Something completely different. They're all pretty basic concepts so far. Just interested in whether people are leaning toward something graphical, text-based, simple flat, detailed, geometric, etc.
I'm pretty rusty when it comes to design. Haven't been a designer in almost a decade. But I think I'm the only one on here with design experience so far, so...
Something completely different. They're all pretty basic concepts so far. Just interested in whether people are leaning toward something graphical, text-based, simple flat, detailed, geometric, etc.
I'm pretty rusty when it comes to design. Haven't been a designer in almost a decade. But I think I'm the only one on here with design experience so far, so...
Check out some collections of styles. They're not my work, just collections.
https://dribbble.com/scott_joe/buckets/990615-Logos
https://www.pinterest.com/scottjoewill/logos/
I combined the bottom-left round logo, simplified the lower part and added a caption like the first one ... thought it might look nice. 😁
PNG and SVG in the attachments.
I combined the bottom-left round logo, simplified the lower part and added a caption like the first one ... thought it might look nice. :grin:
PNG and SVG in the attachments.
I'd actually prefer to stick to some theme for quite a while to maintain some recognition factor. But changing the theme // icon to something cool right now might have benefits for public relation since high quality and modern icons often help in convincing users of something :-)
The flat icon we do have right now is fine, but I also like the proposition of @brickup if the font was flat (without that faint shadow I see there) ... or this applied to the first version of @scott-joe (the upper left one) ...
My favourite approach for deciding on those topics is to ask the user base. I'd appreciate if Codeberg would just find a way to let everyone participate in those questions by finding a consensus like ticking all the possiblilities you are okay with and selecting that one where most users can agree on.
I'd actually prefer to stick to some theme for quite a while to maintain some recognition factor. But changing the theme // icon to something cool right now might have benefits for public relation since high quality and modern icons often help in convincing users of something :-)
The flat icon we do have right now is fine, but I also like the proposition of @brickup if the font was flat (without that faint shadow I see there) ... or this applied to the first version of @scott-joe (the upper left one) ...
My favourite approach for deciding on those topics is to ask the user base. I'd appreciate if Codeberg would just find a way to let everyone participate in those questions by finding a consensus like ticking all the possiblilities you are okay with and selecting that one where most users can agree on.
What about placing the SVG in the landing page as big welcome-picture?
For favicons and tiny toolbar icons many different shades of blue might cause problems in downscaling, or do you get good results here?
What about placing the SVG in the landing page as big welcome-picture?
For favicons and tiny toolbar icons many different shades of blue might cause problems in downscaling, or do you get good results here?
@fnetX I made the font flat, really looks better 😊 As I thought about a tiny logo version for the menu bar, I also added a version with less blue on the icy top. This way, we add more contrast in case we want to place the "Codeberg" label on top of it to save space.
@hw for a tiny logo version, I suggest we drop the lower half with all of its blue shadows and only use the upper icy half.
Concerning asking the user base: We might open an issue on this topic and post one proposal per comment. Voting could be done by counting hte 👍 (and maybe subtracting the 👎) on the comments then. Wouldn't require a seperate tool and ensure that only people with an account here can vote.
@fnetX I made the font flat, really looks better 😊 As I thought about a tiny logo version for the menu bar, I also added a version with less blue on the icy top. This way, we add more contrast in case we want to place the "Codeberg" label on top of it to save space.
@hw for a tiny logo version, I suggest we drop the lower half with all of its blue shadows and only use the upper icy half.
Concerning asking the user base: We might open an issue on this topic and post one proposal per comment. Voting could be done by counting hte :+1: (and maybe subtracting the :-1:) on the comments then. Wouldn't require a seperate tool and ensure that only people with an account here can vote.
I like the idea! This would require one comment per design option, right? Would you like to set this up, @brickup ?
Then we can call for votes on the social media channels.
I like the idea! This would require one comment per design option, right? Would you like to set this up, @brickup ?
Then we can call for votes on the social media channels.
@brickup Do I get it right that the Codeberg icons on the right (the ones with the "Codeberg" inside the mountains only the alternative for the menu bar for the icons on the left?
I really appreciate your last idea. Could we also have a mountain without the font within a circle, especially useful for the Codeberg favicon and other small scale graphics where you could never read the font. (Like the third icon on your last post, the mountain without font in a circle) ...
I'd love this set, so we could have an official large-scale Codeberg circle, a small rectangle Codeberg icon that also fits into a menu bar and a Codeberg icon intended for small scale that is only for making it easy to recognize.
I'd also be okay to use the mountain as a (fav)icon the way it is right now - just the form without any background ...
To the voting: Yeah, but please make sure to set this up in a separate thread and only link to the discussion over here. I experienced some votings like this in the past and it's sometimes hard to find the comments to vote on in a full thread :-)
It might also be an idea to call for more comments before voting, the discussion here was long dead and it's unlikely that many people have ever read it, so I consider it somewhat fair if we wait another months with asking for more voices before actually giving it up to the votes.
@brickup Do I get it right that the Codeberg icons on the right (the ones with the "Codeberg" inside the mountains only the alternative for the menu bar for the icons on the left?
I really appreciate your last idea. Could we also have a mountain without the font within a circle, especially useful for the Codeberg favicon and other small scale graphics where you could never read the font. (Like the third icon on your last post, the mountain without font in a circle) ...
---
I'd love this set, so we could have an official large-scale Codeberg circle, a small rectangle Codeberg icon that also fits into a menu bar and a Codeberg icon intended for small scale that is only for making it easy to recognize.
I'd also be okay to use the mountain as a (fav)icon the way it is right now - just the form without any background ...
---
To the voting: Yeah, but please make sure to set this up in a separate thread and only link to the discussion over here. I experienced some votings like this in the past and it's sometimes hard to find the comments to vote on in a full thread :-)
It might also be an idea to call for more comments before voting, the discussion here was long dead and it's unlikely that many people have ever read it, so I consider it somewhat fair if we wait another months with asking for more voices before actually giving it up to the votes.
