing cube.

And the new one the combo cube.

[isabela-pf]

I also want to respond to idea that we can have different number grid for different ideas. It’s a good thought that makes sense in a lot of contexts, but undermines the goals of a logo. Logos need to be consistent and stable to ensure that they read as constantly representative of their product. Changing its form usually makes it seem more like an illustration than a logo. That’s not a bad thing to be, but an illustration generally doesn't make for the strongest logo too.

[isabela-pf]

I’m following up on my last comment to gauge responses. Since I’m not seeing comments on this yet, I’m taking that to mean that people still have the same critiques of the logos that have been presented before, and no strong feelings about the combo cube. Would this be a good time to put these options to a vote?

[stefanv]

@isabela-pf Sorry, I thought I let you know, but I really like this latest concept design! No more brand confusion.

I guess a person can't have your cake and eat it: We are now so close to something that will fit into a hexagon (desirable for stickers, e.g.), but I guess to make it fit would mean removing the perspective again?

[InessaPawson]

@isabela-pf Thank you so much for your patience with us, Isabela!

I guess a person can't have your cake and eat it: We are now so close to something that will fit into a hexagon (desirable for stickers, e.g.), but I guess to make it fit would mean removing the perspective again?

The asymmetry in the outline of the combo cube stands out to me, and not in a positive way. I’d sacrifice the existing perspective for a regular (symmetrical) hexagon.

[InessaPawson]

Alternatively, we could rotate the cube further to the right, adopting the degree of the rotation from the original logo: https://github.com/numpy/numpy.org/issues/37#issue-486072084

That angle doesn’t conflict with my sense of visual harmony, and would be another nod of respect to the old logo.

I like the new typeface, by the way!

[isabela-pf]

We’ve come full circle (in some ways) and are back to the hexagon! As @stefanv mentioned, this does mean losing some of the accuracy of the perspective, but I kept the cube as close as I could.

I like that this approach allows for a more simplified central cube while keeping some of the original grid feel on the outer cube. It also has ties to the current logo with the angle and the ‘N,’ which I do think is important to help it stay recognizable to the community.

Here it is mocked up in the same way as the last few options:

[seberg]

I have to admit, I did not quite get warm to previous the 2-D version/idea yet, which doesn't mean its bad, I think the idea of giving a depth perspective just doesn't work that great for me. I think I slightly prefer the last version, although the perspective is indeed a bit off. The previous cube looks nice too though, my first thought on it is that it felt a bit cartoonish to me, and I was not sure that fits to how established NumPy is. (maybe because of how the small dashes intersect the frame, not sure.)

[lagru]

I am really happy to follow all the beautiful and interesting proposals here!

Concerning the last proposal: I'm a little confused by the angle of the gaps in the surrounding outer cube. The lower two gaps seem to follow the cube's perspective while the upper four seem to point to the cube's center instead? Is this intentional? My intuition would have been to align the gaps with the inner cube's faces (like the grid in this proposal).

[rgommers]

Hi all, I would like to start coming to a conclusion here. We have had a number of iterations, and I think it's about time to make a choice. Here's a proposal:

Current status

• We now have three designs from @isabela-pf , a 2-D one, a 3-D one, and a hybrid one.
• The 2-D and 3-D one have been iterated on enough and look like they're in good shape.
• The hybrid one is fairly new and there are some open comments. It could use one more iteration to address those.

Coming to a decision

• Everyone has 3 more days (until Saturday June 20th) to add comments.
• If needed, @isabela-pf can do one more iteration (up to her, depends on remaining feedback).
• Then she can post 3 new issues titled New logo design - alternative A (and B, C).
• Everyone who is interested and has previously contributed to NumPy in any way can post thumbs up on each issue to show their preference. Thumbs up can be given on multiple logos if you like multiple.
• There'll be 4 days to cast thumbs ups, from the day that @isabela-pf posts those issues.
• In the unlikely case of a tie after those 4 days, the Steering Council will make the decision.

[eric-wieser]

@lagru: Agreed, the gap angles seem odd. Aligning the gaps to match the principle directions of the nearest face would be one option - another would be to point them all to the center of the hexagon, as if they were on hypercube-like trapezoidal extensions on each edge

[WarrenWeckesser]

I also noticed that the angles in the outer gaps look strange, but maybe I'm just not seeing the intended effect.

[isabela-pf]

I can see how the gaps could look random in the last iteration. To clarify, they were placed to create arrows out of the hexagon’s corners and emphasize the flexibility of an array’s size, hinting at a larger grid than is pictured. If that’s not coming across then it might not be the best choice, so here’s modified placement for the gaps. Thanks for the rearrangement suggestions @lagru and @eric-wieser!

[isabela-pf]

Since I haven't heard anything else, I'm following up on @rgommers comment, and posting the three directions we've been discussing so far as separate issues so you all can vote via reaction. That means voting will close Friday, June 26.

I’ve linked the issues here in case that’s more convenient. Alternative A #326, Alternative B #327, Alternative C #328.

Happy voting!

[ivanov]

I came here via @InessaPawson's post to the numpy list. It's probably too late for this one, but I encourage anyone who wishes to do participatory decision making like this in the future to provide a "none of the above" option. Even if it ends up being not actionable (one of the three alternatives will be chosen) - you at least allow people to express where they're at. The way the "positive only" voting is set up right now, those who have looked at all three and do not like any of the options do not have a way of being counted.

[rgommers]

Thanks for the post @InessaPawson, I forgot to explicitly mention or do that.

Good point, thanks @ivanov - that's something I didn't consider to be honest. We will indeed choose one of the alternatives. Comparing to an actual election, you would be able to hand in a blank ballot form. I'm not sure it's deserving of an "option D", because it's not an actual fourth option. Maybe your posting here (and others can thumbs-up that) is the equivalent way of handing in a blank ballot form.

[rgommers]

Thanks for the post @InessaPawson, I forgot to explicitly mention or do that.

Given that most people will only see the notification now, I mentioned on the mailing list we'll give everyone till Saturday to cast their thumbs-up's.

[eric-wieser]

To be clear, are we voting on a final logo, or will discussion continue narrowed to a specific design idea after the vote?

[rgommers]

Final logo design.