Hi,
On 22.02.2015 02:04, Stefan Tauner wrote:
we have used two logos in the past for flashrom. The one most are familiar with is actually a generic icon stemming from coreboot's "Related Tools" section, i.e.: http://www.coreboot.org/images/a/ae/Chip_tools.png This is not only set up as the "Mediawiki" icon on flashrom.org but is also used on our Twitter account and other sites like openhub (https://www.openhub.net/p/flashrom)
The second logo was specifically designed for this purpose and was used at various occasions in presentation slides and on marketing materials (e.g. posters). Namely http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PTt3TWYKjnQ/TI_oZ3cqvaI/AAAAAAAAALY/eLvM6K16Glw/s4... (the one described as "Different style of bolt" on http://kmacphail.blogspot.de/2010/09/flashrom-logos.html) I think that one is way lesser known since even I was not really aware about the fact that it kind of the "official" logo at the moment.
That logo (with slight modifications) was used in all flyers, all presentations and at all booths since 2010. Please see the attachment for details.
I am not too happy with either. The hammer logo has grown dear to me... the hammer perfectly symbolizes the force we have to exert to get some systems to work and the logo as such is very recognizable. But... I only have it in very low quality... is there a better source for it? It also does not represent our generally gentle and cautious approach when dealing with hardware and our focus on stability.
To me, the hammer logo suggests "chip tool" in a general way, not something related to flash chips. Besides that, nowadays PLCC32 flash chips are almost extinct.
The DIP logo on the other hand is available in SVG (at least Carl-Daniel has it AFAIK), but it looks a bit inanimate. The major problems I have with it are that it is not even nearly rectangular and it is very complex. There is the text with the lightning bolt replacing the h character and the DIP32 chip. Both is ok for posters and other big displays but sucks for other uses where simple, rectangular icons are required.
I don't really understand the requirement for a rectangular logo. "flashrom" is a long word and if we want to place that word below any logo, the logo will either need to be strechted out (like the one attached to this mail) or it will be a bit clumsy due to its blobby size.
There is another question: Do we want a logo which can be used without the word "flashrom", and if so, should it still look good when the word "flashrom" is written below?
I have spent the last weekend with playing around with Blender and its freestyle renderer that is able to output SVG directly. I have managed to render a 3D model of a SOIC8 chip that way as a base for a possible new logo. It required some cleanup afterwards but it looks way better than everything I could draw by hand ;)
The result looks nice, but I have trouble associating this with flashrom. The lightning bolt is a bit difficult to recognize as a lightning bolt.
I do like that you used an 8-pin chip instead of a 32-pin chip. Looks more modern.
I have made two logos that I think are worth sharing. They are quite similar and the only major difference is the orientation of the chip... I have created 3 versions of each: one fully colored, one with outlines only and a two-colored simple version (e.g. for PCB silkscreens). I have attached the Inkscape SVGs as well as 96 pixel-wide PNG exports. I have not decided on an appropriate license... probably something similar to how the coreboot hare is licensed.
What do you think about my suggestions and the whole matter? I would love to see proposals for alternatives as well!
I would like to keep the SVG logo used since 2010, perhaps paired with a simplified version of the logo which is small and simple enough for square icons.
What do you think about having a DIP8 chip for icons and other space-constrained and detail-constrained applications? This would allow us to have two logos, each one for the purpose it fits best.
There is also the question of whether we want a pure black-and-white logo like coreboot or if we'll go full/partial color. For posters, black-and-white vs. color is a matter of cost.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
