Hi all, We have had some conversation with M&P and - in essence - they are telling us, that both variants (var1_small, var3) look good from their perspective but we need to make sure, that the icon in it’s standalone form work as a quadrant and in small pixel sizes for favicon use cases.
The discussion on [1] was in favor of var1_small followed by var3. Here is the overview: Variant 1 (small icon): https://github.com/apache/stormcrawler-site/blob/new-logo-candidates/img/all-var1.svg Favicon: https://github.com/apache/stormcrawler-site/blob/new-logo-candidates/img/favicon-var1.png Variant 3: https://github.com/apache/stormcrawler-site/blob/new-logo-candidates/img/all.svg Favicon (needed to square the spider): https://github.com/apache/stormcrawler-site/blob/new-logo-candidates/img/favicon-var3.png Please note, that var1_small is some quick and dirty sketching. Markos noted (on the M&P private thread), that if var1_small is selected, it needs some adjustments: <QUOTE SNIP> * The shape of variant 1 (small icon) seems a bit squeezed vertically (compared to variant 1 original), which alters the original shape of the thunder. * For variant 3, I made the leg thickness almost the same as the letter thickness of the text, so that the full logo looks more uniform. This might need adjustment in variant 1. The increased thickness in variant 3 (together with the removal of very small details) was also a way to improve the rendering in very small scales (e.g., favicon size). <QUOTE SNIP> From my perspective, I would like to get lazy consensus on the following procedure: 1. We run a formal vote (var1_small vs var_3) on the list 2. We fine-tune the „winning“ logo (so it shows up nicely) 3. We proceed with the rollout. Any objections on this procedure? Otherwise, I would assume lazy consensus and start a vote soon. Gruß Richard [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/x2lzn9jojo9ms09cml49648y3y35rph2