@fnetX yes, I thought of the logo versions as kind of "responsive versions" of the same option - like shown here. And then, the users could decide on which line to pick:
large + text
small only
small + text
large only
1
missing currently
missing currently
2
missing currently
missing currently
I can fill all the blanks but I wanted to ask for feedback first. And as we are planning on a poll for the users, maybe there should be more than two options? At least a third line would be nice 😊 Maybe another of the original proposals by @scott-jo?
@hw Yes, I could set it up. As @fnetX proposed, I would do it in a separate issue/thread to keep it simple. But maybe someone could call for a few more comments on this thread before. I don't know where to do this best 😅
@fnetX yes, I thought of the logo versions as kind of "responsive versions" of the same option - like shown here. And then, the users could decide on which line to pick:
| | large + text | small only | small + text | large only |
|-| ------------ | ---------- | ------------ | ---------- |
| 1 |  |  | missing currently | missing currently |
| 2 |  | missing currently |  | missing currently |
I can fill all the blanks but I wanted to ask for feedback first. And as we are planning on a poll for the users, maybe there should be more than two options? At least a third line would be nice 😊 Maybe another of the original proposals by @scott-jo?
@hw Yes, I could set it up. As @fnetX proposed, I would do it in a separate issue/thread to keep it simple. But maybe someone could call for a few more comments on this thread before. I don't know where to do this best :sweat_smile:
PS: Third line could also be some rectangular logo based on the "small" version scaled up - so avoiding the circle-shape alltogether.
Either way, I guess there should also be a squared option in each line for social media avatars and stuff. 🤔
PS: Third line could also be some rectangular logo based on the "small" version scaled up - so avoiding the circle-shape alltogether.
Either way, I guess there should also be a squared option in each line for social media avatars and stuff. 🤔
In the table I like row number 2 because of higher contrast.
What I find problematic is that, those als bring a background with them. They would not look good on some backgrounds I fear.
The current logo is very simple and looks ok on the main page (white background) or the menu bar (blue background), and on grey (both blue outline and white fill color would be visible)
Could it work if we remove the button style background and just lease an outline? (See attachment for a quick gimp poc on the png).
@brickup
In the table I like row number 2 because of higher contrast.
What I find problematic is that, those als bring a background with them. They would not look good on some backgrounds I fear.
The current logo is very simple and looks ok on the main page (white background) or the menu bar (blue background), and on grey (both blue outline and white fill color would be visible)
Could it work if we remove the button style background and just lease an outline? (See attachment for a quick gimp poc on the png).
@ashimokawa I wouldn't outline them, I think this doesn't look good. I'd prefer the version with lower contrast then as it's light blue and dark blue and thus visible on white and / or dark blue background then. As 1 and 2 are quite similar they could also be used in the same context as alternatives so you could use one of them as official icons in the app and provide alternatives with different contrast to fit other backgrounds and colour contexts, quite a lot of companies provide a "preferred" and an "alternative" branding ...
When thinking about many different backgrounds, we should also consider that it's probably mainly relevant for the use inside of Codeberg (with a defined colour set) and in the context of READMEs and other documents on bright background. I think that if we added a version without a background for use in e. g. the navbar it would be fine.
I also like the first version of @scott-joe as it looks like other modern application icons. But when coming to more ideas as we already considered we might have a call in the community for a design contest, e. g. via a blog post, what do you think @ashimokawa@hw ? I think we should give another months after this to see if users come with their own and new ideas ... and put it to the vote afterwards.
I think @scott-joe 's work cannot be used at the moment until someone picks it up to create a full icon proposal out of it.
@ashimokawa I wouldn't outline them, I think this doesn't look good. I'd prefer the version with lower contrast then as it's light blue and dark blue and thus visible on white and / or dark blue background then. As 1 and 2 are quite similar they could also be used in the same context as alternatives so you could use one of them as official icons in the app and provide alternatives with different contrast to fit other backgrounds and colour contexts, quite a lot of companies provide a "preferred" and an "alternative" branding ...
When thinking about many different backgrounds, we should also consider that it's probably mainly relevant for the use inside of Codeberg (with a defined colour set) and in the context of READMEs and other documents on bright background. I think that if we added a version without a background for use in e. g. the navbar it would be fine.
I also like the first version of @scott-joe as it looks like other modern application icons. But when coming to more ideas as we already considered we might have a call in the community for a design contest, e. g. via a blog post, what do you think @ashimokawa @hw ? I think we should give another months after this to see if users come with their own and new ideas ... and put it to the vote afterwards.
I think @scott-joe 's work cannot be used at the moment until someone picks it up to create a full icon proposal out of it.
@scott-joe you seem to be the designer here putting up some great work! I have quite a bunch of experience when it comes to being in your position (the "only" designer in a code project). So by joining here I give you the most valuable thing I can ever contribute to codeberg.org: recognizing you as the the lead designer.
Dear Codeberg team, please honor that role in your project and assign @scott-joe as the official "Design Lead" from now on. Don't fear to establish a design dictatorship by handing over control of design decisions to him. If he is a good designer he will take feedback into consideration and accept contributions. If in your eyes he does a bad job – release him from that role. Until then: refer all final design decisions to him just as I do.
I completely agree with @scott-joe: design by commitee is a bad idea.
And with that out of the way I humbly step back a bit and propose my own logo mark contribution to the community and the Design Lead (colors and copy font subject to change):
Hi everybody, sorry I found this issue so late…
@scott-joe you seem to be the designer here putting up some great work! I have quite a bunch of experience when it comes to being in your position (the "only" designer in a code project). So by joining here I give you the most valuable thing I can ever contribute to codeberg.org: recognizing *you* as the the lead designer.
**Dear Codeberg team**, please honor that role in your project and assign @scott-joe as the official "Design Lead" from now on. Don't fear to establish a design dictatorship by handing over control of design decisions to him. If he is a good designer he will take feedback into consideration and accept contributions. If in your eyes he does a bad job – release him from that role. Until then: refer all final design decisions to him just as I do.
I completely agree with @scott-joe: design by commitee is a bad idea.
