OpenWetWare:Logo and Promo Poster Discussion
|Line 35:||Line 35:|
#*I like Jen's new font: [[User:Jgritton|JG]]. Yea, it looks bubblier! [[User:Jennyn|JN]]. Both thumbs up for new font! [[User:Smeister|SM]].
#*I like Jen's new font: [[User:Jgritton|JG]]. Yea, it looks bubblier! [[User:Jennyn|JN]]. Both thumbs up for new font! [[User:Smeister|SM]].
#*I like the new font, particulary how the helix feeds into the "O".[[User:Kathmc|Kathleen]]
#*I like the new font, particulary how the helix feeds into the "O".[[User:Kathmc|Kathleen]]
==Jen's Sketches: 5==
==Jen's Sketches: 5==
Revision as of 13:05, 1 March 2006
This page is dedicated to discussion with a graphic artist Jen Cook-Chrysos about coming up with a new look (logo, color scheme, page layout, poster and business cards) for OpenWetWare. Jen is posting ideas here and any OpenWetWare user is welcome to give her feedback on this page. The more feedback, the better!
We've also contracted Jen to design a poster for us. We seem to be settling on the logo, so I think that it's time to start thinking about the poster. I personally had envisioned the poster as something of a base design or template that we could change the text in to use for different purposes. One use would be to directly advertise OpenWetWare. We could mail it out to various labs to post around their buildings to advertise OpenWetWare in the same way that conferences are advertized. We could also use different text and use the poster to advertise the OpenWetWare seminar series that is kbeing planned. So as I see it, the specifications are: (please add to this list)
- Design that is consistent with new logo
- Generic enough that we can alter the text and re-use for different purposes
- Look good at multiple sizes (8.5 x 11 or 16 x 20 - the later is the size of the synth bio conference poster for those who've seen it)
Jen's Sketches: 6
Here is the correct DNA spiral with fewer, fatter hands as requested. My suggestion would be to use the horizontal version as the logo, and use the vertical helix as the emblem when it appears alone. I have also corrected the situation of right-handed vs. left-handed hand shaking--I hadn't really considered that when I flipped the hands. Thanks for pointing it out!
RS 15:11, 27 February 2006 (EST): Overall I think that Jen addressed and resolved most of the comments below. I think round 6 represents a good compromise since it has a realistic backbone but still has the "fat" hands that so many people seemed to like (though note that this leads to the wrong number of hydrogen bonds per turn of the helix! It's okay, I'll live since majority rules). In my mind there are only a few main issues left to be resolved. Add to the list if I have forgotten any.
- Orientation: It was a near tie as to which orientation was proposed. I suggest going with Jen's suggestion of using the horizontal version in the logo (with the text) and the vertical helix in the emblem.
- Unpaired hands or not: There is some disagreement as to whether we should have unpaired hands at the ends of the helix or not. The pro of unpaired hands is that it suggests we need more people in the community (from Kathleen) and the con is that it is less aesthetically pleasing (from Jenny and Stephan). Vote here:
- Color scheme: We need to finalize what colors we want. Many people have liked the dark green and light green scheme that previous iterations of logos have used. I am not sure if the emblem would look very good in dark green and light green though. Comments? Some have also liked the current blue and medium green scheme. Though Jason commented that the green looks a bit rough when it is entire columns of the page. Stephan found the medium green friendlier than the current gray and blue. Post any ideas here.
- BC: I like grey and blue but would be happy with the green than is currently used or a slightly more muted green.
- JN: I like green and blue as they are. I think the green bring in more energy to the page, and emphasizes the notion of biology. Me too: JG
- JN: There's also one minor thing. I noticed that the purple on the horizontal helix is dark purple, where in the back where the hands are located, it's lighter blue. I don't know if that seems a bit akward because where the hands are located, should be where the shadow is, but instead the darker portion is in the front? Just wondering what it would look like if we switched it. The hands might stand out more (like in the vertical emblem).
