Fedora logo redesign update

Fedora Design Team Logo

As we’ve talked about here in a couple of posts now, the Fedora design team has been working on a refresh of the Fedora logo. I wanted to give an update on the progress of the project.

We have received a lot of feedback on the design from blog comments, comments on the ticket, and through social media and chat. The direction of the design has been determined by that feedback, while also keeping in mind our goal of making this project a refresh / update and not a complete redesign.

Where we left off

Here are the candidates we left off with in the last blog post on this project:

Candidate #1

Candidate #2

How we’ve iterated

Here’s what we’ve worked on since presenting those two logo candidates, in detail.

Candidate #2 Dropped

Based on feedback, one of the first things we decided to do was to drop candidate #2 out of the running and focus on candidate #1. According to the feedback, candidate #1 is closer to the current logo. Again, a major goal was to to iterate what we had – keeping closer to our current logo seemed in keeping with that.

Redesign of ‘a’

One of our redesign goals was to minimize confusion between the letter ‘a’ in the logotype and the letter ‘o.’ While the initial candidate #1 proposal included an extra mark to make the ‘a’ more clearly not an ‘o’, there was still some feedback that at small sizes it could still look ‘o’ like. The new proposed typeface for the logotype, Comfortaa, does not include an alternate ‘a’ design, so I created a new “double deckah” version of the ‘a’. Initial feedback on this ‘a’ design has been very positive.

Redesign of ‘f’

We received feedback that the stock ‘f’ included in Comfortaa is too narrow compared to other letters in the logotype, and other feedback wondering if the top curve of the ‘f’ could better mirror the top curve of the ‘f’ in the logo mark. We did a number of experiments along these lines, even pursuing a suggested idea to create ligatures for the f:

The ligatures were a bit much, and didn’t give the right feel. Plus we really wanted to maintain the current model of having a separable logomark and logotype. Experimenting like this is good brain food though, so it wasn’t wasted effort.

Anyhow, we tried a few different ways of widening the f, also playing around with the cross mark on the character. Here’s some things we tried:

  • The upper left ‘f’ is the original from the proposal – it is essentially the stock ‘f’ that the Comfortaa typeface offers.
  • The upper right ‘f’ is an exact copy of the top curve of the ‘f’ in the Fedora mark. This causes a weird interference with the logomark itself when adjacent – they look close but not quite the same (even though they are exactly the same). There’s a bit of an optical illusion effect that they seem to trigger. While this could be pursued further and adjusted to account for the illusion, honestly, I think having a distinction between the mark and the type isn’t a bad thing, so we tried other approaches.
  • The lower left ‘f’ has some of the character of the loop from the mark, including the short cross mark, but it is a little more open and more wider. This was not a preferred option based on feedback – why I’m not sure. It’s a bit overbearing maybe, and doesn’t quite fit with the other letters (e.g., the r’s top loop, which is more understanded.)
  • The lower right ‘f’ is the direction I believe the ‘f’ in this redesign should go, and initial feedback on this version has been positive. It is wider than the stock ‘f’ in Comfortaa, but avoids too much curviness in the top that is uncharacteristic of the font – for example, look at how the top curve compares to the top curve of the ‘r’ – a much better match. The length of the cross is pulled even a bit wider than the original from the typeface, to help give the width we were looking for so the letters feel a bit more as if they have a consistent width.

Redesign of ‘e’

This change didn’t come about as a result of feedback, but because of a technical issue – trying to kern different versions of the ‘f’ a bit more tightly with the rest of the logo as we played with giving it more width. Spinning the ‘e’ – at an angle that mimics the diagonal and angle of the infinity logo itself – provides a bit more horizontal negative space to work with within the logo type such that the different experiments with the ‘f’ didn’t require isolating the ‘f’ from the rest of the letters in the logotype (you can see the width created via the vertical rule in the diagram below.)

Once I tried spinning it, I really rather liked the look because of its correspondence with the infinity logo diagonal. Nate Willis suggested opening it, and playing with the width of the tail at the bottom – a step shown on the bottom here. I think this helps the ‘e’ and as a result the entire logotype relate more clearly to the logomark, as the break in the e’s cross mimics the break in the mark where the bottom loop comes up to the f’s cross.

(As in all of these diagrams, the first on the top is the original logotype from the initial candidate #1 proposal.)