And with that out of the way I humbly step back a bit and propose my own logo mark contribution to the community and the Design Lead (colors and copy font subject to change):
I can't edit my post anymore (can we change that?). The image was supposed to be displayed inline. …I guess there are things to learn coming from gitlab…
I can't edit my post anymore (can we change that?). The image was supposed to be displayed inline. …I guess there are things to learn coming from gitlab…
Personally, I find either design pretty appealing, and I am quite sure others do so too.
There is neither a "committee" nor a larger "team" with fixed responsibilities, any dictator or lead might have a hard time without followers ;)
Maybe a few quick comments are OK to outline the integration+launch process on Codeberg.org:
The process is actually not very complicated. In order to be able to deploy a new design to the test server https://codeberg-test.org, all we need is a simple pull request for the build+deploy repo, that updates content, styles, icons, fonts and assets appropriately.
Then we can test it, and if all potential issues are sorted, the changes are reviewed, everything works fine, and the general feedback is positive, we can deploy to the main server.
That's it.
So, in order to get from the stage of discussing logo drafts, color and font selection to deployment, all that is needed is that someone steps up and prepares the PR!
Personally, I find either design pretty appealing, and I am quite sure others do so too.
There is neither a "committee" nor a larger "team" with fixed responsibilities, any dictator or lead might have a hard time without followers ;)
Maybe a few quick comments are OK to outline the integration+launch process on Codeberg.org:
- The process is actually not very complicated. In order to be able to deploy a new design to the test server https://codeberg-test.org, all we need is a simple pull request for the [build+deploy repo](https://codeberg.org/codeberg/build-deploy-gitea/), that updates content, styles, icons, fonts and assets appropriately.
- Then we can test it, and if all potential issues are sorted, the changes are reviewed, everything works fine, and the general feedback is positive, we can deploy to the main server.
- That's it.
So, in order to get from the stage of discussing logo drafts, color and font selection to deployment, all that is needed is that someone steps up and prepares the PR!
@mray: I really appreciate your proposal and I'm glad you provided that awesome example to it which helps to imagine how the design and logo decision affects the corporate identity ...
Personally I think that when compared to github and gitlab in terms of brand recognition potential, the first (upper left) proposal of @scott-joe looks somewhat better to me. I assume it's more likely to be adapted as a brand among the others so a user reads "Find me on github, gitlab, codeberg" rather than "Find me on github, gitlab and err what's that inconspicuous blue thing over there?" 😂
Just an idea, please consider it.
@mray: I really appreciate your proposal and I'm glad you provided that awesome example to it which helps to imagine how the design and logo decision affects the corporate identity ...
Personally I think that when compared to github and gitlab in terms of brand recognition potential, the first (upper left) proposal of @scott-joe looks somewhat better to me. I assume it's more likely to be adapted as a brand among the others so a user reads "Find me on github, gitlab, codeberg" rather than "Find me on github, gitlab and err what's that inconspicuous blue thing over there?" :joy:
Just an idea, please consider it.
Anybody knows how to get in touch with scott in case he does not get my ping? I could only find his github page (where I don't have an account anymore).
Anybody knows how to get in touch with scott in case he does not get my ping? I could only find his github page (where I don't have an account anymore).
Those are great ideas! I'll just add some screenshots of the various logos within the Gitea interface, hoping that this makes it easier to discuss the different designs.
I think "small only" one by @brickup with the text by @scott-joe besides it looks the best so far, especially when imagining it within a slightly adapted version of the current Codeberg design (which was just a quick idea of mine to stash the menu away, as the logo would be too wide then):
Round logos don't look too great in the navbar in my opinion (although I really like the frameless aesthetic of @mray with the right background color, it's really clean & reminds me of the Atlassian logos):
And I think the first drafts by @scott-joe are a bit too complex for the size they would be shown in the navbar:
I'd really like the idea of a "lead designer", it would probably make everything design-related a lot easier, and I think Scott would be great for that if he wants to take that responsibility.
Those are great ideas! I'll just add some screenshots of the various logos within the Gitea interface, hoping that this makes it easier to discuss the different designs.
I think "small only" one by @brickup with the text by @scott-joe besides it looks the best so far, especially when imagining it within a slightly adapted version of the current Codeberg design (which was just a quick idea of mine to stash the menu away, as the logo would be too wide then):
Round logos don't look too great in the navbar in my opinion (although I really like the frameless aesthetic of @mray with the right background color, it's really clean & reminds me of the Atlassian logos):
And I think the first drafts by @scott-joe are a bit too complex for the size they would be shown in the navbar:
I'd really like the idea of a "lead designer", it would probably make everything design-related a lot easier, and I think Scott would be great for that if he wants to take that responsibility.
Hey, I like the screenshots. They'll be very useful for a community vote so every option should provide the icon set and ideally a screenshot for better visualization.
Personally I prefer the first two versions as I like the codeberg logo with the three mountains most.
Just a side note to the revamped toolbar of @momar: I don't need a search bar but shortcuts to the most important places. But grouping the Explore, Codeberg Issues, Blog, Join Codeberg e. V. and Donate tabs under some Codeberg stuff icon might be a good idea.
By the way, I'd love to have the navbar sticky or revealing when I scroll up. It's sometimes a long way up to the navbar 😂
Hey, I like the screenshots. They'll be very useful for a community vote so every option should provide the icon set and ideally a screenshot for better visualization.
Personally I prefer the first two versions as I like the codeberg logo with the three mountains most.
Just a side note to the revamped toolbar of @momar: I don't need a search bar but shortcuts to the most important places. But grouping the Explore, Codeberg Issues, Blog, Join Codeberg e. V. and Donate tabs under some Codeberg stuff icon might be a good idea.
By the way, I'd love to have the navbar sticky or revealing when I scroll up. It's sometimes a long way up to the navbar :joy:
I was just trying that out in the browser console, so no PR yet - I can create one, but I'd really like the authors to explicitly specify the license under which Codeberg can use them before.
I was just trying that out in the browser console, so no PR yet - I can create one, but I'd really like the authors to explicitly specify the license under which Codeberg can use them before.
@momar no restrictions on my side, take my proposals as CC0. Unless @scott-joe says otherwise, as mine are in fact derivatives of the very first proposal 🙂.