- I definitely like the green and blue over blue and gray. I would prefer a darker green, but then this would not incorporate well into the new main page color scheme, or a green that is less yellow (which, for some reason, is quite hard to do on a computer in my experience). Perhaps a "seafoam" green-type color would work. I imagine a green that is "real" green and is lightened with white, kind of like the grasshopper drink I had the other night, or maybe one of the lighter greens from the round 1 website designs. Just a thought, but the current colors are fine, too.Kathleen
- SK: Don't care, as long as it is consistant across the site.
- Font: Do we still want keep the font used currently, or use Jen's new font?
- I like Jen's new font: JG. Yea, it looks bubblier! JN. Both thumbs up for new font! SM.
- I like the new font, particulary how the helix feeds into the "O".Kathleen
- RS 13:05, 1 March 2006 (EST): I like the new font as well but I do think it would be nice if we had access to the font. That way as new shared pages arise, we could format them as the Materials and Protocols pages are.
Jen's Sketches: 5
Thanks for the examples. I think you will like these two new ones, based on round 4. At the bottom, you will see DNA "a" and "b". "a" is copied directly from an example of proper DNA depiction, the other just turns it upside down, but I want to make sure that is OK to do. I think it just looks more graceful in that version, and I have used it in both of these logos.
- These are really great, I like them a lot. I think I'd prefer to keep blue arms on one strand of the double helix and green on the other strand rather than switch them with each rotation as happens in the current logos. At some point we might be able to take advantage of the fact that the horizontal double helix can be read as two intertwined W's. By adding an O you could then write OWW "in DNA". Just to reiterate, these are great!--BC 22:41, 22 February 2006 (EST)
- I'm a big fan of these last two rounds, great work Jen. I put my vote with round4 #2/#3. I like that they are simpler and cleaner than round 5. The extra turns in round 5 are elegant but having the right number of "bases" per turn forces the arms to look unusually stretched. We should get the helicity right since people seem to notice if it isn't (why someone would complain about the directionality of the helix in a drawing where the polymerases have eyes I will never understand), but these are logos not scientific illustrations and in this case I think aesthetics trumps truth. But that's just me--Jgritton 10:38, 23 February 2006 (EST)
- I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff.. I like the fatter hands. --Sri Kosuri 12:01, 23 February 2006 (EST)
- Yay fat hands! I don't like that there are some hands that don't have a partner to shake. It looks lonely. Can we just squish it together so the hands are less stretched but still retain the "proper DNA depiction"? I agree with Jeff that this is a logo and not a scientific illustration, but I also think that the more accurate we are in our logo, the less others will find wrong with our logo. -Jennyn 02:06, 24 February 2006 (EST)
- My 10 cents: How about the hands at the ends get a partner to grab (I agree that the lonely ones look wrong, somehow) and get faded out in the distance or just plain faded out? By the way - on the risk of stating the obvious and being too wordy - great work! Smeister 19:19, 25 February 2006 (EST)
- I actually like that some hands don't have a partner to shake. It implies that there is a need (and desire) for someone else to come in to add to the helix. Definitely good symbolism for a collaborative community. Maybe it would look better it these unpaired hands were more outstretched, like they were reaching out to shake another hand that may come along at any moment.--Kathleen 10:03, 27 February 2006 (EST)
Emblem feedback summary
Here's a summary of the feedback listed so far.
- The emblem will be a DNA double helix with hands shaking representing the hydrogen bonds. [Everyone seems to concur.]
- The hands should be the same color on each strand of the double helix (like they are in round 4 but they aren't that way in round 5). Thus, in each loop of the DNA, the color of the hands should alternate sides.
- The hand that is in front of the handshake should reflect the twisting of the helix. So in one loop the green hands will be in front (you see the back of the hand) and in the next loop, they will be in back so you can see very little of the hand.
- There is disagreement on whether the "stylized" double helix (round 4) or the "realistic" double helix (round 5) is preferable.
- There is some question as to what orientation the helix should have: vertical, horizontal or diagonal.
