On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Patrick Horgan
On 10/01/2010 02:42 AM, alfC wrote:
Talking about logos. There should be a high contrast version of the logo two. (by that I mean either black and white or high contrast with very mild gradients on white background). Particularly I am talking about the three hexagons.
It would be easy to map the blue to black but I'm not sure about the logo implications.
Patrick, The first attachment here has the official logo in SVG format. Because of the background gradient and the gradient fill of the hexagon it is not *obvious* to convert this to high contrast. What should be replaced by black (or solid blue)? the hexagon filling? the hexagon borders? the background? A possible high contrast is attached in the second file. By no means official or the best option, it is just an possibility, maybe the simplest one. Note that even the darkest blue used in the gradient of the official logo is not enough to contrast with white, so I used a darker blue.
The official logo uses that blue. I don't think it's an issue, but don't know. It would be easy for anyone to do it from the svg file in inkscape, or from one of the bitmap files in gimp. What are you thinking about? Why do you say that there should be a high contrast version?
If you want to have a document printing quality (or high quality PDF) you need a vector format. If the printing or visualization is done in black and white, the logo should have high contrast otherwise the appearance will be very device dependent. While everyone should take care in printing in good devices having a logo that is barely visible in black/white/grey printing in some devices is not acceptable. Just try printing and small version (one centimeter square) of the logo in a black and white laser printer and you will see the problem with the low contrast logo. It will appear like a grey blob. Cheers, Alfredo