I like the navbar screenshot with hidden menu by @momar. In my opinion, the text next to the logo looks a bit odd - maybe becuase of the two font weights combined with the size, can't exactly say why - but otherwise very cool! And I agree that a circular logo looks strange - especially combined with a square profile pic.
Also love the idea of a "lead designer" - but I fear @scott-joe isn't active here anymore? At least by his public activity. And just for the record: I'm not a designer, just toyed a bit with Inkscape 😆
Can't contribute a lot here - life'n'stuff. 😅
@momar no restrictions on my side, take my proposals as CC0. Unless @scott-joe says otherwise, as mine are in fact derivatives of the very first proposal 🙂.
I like the navbar screenshot with hidden menu by @momar. In my opinion, the text next to the logo looks a bit odd - maybe becuase of the two font weights combined with the size, can't exactly say why - but otherwise very cool! And I agree that a circular logo looks strange - especially combined with a square profile pic.
As @ashimokawa said, the [second version here](https://codeberg.org/attachments/c2866067-bfd5-4f40-9851-8ca29d2137fd) might look better contrast-wise.
Also love the idea of a "lead designer" - but I fear @scott-joe isn't active here anymore? At least by his [public activity](https://codeberg.org/scott-joe?tab=activity). And just for the record: I'm not a designer, just toyed a bit with Inkscape :laughing:
Can't contribute a lot here - life'n'stuff. :sweat_smile:
I was about to whip up a merge request with some help and am happy to see some things are moving forward, despite a design lead showing. I have a problem though:
This should never happen! The background of that variant does not work on blue background. If I saw that proposal next to others I wouldn't chose my own logo here. That is why I created the inverted version specifically:
Blue and white only work on a VERY dark background.
Hi there,
I was about to whip up a merge request with some help and am happy to see some things are moving forward, despite a design lead showing. I have a problem though:
This should never happen! The background of that variant does not work on blue background. If I saw that proposal next to others I wouldn't chose my own logo here. That is why I created the inverted version specifically:
Blue and white only work on a VERY dark background.
If someone wants to try out the build-deploy-gitea setup using Docker, I created the necessary files at https://codeberg.org/momar/codeberg-deployment. This should make it a lot easier to make & debug design changes.
If someone wants to try out the build-deploy-gitea setup using Docker, I created the necessary files at https://codeberg.org/momar/codeberg-deployment. This should make it a lot easier to make & debug design changes.
Tried my best to create a usable MR (with some extra help, thanks @iko ). Please bear with me when something is not right about it. Will try to fix it if I can.
Tried my best to create a usable MR (with some extra help, thanks @iko ). Please bear with me when something is not right about it. Will try to fix it if I can.
[...] so this will be applied together with the new logo.
Sounds like like this is fixed. I still prefer a mountain-ish logo over a slice of cake 😂
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/179#issuecomment-63285
> [...] so this will be applied together with the new logo.
Sounds like like this is fixed. I still prefer a mountain-ish logo over a slice of cake :joy:
Oh, `make all` didn't build the image files anymore - see [ad7c315f661aeba5a5a4d26d081676ae2b2b2b06](https://codeberg.org/momar/build-deploy-gitea/commit/ad7c315f661aeba5a5a4d26d081676ae2b2b2b06) for a fix o.O
released 2 days ago? Guess it might take a while until it ends up in Debian. If we have non-standard dependencies, we should build them locally from the Makefile (just like the go compiler).
released 2 days ago? Guess it might take a while until it ends up in Debian. If we have non-standard dependencies, we should build them locally from the Makefile (just like the go compiler).
What files and versions are we talking about actually? Hopefully the logo ages well in the coming years and won't need a frequent update anyway…
I'm fine with helping by providing/creating needed assets.
What files and versions are we talking about actually? Hopefully the logo ages well in the coming years and won't need a frequent update anyway…
I'm fine with helping by providing/creating needed assets.
I think regarding the logo everything's working fine right now automatically, as seen on https://codeberg-test.org.
I think the more important question is if we want to roll out the new logo together with the new navbar (Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea#17), or if it should be two seperate changes? I think bundling both of them makes a lot of sense, however I won't have a lot of time to work on the navbar in the next couple of weeks.
I guess I could get it done next week though (as in "it works for Codeberg if people have JavaScript and CSS enabled and don't use a screen reader"), but I'd much rather make this a real patch to Gitea that at least possibly could be merged upstream and works really reliably.
I think regarding the logo everything's working fine right now automatically, as seen on https://codeberg-test.org.
I think the more important question is if we want to roll out the new logo together with the new navbar (https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea/pulls/17), or if it should be two seperate changes? I think bundling both of them makes a lot of sense, however I won't have a lot of time to work on the navbar in the next couple of weeks.
I guess I could get it done next week though (as in "it works for Codeberg if people have JavaScript and CSS enabled and don't use a screen reader"), but I'd much rather make this a real patch to Gitea that at least possibly could be merged upstream and works really reliably.
I think nothing - seems like nobody found something substentially bad about it, lots of people like it, and the technical side seems fine (@mray does the test page look fine everywhere to you?). The only place where the old logo is used is the animated PNG when migrating repositories - maybe we can just use a more "normal" loading spinner there?
I think nothing - seems like nobody found something substentially bad about it, lots of people like it, and the technical side seems fine (@mray does the test page look fine everywhere to you?). The only place where the old logo is used is the animated PNG when migrating repositories - maybe we can just use a more "normal" loading spinner there?
@mray does the test page look fine everywhere to you?)
This is probably not the right place for that feedback, but the menu bar on https://codeberg-test.org/ could benefit from a few tweaks imho:
smaller logo
dark "active" background
2px bigger font
slightly heavier font weight
faint drop shadow under the text
The only place where the old logo is used is the animated PNG when migrating repositories - maybe we can just use a more “normal” loading spinner there?
What animated logo? o_0
> @mray does the test page look fine everywhere to you?)
This is probably not the right place for that feedback, but the menu bar on https://codeberg-test.org/ could benefit from a few tweaks imho:
* smaller logo
* dark "active" background
* 2px bigger font
* slightly heavier font weight
* faint drop shadow under the text
> The only place where the old logo is used is the animated PNG when migrating repositories - maybe we can just use a more “normal” loading spinner there?