- Vertical: JK, Ty Thomson
- Horizontal: BC, Austin Che (I would like to see a longer horizontal version that has enough repeated loops to spell out OWW in DNA and one with just one 'W'), cmc
- Diagonal: JK (though i'd like to see it), cmc (second on a desire to see it.), Jennyn (third on that one)
- Don't care: Reshma, Sriram Kosuri, Kathleen
- If we do go with round 5, I don't have a strong preference for either round 5 emblem a or b. Either is fine and both are accurate (I think ... please correct me if I'm wrong). [Others?]
- fat hands vs skinny Hands
- More realism issues
- Can we make all the hands right-hands as it is a right-handed helix? Also, the real DNA strands are anti-parallel. One of the hands could be flipped upside down on one of the strands. I don't think we can do both of these easily. Either have a left-hand with upside down right hand or make everything right hands in normal handshake. --Austin Che
- Any more issues that aren't listed here?
Jen's Sketches: 4
After a lot of experimenting, here is what I think--using a double helix as a logo becomes too complex if any action is added. DNA can only be simplified to a certain point (you need at least two turns and base pairs, which are small), so adding hands or something happening turns the logo into an illustration, when it should really be a symbol. The logo or emblem needs to be very simple so that it can be reduced in size without losing clarity. Here are two new ideas using DNA but with limited action.
Images that show action are great for poster illustrations. Here are some sketches based on ideas that people suggested. (Actually, logo 2, which shows DNA made up of shaking hands, might also be better on a poster since the image looks much better enlarged.)
- I like the round 4 logos a lot. Ilya 15:27, 22 February 2006 (EST)
- really like the helix in round4 sketch 2 and 3, it rocks. -- JK
- Wow, these are really cool. I like sketch 2,3 best... although i do like the horizontal look and offset of 1. I really like the color scheme... these are definitely something i'm really happy with. --Sri Kosuri 15:31, 22 February 2006 (EST)
- I really like the handshake DNA. One thing that I noticed is that the bottom has right hands shaking, and the top has left hands (or equivalently, the green hand is always in front of the blue, which shouldn't happen if the dna twists). But other than that I think it's great! tmt
- I also like the handshake DNA and agree with Sri that it might look good horizontal (or at some other angle) and with the proper offset. I think this emblem does a good job of incorporating the symbolism we were looking for without getting too cartoon-y. cmc 16:42, 22 February 2006 (EST)
- I agree that the handshake DNA looks great! Props to Jen for coming up with such a great design! I would say that round 4, sketch 3 should be our emblem in the corner and round 4 sketch 2 should appear on posters. One comment on the design though. I do think that Kathleen had a valid point when she suggested somewhere below that if we use DNA in our emblem, it should have the right pitch and helicity. How hard would it be for you Jen to tweak the sketch slightly so that it was closer to how DNA really looks? This link has (from what I can tell) a pretty accurate and simplified depiction of DNA. It even includes distances between hydrogen bonds and turns of the helix so that you could conceivable draw the DNA to scale. And this link is a compilation of a bunch of incorrect images of DNA ... namely the helix is left-handed rather than right-handed (and here is a description of the pervasiveness of the problem). Obviously, I know this picture is just intended to be an emblem and that since we have handshakes rather than hydrogen bonds, it is already very far from reality. But since OpenWetWare is designed to appeal to scientists, it seems to me that the closer our emblem is to what DNA really looks like, the better. But seriously, all in all this is a great emblem!
- I like #2/3! Very cool!--Kathleen
- Definitely like these! I agree with Sri that it should be at some angle so that it takes up less veritcal space. Otherwise, I think it communicates OWW perfectly! --Jennyn 22:16, 22 February 2006 (EST)
I like the first picture (bridge) the best. Cute... to the point... less molecular biology. I think it could be used for a lot of things too. --Sri Kosuri
- I agree, I think it incorporates more OWW ideas (i.e. "bridging" universities & information, making connections through teamwork...) than the other sketches. --Jennyn 22:18, 22 February 2006 (EST)
- Personally, I prefer the idea of using emblem (whatever form of it we decide on) next to the OPENWETWARE text on the posters rather than having a different picture for the poster. I think having a single image for OWW will create more of a brand for the site. If I had to choose between the poster ideas, however, I agree with Sri and Jenny that the first picture is the best. --RS
"Jen's Sketches: 3"
OK, it is only one sketch, but maybe it answers some issues below:
- I did an informal poll around here, and people seemed to like the idea of community that came across with the emblems (  ). People also aren't tied to integrating an emblem in with the logo (like the plasmids in the plasmid logos). One idea for an emblem that did come out was to have people collaboratively working on/building a linear peice of DNA (or maybe working on/building a cell). You could replace the people with hands if it helps keep it from getting to busy.