Putting the logotype changes together

We’ve looked at each tweak of the logotype in isolation. Here is how it looks all together – starting from the original logotype from the initial candidate #1 proposal to where we’ve arrived today:

Iterating the mark

There has been a lot of work on the mark, although it may not seem like it based on the visuals! There were a few issues with the mark, some that came up in the feedback:

  • Some felt the infinity was more important than the ‘f’, some felt the ‘f’ was more important than the infinity. Depending on which way an individual respondent felt, they suggested dropping one or the other in response to trying to avoid other technical issues that were brought up.
  • There was feedback that perhaps the gaps in the mark weren’t wide enough to read well.
  • For a nice, clean mark, we wanted to eliminate the number of cuts to avoid it looking like a stencil.
  • There was some confusion about the mark looking like – depending on the version – a ‘cf’ or a ‘df.’
  • There was some feedback that the ‘f’ didn’t look like an ‘f’, but it looked like a ‘p’.
  • There was mixed feedback over whether or not the loops should be even sizes or slightly skewed for balance.

Here’s just a few snapshots of some of the variants we tried for the mark to try to play with addressing some of this feedback:

  • #1 is from the original candidate #1 proposal.
  • From #1, you can see – in part to address the concern of the ‘f’ looking like a ‘p’, as well as removing a stencil-like ‘cut’ – the upper right half of the loop is open as it would be in a normal ‘f’ character.
  • #2 has a much thinner version of the inner mark. #1 is really the thickest; subsequent iterations #3-#4-#5 emulate the thickness of the logotype characters to achieve some balance / relationship between the mark and type.
  • #3 has a straight cut in the cross loop. There are some positives to this – this can have a nice shaded effect in some treatments, giving a bit of depth / dimension to the loop to distinguish it from the main ‘f’ mark. However, especially with the curved cut ‘e’, it doesn’t relate as closely to the type.
  • #4 has a rounded cut in the loop, and also has shifted the bottom loop and cross point to make the two ‘halves’ of the mark more even based on feedback requesting what that would look like. The rounded loop relates very closely to the new ‘e’ in the logotype.
  • #5 is very similar to #4, with the difference in size between the loops preserved for some balance.

I am actually not sure which version of the mark to move forward with, but I suspect it will be from the #3-#4-#5 set.

Where we are now

So here’s a new set of candidates to consider, based on all of that work outlined above. All constructive, respectful feedback is encouraged and we are very much grateful for it. Let us know your thoughts in the blog comments below. And if you’d like to do a little bit of mix and matching to see how another combination would work, I’m happy to oblige as time allows (as you probably saw in the comments on the last blog post as well as on social media.)

Some feedback tips from the last post that still apply:

The most useful feedback is stated as a problem, not a solution. E.g., if you suggest changing an element, to understand your perspective it’s helpful to know why you seek to change that element. Also note that while “I don’t like X” or “I like Y” is a perfectly valid reaction, it’s not particularly helpful unless you can dig in a little deeper and share with us why you feel that way, what specific technical details of the logo (shape, contrast, color, clarity, connotation, meaning, similarity to something else, etc.) you think triggered the feeling.

Please also note this is not a vote. We would love your feedback in order to iterate and push the designs forward. If this was a vote or poll, we’d set one up using the proper software. We want feedback on why you like, don’t like, or otherwise react to what you see here. We are not going to tally “votes” here and make a decision based on that. Here is an example of a very productive and helpful set of feedback that resulted in a healthy back and forth with a new direction for the designs. Providing feedback on specific components of the logo is great brain food for making it better!

Update: I have disabled comments. I’ve just about reached my limit of incoming thoughtlessness and cruelty. If you have productive and respectful feedback to share, I am very interested in hearing it still. I don’t think I’m too hard to get in touch with, so please do!

101 Comments

  1. Thub

    I would have to go with candidate #2. As soon as you increase the size of the left-hand loop, I can’t help but see the word “of”, but the more I look at it, I start to think it could be stylistically joined “df”. At the same time, keeping the loops of the implied infinity symbol balanced still looks like a single figure to me. Of course it’s possible I’m just so used to the old logo that the “infinity-f” symbol will always read as an “f” to me.

    In the end, maybe the back loop is just too confusing to remain connected to the “f”. In the original logo, you could clearly see the “f” and the infinity symbol was easy to identify as though it was just behind the “f” the whole time. Here they are combined into a single shape and it just requires too much interpretation to read well.

