Please check out the brand new website we have put together here: https://new.uavcan.org. It is designed to be a simple landing page only; the specification is now available in a separate PDF document (which I am still working on, slowly), and code-related docs will be migrated to their respective code repositories. The context is available here: https://github.com/UAVCAN/uavcan.github.io/issues/18
The new logo is designed to remove the unwanted connection with “UAV” and “CAN” (although we still don’t want to advertise the new acronym “Uncomplicated Application-level Vehicular Communication And Networking”, hence the meaning of the acronym is not explicitly explained on the website).
I don’t like how thoroughly we’ve tossed aside v0 in this change. We need to keep the current spec and material accessible, well-maintained, and be sure to let people know it is supported even if v1 is in development. I would prefer simply updating the current website with v1 as a sub-page and promote v1 up as it is actually implemented and stable.
To further my critique (with good-nature I hope) there are a few things about this logo I don’t think work for us:
It depicts a specific bus topology which isn’t useful if we do find ourselves on something that employs a star or mech topology (for example). If we are trying to demote CAN from meaning Controller Area Network then this is a step backwards.
The kerning between the V and the C is too tight compared to the U and the A (In general I’m not a fan of attempting fontography as part of designing graphics. They are two different disciplines).
“Intravehicular communication” is a tagline and shouldn’t be part of the logo. Generally logos should never contain words that would require translation (i.e. Despite every American firm’s insistence in adding a maple leaf to their logo in Canada; you shouldn’t need i18n or l10n for your logo).
It doesn’t have a good 1-tone version for silkscreen on PCBs nor a good iconified version for application icons.
It doesn’t have a good tiny representation that is consistent with the larger logo (e.g. for favicons)
Unrolling my criticisms back into requirements I’d like to have a logo that meets the following requirements:
No technological constraints shall be introduced by the logo - The graphic should not require modification if our specification or any part of how the technology is deployed changes.
The logo shall use established and highly regarded fonts for any text - We use a different part of our brains to read language then we do to interpret images. Fontographers are a rarified lot that obsess on how the language part of our brains interpret their work. It is a massive undertaking to reproduce their work and so we should not attempt as much.
The logo shall remain valid for all translations and localizations - We want a single logo that works regardless of language and region. It’s just easier that way and provides a single graphical representation of the project to all nationalities.
All reduced resolutions of the logo shall retain some element of the full-resolution version - We want the favicon to be recognizable as a version of the same full-sized logo.
The logo shall have a 1-tone representation that is suitable for silk-screening onto a PCB - I’d really like to have a logo that could be silkscreened onto hardware.
So here are some proposals I came up with to provide a counter-point and further the discussion (Sorry that I’m such a logo nerd).
Here is my feedback to the proposed alternatives copied from our PM exchange:
I think that a logo should not be reduced to a pretty picture; rather, it should communicate an idea. The drawing that we came up with may not be perfect, but it depicts a bus (the black underline the letters are connected to), and it further elaborates what this thing is about (“intravehicular communication”, although this is optional and I am perfectly okay with dropping it). Your logo is just a geometric shape which communicates no useful information, hence it is inferior. If there is any chance to make your pic more meaningful, please do that, otherwise we should stay with the original proposal.
Let me address the specific issues before we go on:
It is important to distinguish between physical topology and logical topology. Our high-level architecture is bus-based, hence by drawing a bus in the logo we do not introduce any contradictions. I somewhat mentioned this in my post about alternative transports:
UAVCAN is designed as a logical bus (where “logical” means that this statement describes the high-level communication model and not the physical network topology; for example, CAN is a physical bus, whereas a gigabit Ethernet network is a physical star/tree (low-speed Ethernet can be either)).
The base font is Russo One, but I am not particularly attached to it.
Noted, let’s drop it. I would still like to have the tagline on the website though, but it’s a better idea anyway to have it outside of the logo.
I fully agree with the proposed requirements, and I would also like to add two more:
A ~1:1 (nearly square) aspect ratio alternative version should be also available.
The logo must communicate the general idea of what UAVCAN is about (not just an arbitrary picture).
I think that the current candidate seems to mostly fit the requirements: 1 - this is a logical bus; 2 - the font is Russo One, although minor modifications may have been introduced; 3 - I agree that the tagline should be dropped; 4 - there seem to be an okay favicon; 5 - totally agree (a one-color version without the blue filling inside the letters seems like an appropriate solution); 6 - there is a square alternative; 7 - .
Now, that said, I am not attached to my pics at all. If there are other proposals, let’s have a look and then we can even set up a vote.
While v1 is still a WIP, it is important to communicate that until it is released, UAVCAN itself is in the state of WIP, too; one should not expect stability from v0.
As I commented on during the dev-call this week: I disagree with this requirement. There aren’t enough pixels/ink dedicated to logos to convey meaningful technical information. We should choose a “pretty picture” and imbue this icon with meaning through association.
Besides, with your “U” logo I just see a “U” with a pusher propeller
As discussed on the dev-call: I’d like to keep v0 front-and-center until:
The v1 specification has been released and we’ve had some time to get feedback.
We have at least 1 full reference implementation available.
Once these two milestones have been reached we can discuss flipping the website messaging to be “v1” first with “v0” as a link.
When we do this flip we need to provide careful guidance for v0 support and a porting plan. I really want to let people know that v0 is still supported and we’ll accept patches to the reference implementations but that that specification is fixed and will not change.
Well, I’m not a graphic designer so other proposals are welcome but of the ones I submitted what do people like best? (I got rid of the square one because it didn’t meet requirement 4 becoming just a blue box at 16x16)
I do not have strong feelings towards any particular font face.
The option 2 could be okay if we spelled the word “UAVCAN” in its entirety (otherwise we’re kind of promoting the old acronym). And possibly added a second line on top, representing the roof of a bike shed.
.
sorry Pavel.
(no one expects to bike-shed over a logo!)