Jen's Sketches: 2
In round one, most people said that the idea of many people adding pieces was good and green was good, and the font of the logo was good, but the image did not connote biology and was too complicated. There were various impressions of the scale of the people to the blocks. People suggested referencing some biological feature, such as DNA, plasmids, sunflowers, cells, or other symbols of biology.
So, here is round 2. I have learned that we are not able to use the design based on Jenny Nguyen's logo. In creating a new one, I am hoping to meld the logo with the emblem idea. This way, the pictoral aspect of the logo can be used on subsequent pages as an emblem, but when they are used together they will be more integrated. These sketches are not polished. I am just throwing out my brainstorming ideas to see if any hit the mark. I will fine tune the ones people are interested in. None of these ideas have people in them, because perhaps that was too complicated. However, some of them include a gloved hand offering (or receiving) an "O" plasmid, which is meant to suggest openness, giving, receiving, in the scientific community. Others show the plasmid "O" made of smaller pieces. Other logos use other means to represent biology. Let me know what you think. The ideas are titled and numbered. Please include these in your comments so I know which ones you are talking about. Thanks! --Jencc 14:01, 4 February 2006 (EST)
- I really like the hand and the "sunflower" (plants #3). I also prefer the green over the blue, and actually like the darker green you used in some of the earlier designs. Is there any way to combine the flower and the hand? Potentially these designs could appear in different places, but I think we probably want to go with one core design to have better recognition across platforms. Looking forward to seeing more.--Kathleen 15:51, 4 February 2006 (EST)
- I have addressed the issues you mention--see plants #4--Jencc 20:48, 5 February 2006 (EST)
- I definitely like this new design. I like this better than the plasmid alone because I think the DNA going into a flower encompasses a broader scope of biology. I know we won't ever be able to please everyone, but this may be more memorable than a plasmid-type icon as there may be many people who are interested in OWW and are not familiar with/do not use plasmids. The "flower" also implies something that is growing and needs to be cultivated, a good analogy for OpenWetWare in my opinion. You may also want to try reducing the font size on "wetware" to reduce the space next to "open". This would also help to emphasize the "open" aspect and deemphasize the "wetware" as some people had suggested previously. Thanks for giving us such great options to choose from!--Kathleen 23:05, 5 February 2006 (EST)
- For emphasis, try changing the color of OPEN to the background of the sunflower, and change WETWARE to the lighter color. Right now, when I read the logo, it looks like "PEN WETWARE." This may help the word OPEN stand out. --Jennyn 11:18, 6 February 2006 (EST)
- I have addressed the issues you mention--see plants #4--Jencc 20:48, 5 February 2006 (EST)
- I LOVE the hand one with the insertion in the plasmid (PLASMID 3)!!! You elegantly captured EXACTLY what I was trying to convey in the other logos I tried to design. It looks like a VERY improved depiction of that I attempted. Yours I really like because it is clean, simple, and the emblem is completely separable from the rest of the text without losing its meaning. This one does an excellent job in illustrating the message of "open community" with the palm facing up, giving the impression that we are "offering" to the community. The plasmid on the O, with the insertion portrays OPEN and is a great representation of biology. Possible ways to improve design: Darken (or change the color of) the plasmid in the O or the hand that holds it to bring more attention the two images, and make WETWARE darker so that focus on the text doesn't die out after we see the awesome emblem, while not taking away attention from the OPEN which tends to be washed out because it is completely white inside. I am excited that we are not using the original logo, as it did not successfully portray OWW as open-source-biology as this new design does. You've brought very memorable designs to the table. I like 'em! Plasmid 3 is my vote! --Jenny Nguyen
