I'm no professional logo designer myself, so any input is welcome.

The reason I've used Trebuchet MS is because I think it's looks very "open" (of course it could just be my imagination). I also gave a try to some other fonts, you can view them here. I don't have access to Futura right now, I'll see what I can do tomorrow. If anyone knows of a font that would look nice, post it here.

Following your suggestions, I tweaked the vertical logo. I got rid of the cyan, and I tried to balance the colors better. Of course there's always room for improvement, so share your thoughts.

gwolfgang, could you please contact me by email if you have time? I have a few questions about mulitflex-3 and logos.

My email is in my profile.

TIA

[edit] it is of course Multiflex and not Multiplex.

I put together a list with 25 font tests for "OpenDesign" (Windows fonts): View the font tests

As I tested, I realized that maybe Trebuchet was not so bad after all, in view of the alternatives. There are two fonts, that seem to have a special touch to them in my list above. First one is Kabel Bk BT is an interesting font, with a touchy graphic originality, yet simple. But I did not have this font for bold. The second one is Humanist 521, very clean, and the "g" is closed in a beautiful way, but maybe a bit too complicated.

What is important, is that the font we finally choose, has a certain minimum boldness (not too thin), so that the color gradients and web2.0 style come through well in the text. Some fonts may look fantastic, but come only in a "thin" version. So we must look for style and line-thickness at the same time.

great work on the logo - good stuff there

@jrochman - i can't access the domain www.elemental-works.com at all so i'm guessing it's a server problem he's having

Elemental's avatar isn't showing in the forum, and I know that was in his /temp/ folder where all of the logo files are, so I guess it is offline.

Dean, I thought similar as pointed out in another thread, as such I have emailed the domain registrant of the site in question and am awaiting reply, will update as when I receive any information. Thanks for your concern though, it's good to know people are looking out for this sites best interests :)

Hi, I'm the owner of www.open-design.org.

Christopher contact me by mail. Here my reply:

I had my site logo from 2003, when I registered the domain first time ... my focus is open design on industrial design and I'm working on a prototype of community on Drupal ... But my problem is the time I cannot engaged on my project: I'd like to involve more industrial designer ... but the tipical industrial designer don't have an "open mind" as we have as web designer o developer near open source community and experiences.

So ... I think there is no problem to use my logo prototype for your site, I can donate it or collaborate on a common idea or project.
Web design, interaction design, industrial design ... open, all open? Good start point!

Of course it is possible for both use the same logo as similar logo: the same logo with different color and use this base color as identification of a part of a future network of site related to open design, web, graphic, industrial and so on. Green=industrial, blue=web design, etc.
Similar logo, instead: similar logo with different payoff ...

But lets see what others say as well.

Cristian Riccardi

Christopher, any thoughts?

dear Wolfgang, there are two way on which we/you can work: first, the scenario with my site or another dedicated to industrial open design and your to open web design, second, the logo, the color, the graphics.

A network of site dedicated to open design can have the same logo with different thinks or different logo.
I think that a logo as brand replicated on more than one site is strongest that a scenario in which we can work on the same philosophy but with different brand image.

My question is: which open strategy would you like to promote?

Posted By: gwolfgangChristopher, any thoughts?

I think I spend too much time on this forum ;)

Seriously, my thoughts, after speaking to Cristian on Skype his ideas are about industrial open design, whereas we here are about sharing our web designs openly for anyone, we're also a community who enjoy helping each other, if I'm being brutally honest here, I don't completely understand what Cristian wants, sorry Cristian!

Dear Christopher, I don't want nothing. You contact me because my logo is similar to your draft. I say to you that I haven't problem to share my logo in your community or to work with you on this logo. Lets close this matter!

I open another matter: why use your future logo for your site e my logo for my site, two different logo for the same philosophy or idea (share openly web design or another type of design), instead of use only one logo?

I'd try to implement a community, forum etc in my site. In future, I think, I'd like to link your community as example of open web design ... We work for the same mission: share openly. So we can support each other.

Let's decide in your community which logo you want use.
Once you have decided which logo, let me ask you: we can use the same logo that you have choose to identify not only your community but also the other that I'd try to create? With some different color or payoff ...

So we will see as a network of site related to opendesign, as a partner, not only two different site on the same argument. Do you think?

so i'll hope you consider the future scenario that we can make toghether ...
a community about open web design and a community about industrial open design that share experiences and ideas.

Thanks Lobsterman for your reply!

In my opinion i would be a bad move to use a logo so similar to that of a bussiness in the same field...
how many of you would consider using such a logo is it was DreamTemplates original logo.