What animated logo? o_0
The only place where the old logo is used is the animated PNG when migrating repositories - maybe we can just use a more “normal” loading spinner there?
>
> > The only place where the old logo is used is the animated PNG when migrating repositories - maybe we can just use a more “normal” loading spinner there?
>
> What animated logo? o_0
>
The animated PNG rendered when a repo is migrating:
https://codeberg-test.org/img/loading.png
If the new logo was a perfect circle we could have fun with parts of the berg rotating faster than others 😂
Nevertheless I'm sure you or someone else can play around with that :-)
If the new logo was a perfect circle we could have fun with parts of the berg rotating faster than others 😂
Nevertheless I'm sure you or someone else can play around with that :-)
I'm missing an image in this post above:
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Design/issues/3#issuecomment-67759
How come it is gone? (as well as other images)
> I'm missing an image in this post above:
>
> https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Design/issues/3#issuecomment-67759
>
> How come it is gone? (as well as other images)
Was it the same picture as in the attachment?
Just noting: The original post at the very top had its picture visible as an inline picture – not just as a link. This changed somehow, lots of other posts in here, too. Weird.
Just noting: The original post at the very top had its picture visible as an inline picture – not just as a link. This changed somehow, lots of other posts in here, too. Weird.
[back to issue topic]
> what are the missing bits that have to be resolved before the new theme can get deployed?
So the list is #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13?
In my personal opinion, I think it would be beneficial to put the logo under a permissive license, such as CC0, because that encourages people to use the logo for example in their own websites, READMEs and slides to refer to Codeberg as well, which could boost Codeberg's popularity.
I would be interested in what's @hw 's opinion on this (and of course everyone else's as well 🙂).
In my personal opinion, I think it would be beneficial to put the logo under a permissive license, such as CC0, because that encourages people to use the logo for example in their own websites, READMEs and slides to refer to Codeberg as well, which could boost Codeberg's popularity.
I would be interested in what's @hw 's opinion on this (and of course everyone else's as well 🙂).
I mean, I guess currently it's under the GNU GPL 3 as ist was added as a PR to the build-deploy-gitea repo. That's really more of a software license though and may only affect the actual files instead of the logo as a concept/design, so I think this whole design repository should be licensed under a license better suited for artistic content - CC0 probably is the easiest, or CC-BY with Codeberg as the licensor (so a CLA might be required), which would have the advantage that people can't just launch an identically-looking competitor (maybe even with e.g. malicuous software) to us without refering to Codeberg as the original project. I'm not sure how big the risk of that is though.
I mean, I guess currently it's under the [GNU GPL 3](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea/src/branch/master/LICENSE) as ist was added as a PR to the build-deploy-gitea repo. That's really more of a software license though and may only affect the actual files instead of the logo as a concept/design, so I think this whole design repository should be licensed under a license better suited for artistic content - CC0 probably is the easiest, or CC-BY with Codeberg as the licensor (so a CLA might be required), which would have the advantage that people can't just launch an identically-looking competitor (maybe even with e.g. malicuous software) to us without refering to Codeberg as the original project. I'm not sure how big the risk of that is though.
Yes, abuse of the logo might be a possible concern. Although the question is, whether copyright law would be the right tool to stop fraud and hacking.
For the mere establishment of an identical-looking competitor, things are more subtle though and thus adding an attribution requirement as in CC-BY would definitely be worth a thought.
I agree that using a software license for the creative content would be the wrong way to go and that putting the content right in the Design repository with a license governing it and future contributions would be a very good and reasonable approach. This would also help making Codeberg design resources locatable in a single place.
Yes, abuse of the logo might be a possible concern. Although the question is, whether copyright law would be the right tool to stop fraud and hacking.
For the mere establishment of an identical-looking competitor, things are more subtle though and thus adding an attribution requirement as in CC-BY would definitely be worth a thought.
I agree that using a software license for the creative content would be the wrong way to go and that putting the content right in the Design repository with a license governing it and future contributions would be a very good and reasonable approach. This would also help making Codeberg design resources locatable in a single place.
I mean, I guess currently it's under the GNU GPL 3 as ist was added as a PR to the build-deploy-gitea repo.
That's how it works technically, we are free to choose another one, if we think this is a sensible choice.
> I mean, I guess currently it's under the [GNU GPL 3](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea/src/branch/master/LICENSE) as ist was added as a PR to the build-deploy-gitea repo.
That's how it works technically, we are free to choose another one, if we think this is a sensible choice.
That's how it works technically, we are free to choose another one, if we think this is a sensible choice.
That's good to know, so for now I'll treat it as AGPLv3 👍
And, consequentially, I would propose to collect the design resources in this repository and ask to use a more permissive license than AGPLv3 (only for the design resources), to give everyone more flexibility in using these across different types of media. My suggestion would be CC-BY 4.0
> That's how it works technically, we are free to choose another one, if we think this is a sensible choice.
That's good to know, so for now I'll treat it as AGPLv3 👍
And, consequentially, I would propose to collect the design resources in this repository and ask to use a more permissive license than AGPLv3 (only for the design resources), to give everyone more flexibility in using these across different types of media. My suggestion would be CC-BY 4.0
… launch an identically-looking competitor (maybe even with e.g. malicuous software)
This is where trademark steps in, in order to save the customers from getting the "wrong thing".
I think we want to keep in mind that nothing should prevent people from printing this on mugs and t-shirts and selling those (and making profit with that). So CC-BY int. 4.0 sounds fine to me, too.
> … launch an identically-looking competitor (maybe even with e.g. malicuous software)
This is where trademark steps in, in order to save the customers from getting the "wrong thing".
I think we want to keep in mind that nothing should prevent people from printing this on mugs and t-shirts and selling those (and making profit with that). So CC-BY int. 4.0 sounds fine to me, too.
nothing should prevent people from printing this on mugs and t-shirts and selling those (and making profit with that)
With CC-BY, they'd have to explicitly mention the author (which could be Codeberg with a CLA, otherwise it someone else for each resource). So, CC0 would make the most sense for that.