--What about this (see plasmid #3 again)--Jencc 20:48, 5 February 2006 (EST)
- Jen, this brings out each element much better! I like how the hand is now a gloved-hand, it's cute. Would the text and plasmid would stand out more if the outline was black rather than blue? Just a thought, wouldn't hurt to compare. --Jenny Nguyen
- I don't really like any of the the flower logos. I don't really like that they take two lines of text rather than one (splitting OpenWetWare into two words instead of one). I really like some of the plasmid logos. I like the hand and the outlining from the second last logo (plasmid 3?), and the plasmid from the last one (with the genetic elements marked rather than the double helix). Also, an ungloved hand might be better. -- tmt 11:07, 6 February 2006 (EST)
- I like the plasmid logos in general, the 4th down in particular (gloved hand with DNA in plasmid). I think that the text colors are a little blah together (the green with blue outline). Perhaps a stronger color than the green would not require an outline. Also, I don't care for any of the plant logos. --Dcook 14:44, 7 February 2006 (EST)
- I think if the color of WETWARE were the color of the green DNA (or maybe just darker than the current green) inside the plasmid, it would not require an outline. --Jennyn 15:06, 7 February 2006 (EST)
- I like the following --Samantha
- plasmids: #2 and #4. I like the warmth of the human touch. I disagree with Ty in that I like the gloves... makes it more sciency.
- plants: I like the sunflowers (#3 and #4), but I think the plasmids are more classy.
- I don't like the plants, mainly because of my microbiological prejudice. I like plasmid 2 because it is the simplest plasmid that has all the features we like. I agree with Jenny & Danielle regarding a choice of a different green.--BC 16:04, 7 February 2006 (EST)
--Here is the green that has been requested. I chose the dark blue outline because I thought it did a better job of balancing the elements of the logo. In this one, I think WETWARE stands out too much. --Jencc 19:43, 7 February 2006 (EST) darker green
- For something completely different, I thought basing the logo on a stained gel might be cool. Here is a typical example of a coomassie blue gel. With some crude editing, the bands could be replaced by letters, see here for my ham-fisted attempt at this. The whole OPENWETWARE could be writtein like this. This might look weird to non-wet lab people:)--BC 16:04, 7 February 2006 (EST)
- Another random idea, (sorry for jumping in so late in the game) would be to have a biological network diagram with just three nodes but replacing the node labels with O, W and W for example. Just to recap, I do like plasmid 2 but thought I'd suggest some other (crazier) ideas.--BC 16:11, 7 February 2006 (EST)
--I will give these ideas a try...any other suggestions?--Jencc 19:47, 7 February 2006 (EST)
- As Jason suggested below, I would consider removing the emblem from the words entirely. This can remove the restriction of having the emblem resemble an "O" and allow you to explore more things that represent biology. I think that a DNA helix is a widely recognized symbol of biology, but I'm not sure a plasmid is. I will be picky, though, and suggest that if a helix is used that it not be symmetrical and have the proper pitch, given this is a site for scientists. I also think some kind of critter would be good (plant, animal, bacteria...anyone up for a mouse as the part of the "logo" since it is used in biological science almost as much as the plasmid?) to encompass a larger region of biology in hopes of not alienating future community members. Of course, I seem to be the only one that liked the plant-like emblems, so these ideas may be just as unpopular. I'm just afraid that the plasmid emblem seems good to "us" because (I think) that most of us largely do molecular biology. If you want this to be just a molecular biology thing, then go for it! In the end, I think your stuff is quite cool. I'd even consider revisiting the "growing things" #2 and the "plasmids"#1 (the one without the plasmid and with the flasks, etc.), and I would definitely keep the hand, as I really think this suggests community and openness.--Kathleen
