 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3915ee78$1@news.povray.org>, "Bill DeWitt"
<the### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
>> Words change, meanings of words change. Maybe it is time we redifine
>> the word logo to mean what we want it to. Let's bring the word logo
>> into a 21st century context which includes computer generated 3D
>> symbolisms and complex abstractions. Let's be rebels !
>
> I agree that words change, but the function we want is still here. We
> want something by which POV-Ray can be recognized.
Why?
Why do we want a logo by which PoV-Ray can be recognised?
Nike sells shoes to the masses, Macdonalds sells hamburgers to the
masses, Ford sells cars to the masses. All of these profit-driven
_companies_ have logos in order to foster brand recognition, and thereby
differentiate their product in a saturated consumer marketplace.
We're not a company, we're not out to make a profit, we don't have a
product to sell, and what we do doesn't appeal to the mass market - why
do we need an official 'logo' at all?
Feed 'PoV-Ray', 'povray' or 'pov ray' into Google, and guess which page
comes up first _every_ time? You got it: www.povray.org. Yahoo,
likewise, always returns the official PoV-Ray site at the top of the
list.
What does this tell us?
The name itself is unique and identifiable. The _N_A_M_E_. Not the
logo, or the icon, or anything else, the NAME.
Unless PoV-Ray suddenly develops a user-friendly, object-oriented
front-end, it will never be in a position to compete in a consumer
marketplace.
If it never needs to compete in a consumer marketplace, it doesn't need
to advertise.
If it doesn't need to advertise, it doesn't need a logo.
Pop quiz: What's NASA's logo? What's Amazon.com's logo? What's IBM's
logo?
I think I'd be pretty safe in saying that _everyone_ here knows what
those organisations are, but I would be very surprised if anyone could
describe the logos of all three. Why is this the case? It's quite
simply that NASA is 'NASA', IBM is 'IBM', and Amazon.com is
'Amazon.com'. Their names are unique, thus they never really needed a
logo, and they never pushed it to 'consumers'.
The point:
If people can easily remember your name, you don't need a logo.
I think it would be much more productive for us to discuss ways of
making the name/software/community of 'PoV-Ray' even more memorable,
than it would be debating the merits of one pointless logo over another.
My suggestion: Lower the capitals and drop the hyphenation. I think
'povray' is all we need.
Six letters, all different, all lower-case, with no hyphens or spaces to
trip people up. Easy to pronounce, easy to remember. Unique.
What more can you ask for?
Henry.
PS: Follow-ups set to povray.general, for obvious reasons.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A logo would be useful when artists credit their commercial work. It could be
used to promote the use of POV for artists, web designers, etc. It would help
POV to be recognized as different than Bryce, Poser, Even Photoshop.
--
Bryan Valencia
Software Services - Making Windows Scream
http://www.209software.com
mailto:bry### [at] 209softwarecom
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'povlogo.jpg' (4 KB)
Preview of image 'povlogo.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think everyone is missing the point here. The POV-RAY logo contest is just a
fun activity for all the POV fans out there. You are correct in saying that we
don't have a product to sell or any real need for an immediately recognizable
logo (at least in the sense that McDonald's or Nike does), we just want to come
up with a logo that will set POV apart from other 3D software, to make it more
unique, to show off the support of its users, and above all, to have a good
time coming up with a logo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why?
>
> Why do we want a logo by which PoV-Ray can be recognised?
>
it gives us a reason to exist...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Exactly. Everyone: Listen to this man. His words are full of wisdom.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>it gives us a reason to exist...
Before POV, I was nobody...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Henry" <htp### [at] maccom> wrote :
> >
> > I agree that words change, but the function we want is still here.
We
> > want something by which POV-Ray can be recognized.
>
> Why?
>
I don't know why "we" want one, -I- want one that I can put into my
scenes so that people will be able to tell by looking at it that it was made
using POV-Ray. Personally, I don't want the -name- POV-Ray in my scene, and
I want whatever it is to be subtle, so that it doesn't distract from the
image. I would prefer something that is symmetrical, but that's just me.
You comments about the name are reasonable, and as you note work well
for selling things. But we are not really trying to sell things. At most, we
are trying to move POV-Ray up the respect ladder to where it belongs, rather
than at the bottom of some other, perhaps lower quality, but commercial
renderers. I (again, even when I use the word "we" I am not really speaking
for us -all-) just want some people to see some of the amazing images that
people make using POV-Ray and then recognize the little object that tells
them what program was responsible for the quality. Sure, if it was the words
"POV-Ray" it would work, but IMHO, it wouldn't be as classy. It would be, as
you say, like Coke or McDonalds, just another renderer...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree. Although I prefer asymmetrical, but that's just me. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I would prefer something that is symmetrical, but that's just me.
Ugh! Not for me.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http:/www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2000 05:08:30 +0930, Henry wrote:
>Pop quiz: What's NASA's logo? What's Amazon.com's logo? What's IBM's
>logo?
>
>I think I'd be pretty safe in saying that _everyone_ here knows what
>those organisations are, but I would be very surprised if anyone could
>describe the logos of all three. Why is this the case? It's quite
>simply that NASA is 'NASA', IBM is 'IBM', and Amazon.com is
>'Amazon.com'.
Er, no. While NASA may not have a logo (although I seem to connect the
name always with a certain font where the "A" doesn't have a horizontal
bar), Amazon and IBM do have a logo: Amazon has[1] a black triangle with
a white meandring river in it (presumably the Amazon in an "A"). IBM has
an intersection of the three letters "IBM" with horizontal bars.
hp
[1] Make that "had". I just visited their web site and that logo isn't
there any more. Instead they have the name amazon.com in two different
fonts with a stupid orange arrow from the a to the o.
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