> nothing should prevent people from printing this on mugs and t-shirts and selling those (and making profit with that)
With CC-BY, they'd have to explicitly mention the author (which could be Codeberg with a CLA, otherwise it someone else for each resource). So, CC0 would make the most sense for that.
(Another question is, whether we already have a trademark on Codeberg automatically, like with copyright or whether that would mean additional costs and effort to register and uphold a trademark)
I just noticed that the Creative Commons FAQ takes a critical stance towards putting logos and trademarks under either license: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#could-i-use-a-cc-license-to-share-my-logo-or-trademark
(Another question is, whether we already have a trademark on Codeberg automatically, like with copyright or whether that would mean additional costs and effort to register and uphold a trademark)
One option would be to prefer using an open license over potential trademark protection loss and to use a license with attribution requirement to at least retain some control.
One option would be to prefer using an open license over potential trademark protection loss and to use a license with attribution requirement to at least retain some control.
There is now a downloadable (CC-BY, trademark of Codeberg e.V) Logo-Kit, ready to use for all places that need to apply it.
closing.
There is now a downloadable (CC-BY, trademark of Codeberg e.V) [Logo-Kit](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Design/wiki/Branding#user-content-logo), ready to use for [all places](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Design/issues?type=all&state=open&labels=&milestone=0&assignee=0&q=logo) that need to apply it.
closing.
Kicking around some ideas I'd dumped into Community a while ago. Feedback is welcome.
Something completely different.
Something completely different. They're all pretty basic concepts so far. Just interested in whether people are leaning toward something graphical, text-based, simple flat, detailed, geometric, etc.
I'm pretty rusty when it comes to design. Haven't been a designer in almost a decade. But I think I'm the only one on here with design experience so far, so...
Check out some collections of styles. They're not my work, just collections.
https://dribbble.com/scott_joe/buckets/990615-Logos
https://www.pinterest.com/scottjoewill/logos/
@scott-joe: I really like the round iceberg (bottom left)!
I combined the bottom-left round logo, simplified the lower part and added a caption like the first one ... thought it might look nice. 😁
PNG and SVG in the attachments.
PS: SVG file attachment went missing, so I uploaded it here
@brickup
Looks nice. More professional than the current one. I still like the current one, opinions?
The current theme has been deployed some while ago. What about a new theme every year to maintain a fresh look?
I'd actually prefer to stick to some theme for quite a while to maintain some recognition factor. But changing the theme // icon to something cool right now might have benefits for public relation since high quality and modern icons often help in convincing users of something :-)
The flat icon we do have right now is fine, but I also like the proposition of @brickup if the font was flat (without that faint shadow I see there) ... or this applied to the first version of @scott-joe (the upper left one) ...
My favourite approach for deciding on those topics is to ask the user base. I'd appreciate if Codeberg would just find a way to let everyone participate in those questions by finding a consensus like ticking all the possiblilities you are okay with and selecting that one where most users can agree on.
What about placing the SVG in the landing page as big welcome-picture?
For favicons and tiny toolbar icons many different shades of blue might cause problems in downscaling, or do you get good results here?
@fnetX I made the font flat, really looks better 😊 As I thought about a tiny logo version for the menu bar, I also added a version with less blue on the icy top. This way, we add more contrast in case we want to place the "Codeberg" label on top of it to save space.
@hw for a tiny logo version, I suggest we drop the lower half with all of its blue shadows and only use the upper icy half.
Concerning asking the user base: We might open an issue on this topic and post one proposal per comment. Voting could be done by counting hte 👍 (and maybe subtracting the 👎) on the comments then. Wouldn't require a seperate tool and ensure that only people with an account here can vote.
I like the idea! This would require one comment per design option, right? Would you like to set this up, @brickup ?
Then we can call for votes on the social media channels.
@brickup Do I get it right that the Codeberg icons on the right (the ones with the "Codeberg" inside the mountains only the alternative for the menu bar for the icons on the left?
I really appreciate your last idea. Could we also have a mountain without the font within a circle, especially useful for the Codeberg favicon and other small scale graphics where you could never read the font. (Like the third icon on your last post, the mountain without font in a circle) ...
I'd love this set, so we could have an official large-scale Codeberg circle, a small rectangle Codeberg icon that also fits into a menu bar and a Codeberg icon intended for small scale that is only for making it easy to recognize.
I'd also be okay to use the mountain as a (fav)icon the way it is right now - just the form without any background ...
To the voting: Yeah, but please make sure to set this up in a separate thread and only link to the discussion over here. I experienced some votings like this in the past and it's sometimes hard to find the comments to vote on in a full thread :-)
It might also be an idea to call for more comments before voting, the discussion here was long dead and it's unlikely that many people have ever read it, so I consider it somewhat fair if we wait another months with asking for more voices before actually giving it up to the votes.
@fnetX yes, I thought of the logo versions as kind of "responsive versions" of the same option - like shown here. And then, the users could decide on which line to pick:
I can fill all the blanks but I wanted to ask for feedback first. And as we are planning on a poll for the users, maybe there should be more than two options? At least a third line would be nice 😊 Maybe another of the original proposals by @scott-jo?
@hw Yes, I could set it up. As @fnetX proposed, I would do it in a separate issue/thread to keep it simple. But maybe someone could call for a few more comments on this thread before. I don't know where to do this best 😅
PS: Third line could also be some rectangular logo based on the "small" version scaled up - so avoiding the circle-shape alltogether.
Either way, I guess there should also be a squared option in each line for social media avatars and stuff. 🤔
@brickup
In the table I like row number 2 because of higher contrast.
What I find problematic is that, those als bring a background with them. They would not look good on some backgrounds I fear.
The current logo is very simple and looks ok on the main page (white background) or the menu bar (blue background), and on grey (both blue outline and white fill color would be visible)
Could it work if we remove the button style background and just lease an outline? (See attachment for a quick gimp poc on the png).
@ashimokawa I wouldn't outline them, I think this doesn't look good. I'd prefer the version with lower contrast then as it's light blue and dark blue and thus visible on white and / or dark blue background then. As 1 and 2 are quite similar they could also be used in the same context as alternatives so you could use one of them as official icons in the app and provide alternatives with different contrast to fit other backgrounds and colour contexts, quite a lot of companies provide a "preferred" and an "alternative" branding ...