- I like that the emblem is incorporated into the actual logo because makes the entire design cohesive, attractive, and memorable. So when we take the emblem out of the text, we still associate the image with the text. As scientists, we may be too stuck on the preconceived notion that the "O" is a plasmid. If you look at it in another perspective, it is representative of the term "open source." When I designed the "open plasmid", I first wanted to find something that represented "open source" as I believe that OWW as an open-source-biology initiative. I found, Open Source Initiative (OSI). I turned it upside down and incorporated BIOLOGY by adding the insertion. I like the DNA because it makes the biology portion more evident. So this brings familiarity to a broader community because people in technology will recognize the OPEN SOURCE symbol, biological members will see the plasmid, people unfamiliar to science and technology will surely recognize DNA --as it is becoming increasingly popular (it has leaked into the textiles industry! ie. Genetic Denim), and finally everyone else will notice that the hand is facing upwards --indicating that we are a community and that we are open and willing to share information. Not ONLY do we want to attract those in the science community, but allow others outside of science to recognize our initiative. So, instead of focusing on encompassing EVERYTHING into a little emblem (this may lead us to making something too busy and complicated), we should focus on how we can draw attention to the greatest number of people to make them interested in what we are trying to accomplish (word spreads faster this way), rather than have them become uninterested because we failed to catch their interest with the most basic concept we are trying to convey, SHARING. The rest follows as the community becomes more associated with biotechnology. This is just a suggestion so that we take a step back from details, think about our MAIN focus (Go Meta!), and then dive back with a fresh focus. --Jennyn 22:37, 7 February 2006 (EST)
Jen's Sketches: 1a
Hi everyone. Thanks for so much good feedback. I am going back to the drawing board to see if I can incorporate some of the ideas you have come up with. Before I read all your comments, I created this additional idea--I am calling it 1a because it doesn't really address many of the issues mentioned below (since I hadn't read them yet). I came up with this one because the response I got from Felice Frankel was that she thought the logo was too cute. I took out the people to see if it would look less cute. However, I see that it is much busier, when people appear to be calling for less busy. So stay tuned...I will come up with something simpler that still shows people building something that is clearly biological. (I hope).
Finally, things have slowed down for me this week because my baby daughter has been very sick with an ear infection and hasn't been able to go to daycare. I will hopefully make more progress towards the end of the week. --Jencc 22:21, 31 January 2006 (EST)
Jen's Sketches: 1
Here are my first round of ideas based on the discussion below. I emphasized the word "Open" rather than "wet" so that the connection to biology becomes more prominent than the connection to bench work, in order to be more inclusive. I used the green color for that reason as well, to connote biology or life science without making the connection to "wet" or water the way blue would do (although I do include a blue color scheme at the bottom).
I kept the strong aspects of the logo developed by Jenny Nguyen, which really makes the word "OPEN" convey that concept by letting the sides open out into the white background.
The emblem shows many small people icons building the "O" in "OPEN". The "O" also looks a bit like a plasmid. They could be inserting pieces or taking pieces away. I tried to keep this pretty simple. One of the versions shows only one piece being removed or inserted at the top, and looks more like a plasmid with DNA being inserted.
There are business card ideas for each of the different website styles (which are all variations on the same theme).
There is also my runner-up idea for the logo font and an alternative color scheme in blue.
