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.
-
(also 5) Agree about the lack of a one-tone version (although it can be created trivially, as I see it); derived favicons can be found in the website repo.
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.
SUBMIT YOUR PROPOSALS NOW