When thinking about many different backgrounds, we should also consider that it's probably mainly relevant for the use inside of Codeberg (with a defined colour set) and in the context of READMEs and other documents on bright background. I think that if we added a version without a background for use in e. g. the navbar it would be fine.
I also like the first version of @scott-joe as it looks like other modern application icons. But when coming to more ideas as we already considered we might have a call in the community for a design contest, e. g. via a blog post, what do you think @ashimokawa @hw ? I think we should give another months after this to see if users come with their own and new ideas ... and put it to the vote afterwards.
I think @scott-joe 's work cannot be used at the moment until someone picks it up to create a full icon proposal out of it.
Does this work both on the light and dark theme in user settings?
Hi everybody, sorry I found this issue so late…
@scott-joe you seem to be the designer here putting up some great work! I have quite a bunch of experience when it comes to being in your position (the "only" designer in a code project). So by joining here I give you the most valuable thing I can ever contribute to codeberg.org: recognizing you as the the lead designer.
Dear Codeberg team, please honor that role in your project and assign @scott-joe as the official "Design Lead" from now on. Don't fear to establish a design dictatorship by handing over control of design decisions to him. If he is a good designer he will take feedback into consideration and accept contributions. If in your eyes he does a bad job – release him from that role. Until then: refer all final design decisions to him just as I do.
I completely agree with @scott-joe: design by commitee is a bad idea.
And with that out of the way I humbly step back a bit and propose my own logo mark contribution to the community and the Design Lead (colors and copy font subject to change):
I can't edit my post anymore (can we change that?). The image was supposed to be displayed inline. …I guess there are things to learn coming from gitlab…
I have to say that this last version really appeals to me in its simplicity, and the small icon without text.
Personally, I find either design pretty appealing, and I am quite sure others do so too.
There is neither a "committee" nor a larger "team" with fixed responsibilities, any dictator or lead might have a hard time without followers ;)
Maybe a few quick comments are OK to outline the integration+launch process on Codeberg.org:
So, in order to get from the stage of discussing logo drafts, color and font selection to deployment, all that is needed is that someone steps up and prepares the PR!
@mray: I really appreciate your proposal and I'm glad you provided that awesome example to it which helps to imagine how the design and logo decision affects the corporate identity ...
Personally I think that when compared to github and gitlab in terms of brand recognition potential, the first (upper left) proposal of @scott-joe looks somewhat better to me. I assume it's more likely to be adapted as a brand among the others so a user reads "Find me on github, gitlab, codeberg" rather than "Find me on github, gitlab and err what's that inconspicuous blue thing over there?" 😂
Just an idea, please consider it.
ping @scott-joe. Please chime in to get things moving here.
Anybody knows how to get in touch with scott in case he does not get my ping? I could only find his github page (where I don't have an account anymore).
Those are great ideas! I'll just add some screenshots of the various logos within the Gitea interface, hoping that this makes it easier to discuss the different designs.
I think "small only" one by @brickup with the text by @scott-joe besides it looks the best so far, especially when imagining it within a slightly adapted version of the current Codeberg design (which was just a quick idea of mine to stash the menu away, as the logo would be too wide then):
Round logos don't look too great in the navbar in my opinion (although I really like the frameless aesthetic of @mray with the right background color, it's really clean & reminds me of the Atlassian logos):
And I think the first drafts by @scott-joe are a bit too complex for the size they would be shown in the navbar:
I'd really like the idea of a "lead designer", it would probably make everything design-related a lot easier, and I think Scott would be great for that if he wants to take that responsibility.
Nice! Comments? Is this a working PR we could deploy to https://codeberg-test.org?
Hey, I like the screenshots. They'll be very useful for a community vote so every option should provide the icon set and ideally a screenshot for better visualization.
Personally I prefer the first two versions as I like the codeberg logo with the three mountains most.
Just a side note to the revamped toolbar of @momar: I don't need a search bar but shortcuts to the most important places. But grouping the Explore, Codeberg Issues, Blog, Join Codeberg e. V. and Donate tabs under some Codeberg stuff icon might be a good idea.
By the way, I'd love to have the navbar sticky or revealing when I scroll up. It's sometimes a long way up to the navbar 😂
I was just trying that out in the browser console, so no PR yet - I can create one, but I'd really like the authors to explicitly specify the license under which Codeberg can use them before.
@momar no restrictions on my side, take my proposals as CC0. Unless @scott-joe says otherwise, as mine are in fact derivatives of the very first proposal 🙂.
I like the navbar screenshot with hidden menu by @momar. In my opinion, the text next to the logo looks a bit odd - maybe becuase of the two font weights combined with the size, can't exactly say why - but otherwise very cool! And I agree that a circular logo looks strange - especially combined with a square profile pic.
As @ashimokawa said, the second version here might look better contrast-wise.
Also love the idea of a "lead designer" - but I fear @scott-joe isn't active here anymore? At least by his public activity. And just for the record: I'm not a designer, just toyed a bit with Inkscape 😆
Can't contribute a lot here - life'n'stuff. 😅
Hi there,
I was about to whip up a merge request with some help and am happy to see some things are moving forward, despite a design lead showing. I have a problem though:
This should never happen! The background of that variant does not work on blue background. If I saw that proposal next to others I wouldn't chose my own logo here. That is why I created the inverted version specifically:
Blue and white only work on a VERY dark background.
Ah, the inverted version looks really nice, I somehow didn't see it before.
If someone wants to try out the build-deploy-gitea setup using Docker, I created the necessary files at https://codeberg.org/momar/codeberg-deployment. This should make it a lot easier to make & debug design changes.
Tried my best to create a usable MR (with some extra help, thanks @iko ). Please bear with me when something is not right about it. Will try to fix it if I can.
This is Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea#15 ? Cool, will have a look and deploy asap on https://codeberg-test.org!
Codeberg/Community#179
Sounds like like this is fixed. I still prefer a mountain-ish logo over a slice of cake 😂
At this point – is there any way I can help moving this forward?
PR #15 is merged and deployed to https://codeberg-test.org. The navbar icon looks somewhat unintended.
