4 ms·

It communicates to new users that this is a currently maintained project, that it has modern features that they expect, that it works on the latest operating sy

It communicates to new users that this is a currently maintained project, that it has modern features that they expect, that it works on the latest operating system that they might have installed, etc. It's obviously important for a commercial project, but even for an open source non-profit it's important, because you want to have an active base of contributors and if you aren't getting new ones they'll slowly diminish over time.

yawaramin 3y ago
It's weird that actual current maintenance, actual existence of modern features, and actual cross-platform portability doesn't communicate that, but a new logo does.
- scrollaway 3y ago
  It’s not that weird.
- pmontra 3y ago
  People work that way. We have several ways to visually communicate that we are current with the general state of the world and we're not slipping away. Logos are one of them for corporations and projects in general.
- asutekku 3y ago
  But these are not necessarily visible for the end-user and guess what, this is what an end-user notices, not if the service is using some of the new state-of-the-art encryption.
- account42 3y ago
  Your taking an argument commonly parroted by marketing designers who need to justify their jobs and assume that people actually work that way.
KronisLV 3y ago
> It's obviously important for a commercial project, but even for an open source non-profit it's important, because you want to have an active base of contributors and if you aren't getting new ones they'll slowly diminish over time. I feel like many here might disagree that this should be the case, even if realistically it kind of is for most people. To that end, I'm curious whether there are any projects out there that have decided that this is "silly" and instead are alive and doing well, without caring about UI and aesthetics that much, focusing on UX more instead. I think the logo and look of something like Audacity, Handbrake, ManicTime or KeePass comes to mind.
voytec 3y ago
> It communicates to new users that this is a currently maintained project Busywork, which I consider logo change to be, doesn't really make a project seem "maintained". But at least it's not a productivity-disrupting change so... whatever floats their boat.
- purerandomness 3y ago
  You misunderstood. It's not the regular change of logos that people notice and then think that that must mean that the project is active. It's more that design trends change with times, and color gradients currently went out of fashion (but will come back, in a later design trend), so it's important to adapt to current design trends once in a while. If you don't do that, people subconsciously dismiss the software without trying, assuming that it won't run, or won't be able to handle modern workflows. No users -> no contributors -> project dies.
  - account42 3y ago
    It's important only to people who need to justify their marketing and design jobs.
- blep_ 3y ago
  > it's not a productivity-disrupting change You've seen benign instances, then. Every time I see a company do this kind of thing it takes one or more engineers nontrivial time to go update everything.
everybodyknows 3y ago
The Linux Foundation then, clearly needs help in the marketing department. "Tux" icon, vintage 1994: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux_(mascot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux_(mascot) https://www.kernel.org/ https://www.kernel.org/
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  Perhaps why many have been moving to preferring "Xenia" as the Linux mascot. She's vintage 1996, too, but she has been through quite a few more transformations over the decades. https://xenia-linux-site.glitch.me/ https://xenia-linux-site.glitch.me/
  - account42 3y ago
    Just no, sexual fetishes have no place in an OS logo.
account42 3y ago
I'd rather my open source software oppose corporate wankery trends rather than follow them. The notion that you need to change your logo in order to attract new users is absurd - if the old logo looked like an 8-color Windows 3.1 icon then maybe you'd have a point but the previous Thunderbird logo was plenty modern, no need to chase fleeting design trends.

yawaramin 3y ago

It's weird that actual current maintenance, actual existence of modern features, and actual cross-platform portability doesn't communicate that, but a new logo does.

scrollaway 3y ago
It’s not that weird.
pmontra 3y ago
People work that way. We have several ways to visually communicate that we are current with the general state of the world and we're not slipping away. Logos are one of them for corporations and projects in general.
asutekku 3y ago
But these are not necessarily visible for the end-user and guess what, this is what an end-user notices, not if the service is using some of the new state-of-the-art encryption.
account42 3y ago
Your taking an argument commonly parroted by marketing designers who need to justify their jobs and assume that people actually work that way.

KronisLV 3y ago

> It's obviously important for a commercial project, but even for an open source non-profit it's important, because you want to have an active base of contributors and if you aren't getting new ones they'll slowly diminish over time. I feel like many here might disagree that this should be the case, even if realistically it kind of is for most people. To that end, I'm curious whether there are any projects out there that have decided that this is "silly" and instead are alive and doing well, without caring about UI and aesthetics that much, focusing on UX more instead. I think the logo and look of something like Audacity, Handbrake, ManicTime or KeePass comes to mind.

voytec 3y ago

> It communicates to new users that this is a currently maintained project Busywork, which I consider logo change to be, doesn't really make a project seem "maintained". But at least it's not a productivity-disrupting change so... whatever floats their boat.

purerandomness 3y ago
You misunderstood. It's not the regular change of logos that people notice and then think that that must mean that the project is active. It's more that design trends change with times, and color gradients currently went out of fashion (but will come back, in a later design trend), so it's important to adapt to current design trends once in a while. If you don't do that, people subconsciously dismiss the software without trying, assuming that it won't run, or won't be able to handle modern workflows. No users -> no contributors -> project dies.
- account42 3y ago
  It's important only to people who need to justify their marketing and design jobs.
blep_ 3y ago
> it's not a productivity-disrupting change You've seen benign instances, then. Every time I see a company do this kind of thing it takes one or more engineers nontrivial time to go update everything.

everybodyknows 3y ago

The Linux Foundation then, clearly needs help in the marketing department. "Tux" icon, vintage 1994: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux_(mascot) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux_(mascot) https://www.kernel.org/ https://www.kernel.org/

WorldMaker 3y ago
Perhaps why many have been moving to preferring "Xenia" as the Linux mascot. She's vintage 1996, too, but she has been through quite a few more transformations over the decades. https://xenia-linux-site.glitch.me/ https://xenia-linux-site.glitch.me/
- account42 3y ago
  Just no, sexual fetishes have no place in an OS logo.

account42 3y ago

I'd rather my open source software oppose corporate wankery trends rather than follow them. The notion that you need to change your logo in order to attract new users is absurd - if the old logo looked like an 8-color Windows 3.1 icon then maybe you'd have a point but the previous Thunderbird logo was plenty modern, no need to chase fleeting design trends.