chasd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Look at pages 8 & 9 of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute brand book. A
university is a large organization made up of many sub-organizations -
schools,
departments, research labs, etc. RPI's brand guidelines (as most
universities'
and large corporations') recognize that they must apply to many disparate
sub-organizations that share the same 'brand' and have guidelines for
incorparating the use of their logo for those sub-organizations.
This can be handled in a way where the sub-organization's identity is
associated with the main brand, bit not integrated with the logo.
? Care to give an example or even a sketch? I'm not sure how you could handle
that in the way that you describe. It seems like having guidelines such as in
the RPI usage guidelines would be the easiest way to do this.
My argument here is that the clearspace is too restrictive and that the logo
guidelines should make exceptions for 'sub-logos.' You don't want people to be
able to position the logo that closely to another element *unless* that element
together with the logo forms a sub-logo. Part of the guideline for 'sub-logos'
should indicate what type of organizations are authorized to create a sub-logo
affiliated with Fedora, and an approval process should be put into place as well
before people can use the sub-logos.
As has been noted earlier in this thread, the Fedora Wiki mockup [1], designed
by Capstrat themselves (who designed the Fedora logo), violates the clearspace
set in the guidelines with the Fedora wiki logo in the upper left corner. This
speaks to how the clearspace guidelines *should* allow for other elements to be
placed closer to the logo in special cases.
It
depends how close the affiliation of the sub-organization is to the main
organization.
This concept of 'sub-logo' guidelines actually not that uncommon in brand
design, and it would be nice if such sub-logo guidelines could be
specified for
Fedora's logo.
True. If desired, guidelines on how to handle such cases should be
integrated into the usage document, like the one for rpi.edu mentioned
above. This puts a larger load on someone within the Fedora Project to
keep tabs on a larger array of logos, and have new logos created or
approved as the Fedora Project grows. Without a dedicated logo cop
within the Fedora Project, I think the simplicity of the current usage
document keeps the overhead of maintaining the Fedora visual identity at
a minimum. That is a benefit to the Fedora Community from my point of view.
Well, considering there is already an approval process for the use of the logo
which this would fit under, it really isn't putting any extra load that we
haven't already signed up for.... *any* usage of the logo already has to be
reported to & approved by logo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the dedicated 'logo cop' :)
I agree with your point, but I ask how much additional value does the
Fedora Project get out of these additional logos, verses establishing an
identity link for sub-organizations without changing the established
usage guidelines ?
You keep saying that it's possible for sub-orgs to identify with the Fedora
project in their logos without changing the established usage guidelines, but
you don't explain how that is possible. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiElements
~m
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