I guess PR #16 is next?
Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea#16 is ready now too! \o/
merged! Navbar icon transparency still has an issue, or did something went wrong in merge?
Oh,
make alldidn't build the image files anymore - see ad7c315f661aeba5a5a4d26d081676ae2b2b2b06 for a fix o.OUhm, that favicon doesn't look like I expected it to look like... Which imagemagick version are you using @hw?
ImageMagick 6.9.10-23
Hm, could you try it with ImageMagick 7? 🤔
released 2 days ago? Guess it might take a while until it ends up in Debian. If we have non-standard dependencies, we should build them locally from the Makefile (just like the go compiler).
Nah, ImageMagick 7 is around since 2016, but as they're still maintaining version 6, I guess Debian doesn't care about that.
Hm, I compiled on Ubuntu a few days ago where I still had ImageMagick 6, and it worked there too... So maybe it's a different issue 🤔
You seem to call svgo conditionally, might this be related?
can't I provide a pre-rendered version of whatever file you need? Just in case that would help...
Just want to offer my help again here. If you tell me the resolution & format you need – I can manually export them all any time…
This would surely help once, however imply frequent maintenance need? Maybe still good to get the new theme launch unblocked...
What files and versions are we talking about actually? Hopefully the logo ages well in the coming years and won't need a frequent update anyway…
I'm fine with helping by providing/creating needed assets.
I think regarding the logo everything's working fine right now automatically, as seen on https://codeberg-test.org.
I think the more important question is if we want to roll out the new logo together with the new navbar (Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea#17), or if it should be two seperate changes? I think bundling both of them makes a lot of sense, however I won't have a lot of time to work on the navbar in the next couple of weeks.
I guess I could get it done next week though (as in "it works for Codeberg if people have JavaScript and CSS enabled and don't use a screen reader"), but I'd much rather make this a real patch to Gitea that at least possibly could be merged upstream and works really reliably.
Smaller, incremental steps make it easier to progress. What is needed for sign-off of the logo update?
I think nothing - seems like nobody found something substentially bad about it, lots of people like it, and the technical side seems fine (@mray does the test page look fine everywhere to you?). The only place where the old logo is used is the animated PNG when migrating repositories - maybe we can just use a more "normal" loading spinner there?
This is probably not the right place for that feedback, but the menu bar on https://codeberg-test.org/ could benefit from a few tweaks imho:
What animated logo? o_0
The animated PNG rendered when a repo is migrating:
https://codeberg-test.org/img/loading.png
wow, how is that png even animated? I wasn't aware that is possible (is it a mng actually?)
I'm certain I can provide a repalcement for that as well…
If the new logo was a perfect circle we could have fun with parts of the berg rotating faster than others 😂
Nevertheless I'm sure you or someone else can play around with that :-)
looks perfect on the test site. i love it!
what are the missing bits that have to be resolved before the new theme can get deployed?
I'm missing an image in this post above:
#3
How come it is gone? (as well as other images)
Was it the same picture as in the attachment?
no those were different images.
Hm, seems an separate issue to investigate this is warranted.
Just noting: The original post at the very top had its picture visible as an inline picture – not just as a link. This changed somehow, lots of other posts in here, too. Weird.
[back to issue topic]
So the list is #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13?
By the way, what's the license on the new logo?
I tend to chose what works best with the project. I don't know what that would be for Codeberg.
In my personal opinion, I think it would be beneficial to put the logo under a permissive license, such as CC0, because that encourages people to use the logo for example in their own websites, READMEs and slides to refer to Codeberg as well, which could boost Codeberg's popularity.
I would be interested in what's @hw 's opinion on this (and of course everyone else's as well 🙂).
I mean, I guess currently it's under the GNU GPL 3 as ist was added as a PR to the build-deploy-gitea repo. That's really more of a software license though and may only affect the actual files instead of the logo as a concept/design, so I think this whole design repository should be licensed under a license better suited for artistic content - CC0 probably is the easiest, or CC-BY with Codeberg as the licensor (so a CLA might be required), which would have the advantage that people can't just launch an identically-looking competitor (maybe even with e.g. malicuous software) to us without refering to Codeberg as the original project. I'm not sure how big the risk of that is though.
Yes, abuse of the logo might be a possible concern. Although the question is, whether copyright law would be the right tool to stop fraud and hacking.
For the mere establishment of an identical-looking competitor, things are more subtle though and thus adding an attribution requirement as in CC-BY would definitely be worth a thought.
I agree that using a software license for the creative content would be the wrong way to go and that putting the content right in the Design repository with a license governing it and future contributions would be a very good and reasonable approach. This would also help making Codeberg design resources locatable in a single place.
That's how it works technically, we are free to choose another one, if we think this is a sensible choice.
That's good to know, so for now I'll treat it as AGPLv3 👍
And, consequentially, I would propose to collect the design resources in this repository and ask to use a more permissive license than AGPLv3 (only for the design resources), to give everyone more flexibility in using these across different types of media. My suggestion would be CC-BY 4.0
If we want wide usage, CC BY Int. 4.0 would be good. GPL is for code.
This is where trademark steps in, in order to save the customers from getting the "wrong thing".
I think we want to keep in mind that nothing should prevent people from printing this on mugs and t-shirts and selling those (and making profit with that). So CC-BY int. 4.0 sounds fine to me, too.
With CC-BY, they'd have to explicitly mention the author (which could be Codeberg with a CLA, otherwise it someone else for each resource). So, CC0 would make the most sense for that.
I just noticed that the Creative Commons FAQ takes a critical stance towards putting logos and trademarks under either license: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#could-i-use-a-cc-license-to-share-my-logo-or-trademark
(Another question is, whether we already have a trademark on Codeberg automatically, like with copyright or whether that would mean additional costs and effort to register and uphold a trademark)
One option would be to prefer using an open license over potential trademark protection loss and to use a license with attribution requirement to at least retain some control.
This issue is overburdened already: lets move license dicussions here #16 …
There is now a downloadable (CC-BY, trademark of Codeberg e.V) Logo-Kit, ready to use for all places that need to apply it.
closing.