At the end of the day this community existing to spread knowledge and skills; Open-designs existing to make money...
and to be fair if the owner of Open-deisgns want to co-brand that is because he can see the benefits of being related to a community which is growing so fast, but what are the benefits to Opendesigns in this.
I think co-branding with such similarities will only lead to confussing on the users behalf.

My thought is that we decline to create a partnership. Agreeing to a partnership in "businesses" that are totally different doesn't make much sense. I understand what Christian means by a powerful network, but we don't really have a common interest.

As far as I'm concerned, we find a new logo. The other one was fantastic, but, if we can't use it, we'll live without it. Full steam ahead!

I have to agree with Bob. surely with all the creative minds here we can come up with a unique logo for this community?

@lobsterman: simply to grow, in the same way we want to; thats probably all he want! i have no clue to the in-and-outs of his organisation, or the intensions of his end goal; whether that be publicity or to turn his website into a money making scheme.

but from the owners comments so far... in not even sure he knows of his intensions at this point in time! ;o)

Posted By: bakercadI don't think that it would be wise for us to join this partnership when our end users are in different fields.

Gotta go with you on this - I think it'll only create confusion.

[off-topic] Damien check your email :) Also feel free to add me to Skype / Msn if you wish, details can be found on my personal site if needed.

@everybody -- Maybe we were too rough chrisss (myself included). After all, we invited him to this forum and he is our guest here. We asked him to share his views and vision, and he did so in all fairness. If he has another vision of open and community, it is fully in his right to have it.

@crisss - In my opinion, mixing our two areas together will not be a boost for either one of us. Those who search for webdesgins would come for that purpose to visit our site, but they would most certainly not be looking for industrial designs. Same way around, people looking for industrial designs would not really be interested in web designs. Of course there will always be a small percentage of people interested in both, but I believe that is a very very small minority. Again, a branding should be site-specific, unless there is a very close relationship that will give advantages, then you can have co-branding.

I was just out shopping a few minutes ago. At the cashier I noticed a simple yet powerful text branding. It came to my mind that many corporations actually only use text-branding, just think of IBM, Microsoft etc. The special branding is then achieved by the way you implement the font and its style and its color. Many Web2.0 websites use text-branding nowadays.

@syuk: It was only a suggestion, to be fair to crisss, i wouldnt want to hand over the domain either, not unless i thought it was for the greater good. I was simply trying to highlight the point for this community to work it cant be owned by one individual; you were around with OSWD mate and look where that went.

I have nothing against crisss, i just honestly dont think what he want out of a community is the same as OpenDeisgn.org is founded upon.

@crisss: you obviously have a strong vision of what you want to achieve, but if that vision is really some like what this community is, then you are going to have to be willing to give up some of what you currently have, such as sole ownership of the domain.

Also my comment with regards not using similar logos and co-branding the two communities was not against your community or your vision, i just honestly think it would cause to much confussion!

Nice one backercad, but lets not waste too much energy on the logo before we see the design.
Get to work on your contest submissions guys!

@LobsterMan -- You can also view it the other way around, that the design is built around the logo. In fact, the logo is the most compact representation of the brand, and thus it may be more logical to construct a site around a logo, instead of the other way around.

Why can I say that? Maybe because a logo has a longer life-time than a webpage design. A logo remains, while the design of the page may alter. Just look at the big companies like IBM and others, their logos are constant, while their webdesigns change from time to time. Yes, logos change also for the big companies, but on a much longer timescale than their websites do. This tells us, that a webpage is built around the logo, and not the logo around the webpage. In fact, it is the logo that makes for a branding, not the webpage design.

So, maybe we are doing it the wrong way, by first doing the design and then the logo. Remember, once we have a logo, we will have to live with it for years to come. For the design, we can feel free to modify or change anytime.

My suggestion would be to invest LOTS of time to get the logo and slogan right in all aspects, both text and graphics. I just read on a webpage on branding that "God is in the details", in other words, the details determine the success. That is why a logo brand needs lots of time to get it to be excellent. This is THE hardest and also most decisive part of branding. And I think we all want OpenDesigns.org to get the best branding it can have. The success of a product is closely bound to the success of its branding. Then in step two we would go for the designs.

@gwolfgang: Off all the companies you know that design their brand and logo first; how many are driven by and technically only exist on their website... but OpenDesigns.org is not a brand its a website, thus dispite that from a bussiness/marketing/strategy position i totally understand what your saying, but OpenDesigns.org is not a business, or your average community ;o)

It is difficult to create a design for a logo that doesn't exist...but we are a community full of people that are used to adapting design to our needs. Still, my preference would be logo first, design second.