Please comment and feel free to make suggestions! --Jencc 21:05, 26 January 2006 (EST)
Jen: Thanks so much for posting these ideas here. It's great for everyone to be able to respond. And also, welcome to OpenWetWare! BTW, you might want to wait for a few more people to chime in before making any changes ... don't just go with my opinion. -- Reshma
So I like how emblems 1 and 2 seems to suggest the dynamic nature of the site cause pieces of the O are being put in and removed. And I also like that it has people in it cause it suggests community. However, I am not sure that it really suggests biology to me. I don't think the O really looks like a plasmid to me right off the bat. It would be kind of nice if people saw the emblem and came away with the impression of biology immediately. Also, perhaps the people should be less triangular in shape? I can't really explain why. And perhaps more of the emblem should be in the dark green color with a white background so that it is more striking at first glance. Just my two cents. Feel free to contradict me! -- Reshma
The idea is great how a community contributes one piece at a time to some greater picture! However, a simpler design would better complement the text logo, thus will be more memorable to the community. People will be able to associate the text with the emblem. I agree with Reshma in considering an image that suggests biology. This is a great start for the emblem. -- Jenny
One thing I was thinking is keep the idea of the O with people putting in and removing one or more pieces and just have a stylized DNA double helix interweaving through the O along a diagonal. I am not sure if this would make the emblem too busy or not. You could eliminate the "double layers" of the O to make it simpler. -- Reshma
I like the concept -- lots of little people contributing -- but overall I think it is way too busy, and the relative sizes of the "O" and the people are off. Usually, with something like the current plasmid emblem, you can't see the individual bits of information while looking at the plasmid overall -- you have to zoom in to actually read anything. This is true with protein/gene interaction networks too, so it's kind of becoming a theme in biology: lots of information, the particulars of which are not important when looking at the big picture overall, but the specifics of which are available when you need to take a closer look. Maybe that kind of thinking can guide the sizing of logo elements. Green is nice too. -- Danielle
The dark green background makes the emblem stand out better. What about an outer layer of little bricks (perhaps with smaller people) and a continuous, thinner, solid inner layer? I also agree it could be rounder. I think green and round are biological enough without the trite double helix: you could as well make the emblem into a diaton or a sunflower head. -- Alethea
I agree with Danielle's comments about the size of the people relative to the 'O', also like the building of the O from smaller pieces, and the green color scheme. My main comment would be that there's not much meaning in the 'O' -- 'OWW' clearly indicates openwetware, but I think the single 'O' doesn't really do so any more than a random abstract object being built by little people would. I'm not suggesting going back to 'OWW', but rather that we drop incorporating the letters at all and just go with people building up something else, whether a sunflower head built out of double helices, or whatever. --Jason
These are great. I like emblem two the most because it is most evocative of a plasmid. One suggestion is that the people could all be working together to get the final piece(s) of the O in place. So basically less people (i also agree that the people would look better if it were less angular) working on the task of putting the final pieces together. Finally, not too make it even busier, in some of the emblems, the removed pieces are evocative of a W; I kind of like it, but tt may be too subtle and geeky for others though. --Sri Kosuri
The green theme for the site looks pretty nice and appropriate. I like it. I like that the color behind the OPEN in OpenWetWare is a bit darker in websites 2 and 3. It seems to stand out a bit more. I also like the font that the description is in. I also kind of like the white background behind the description in website 1. -- RS
I like the clean look and shades of green. Site #1 has the best layout. I'm not crazy about the dark green logo background. -- Danielle
Business Card Ideas
I like the second design but I think we might want to go with an emblem without a background color. It seems like it would translate more easily to different spaces and mediums (i.e. T shirts, business cards, website etc.) -- Reshma
Agreed, don't like the background color. --Sri Kosuri
Is there any other text/message we might want on the card? -- Danielle
Alternative logo style
I don't think that this alternate logo stands out as well as the original. And I think I prefer the green color scheme. --Reshma Shetty
I think the font is too bare and so doesn't have the same impact or visual interest as the original logo. --Dcook 14:52, 30 January 2006 (EST)--
The font has a very old look to it ("Ye Olde Shoppe" kind of font). I would perfer something more modern looking -- tmt 21:08, 2 February 2006 (EST)
- I know Felice Fraenkel had some contact with Drew and maybe the lab? She seems to be good at visualizing abstract concepts which might be what we need (see the comment below). Anyone know her enough to be able to talk to her about it and see if she has comments/suggestions?--BC 14:46, 13 January 2006 (EST)
--I know Felice from when I worked at Whitehead Institute. Would you like me to get in touch with her and see if she has any input for the logo or poster design?--Jencc 11:19, 23 January 2006 (EST)
--Hi Jen, if you want to talk about this project with Felice that would be awesome. Based on what I've seen of her work she could be very helpful to you and us.--BC 12:20, 23 January 2006 (EST)
We also need to address the issue for how to communicate what we want. How does one represent the idea of on open biology community in a graphic? It seems like the ideas behind OpenWetWare might be difficult to represent graphically. Maybe we should think about abstract ways of expressing what OWW represents (adjectives and adverbs, analogies, mental images?) in order to help Jen come up with ideas.
- One concern that has already been raised is that the name "OpenWetWare" conjures up the notion of wetlab work and possibly excludes computational folk. So perhaps whatever scheme we choose should try to attract both groups. --RS 18:34, 11 January 2006 (EST)
- Go with simple design (just logo and simple text), or get artist to do the whole thing? ~tmt
- Here are a few pdf's with some sample business card layouts; you can print them yourself on card stock and cut to size, or we can talk about other designs and printing. --Dcook 09:56, 13 January 2006 (EST)
There is also a page of older logo ideas.
Great design Reshma! An addendum to this idea is to have a back that just has something like
[[DNA Ligation]] or [[Victor3 Plate Reader]] or [[Quantifying GFP Flourescence]] or [[Miller Assay]]
stuff like that.
also, definitely need glossy!!! --Sri Kosuri 12:18, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)
I have been spending a lot of effort coming up with a logo for OWW but have been unsuccessful because I am trying to convince people who have no idea what to expect, and I'm pulling ideas from a broad avenue. Let's make this easier and set a list of criteria to describe what we want, for example, color scheme, number of elements, traditional, contemporary, typographic, etc. These are factors that will help narrow our canvas space, and in turn help the graphic artist, or even myself design the desired logo.
Do we want our logo to be...
- Typographical: font speaks for itself? FedEx, Banana Republic, MIT, Dell, Google, ESPN, Nature, 3M
- Image: a picture speaks 1000 words? Apple, NCRR, Gateway, Firefox
- Text in shape? UPS, McGraw Hill Education, Business Week, ABC news, WIRED
- Image + Text? Codon Devices, UT, Continental Airlines, Discover Card, NBC
- Text in image? Boston Red Sox, Regency Cinemas, Starbucks Coffee, Burger King
Additionally, we should consider...
- Ease of duplication
- How much color to use, etc.
So, these are some things that we should keep in mind and set so that we can move on with getting a logo! :) --JN 17:16, 13 January 2006 (CST)
--I really like the logo that you have on the site and on the business card idea above. The font suggests industry, which to me conveys the practical, "wet" hands-on side of biology while not actually picturing beakers or pipettes that might make some feel excluded, such as the bioinformatics people. The best thing about it is that it conveys the idea of "Open" just by leaving the side of the "N" open, and using the positive and negative space. It is a great font, and very clean. What I would like to do is create a smaller graphic, this time more pictorial, to go with it. This small graphic would be an emblem that could be used on each page of the site, and would convey the idea of an open biology community perhaps using some of the ideas below. The next thing to do would be to get the rest of the site and materials to follow this same style. I will work up some ideas and see what people think. --Jencc 11:30, 23 January 2006 (EST)
- A DNA double helix wrapped around the world.
- Stick people spelling out A T G C (like YMCA :) ).
- A double helix that opens up (unwound) in the center, encircling a globe. (or a bunch of people, like a hogtie!!)
- How about having whatever graphics, and then putting on questions like...
- Need information on DNA Ligation?
- Ever wondered where you could keep your protocols?
- Need a place to discuss scientific issues with a group of people?
- Need an easy way to keep your website up-to-date?
(if questions, which is a good idea, then the questions themselves become really important. they must be catching, amusing, and relevant).
- We may also want to focus on some of the more "unique" aspects of the wiki, like protocols/types of pages that are visited most often, most-edited pages, or things that are not available/difficult to find elsewhere. We may already have information as to what people are interested in and, thus, what may draw new people in (i.e. stats, popular pages). This is likely different for different people, so we may also want to consider some kind of wiki-poll for current users: Why are you here? What do you like best? The poster questions should attempt to encompass as many diverse OWW aspects as possible, because OWW is going to mean different things to different people. We should also highlight the dynamic, responsive nature of the wiki as an advantage over traditional static resources. I also agree that the questions should be catchy. Perhaps we can take some inspiration from the apparently abandoned list of BBF t-shirt slogans.--Kathleen