    There isn’t enough of the infinity symbol left to identify it as such and I am left wondering what two Roman letters the logo is supposed to be representing. If I didn’t know it was an infinity symbol, I don’t think I would have guessed from any of these candidates.

  2. I’m sorry Máirín but the only feedback I could give you is that my tired old eyes can’t see neither the f or the infinity in any of your test with a decent size in my phone.. Even knowing the fedora logo for years know I would almost surely don’t recognize either part or the brand if I were found the logo alone. 🙁 Sorry.

    • mairin

      It’s ok. It’s like learning a new face. Logos are something that kind of get captured in our brain, maybe like a face, it’s kind of like when someone you know who wears glasses gets contacts and they look a little off / different for a while, but then you get used to it. If you approach these designs often enough you to habituate to the differences from the current logo, I can promise you that.

      In the end, the logo is suppose to symbolize particular things relevant to the brand – it doesn’t have to be super obvious about it (e.g. the FedEx logo arrow.) It’s OK if it doesn’t have a full complete infinity – there’s a hint of one, and having the background of the old logo helps bring that narrative to bear in interpreting the new design.

      • Jan

        FedEx doesn’t really have that problem. You might overlook the arrow at first but it’s a complete arrow and it is just an unnecessary/overlooked part of the actual logo, not an extra badge-thingy.
        And in a couple of years relying on prior knowledge of the old logo might not work anymore. But I can accept that you have to sacrifice the obvious ‘f’ or the obvious ‘infinity’ under these circumstances.
        And the meaning of the infinity will always be unclear to most people anyway since it isn’t exactly obvious. Until your last blog entry I didn’t even know that it had a special meaning.

        #2 or #3 would be my favorite out of these candidates but IMHO they all look a little bit too much like an ‘f’ with a strange attachment. Ignoring all meaning behind the logo, I would prefer candidate #2 with the left cut removed. That might look too much like a ‘d’ instead of an ‘f’ but it would be just one thing, not a thing with an attachment, and it would also look really nice: https://imgur.com/a/Ijjwo6e

        • mairin

          Actually the FedEx logo does. The arrow is a core part of the conceptual design of the logo but not immediately obvious. It’s a symbol in negative space. Here we have a symbol of infinity and of f, but they arent immediately obvious.

          • Jan

            What I meant was: You never see a part of the logo without knowing what it is supposed to be. If you see the arrow, it’s perfectly clear that it’s an arrow and if not, you simply read Fed Ex and don’t have to wonder. It’s not even difficult to imagine why a delivery company might use an arrow.

            With the current candidates, the ‘f’ is fairly obvious, especially in the context of Fedora, but it isn’t that obvious what the added arch is supposed to be, so people might be left wondering. And that’s why I thought it would be better to use a logo that will be seen as one thing an not as one recognizable element (f) with an attachment of unclear purpose.
            In this case this could mean using a logo that’s more on the infinity-side of the spectrum like the old candidate #1. Then it will be recognized primarily as an infinity-symbol, even if it is not obvious why Fedora might use an infinity symbol as it’s logo (with openSUSE Tumbleweed it’s more obvious). Or you could use a logo that on first glance is just a pretty picture with no meaning at all.

          • boah, Neunmalklug. Shall I show you logos of several hundred companies, where not the name or what they do is directly transported with the logo, just take Starbucks as an example. Logo has nothing to do with recognizable things as with unique shape which shall be memorizable.

  3. Sorry, but I am not convinced that those tweaks are really improvements:

    The changes to the font make it basically not Comfortaa at all anymore. Especially the ‘e’ and the ‘a’ are completely different designs than in Comfortaa. (They are also completely different from the Bryant font in the old logo. Wasn’t Comfortaa chosen because of its resemblance to Bryant in the first place?) As for the ‘f’, the stock Comfortaa ‘f’ is actually wider because the crossbar is two-sided. The right-side-only crossbar was a change Fedora made to avoid confusion with Facebook, but this is what makes the ‘f’ too narrow. Now with the wider top curl and the right-side-only crossbar, the ‘f’ also looks pretty different from Comfortaa.

    As for the bubble part, both new proposals reintroduce the asymmetry that was rejected in the previous iteration due to similarity with other logos, and both make the infinity barely recognizable.

    • mairin

      Many fonts have alternative letters for specific letters in the alphabet, and this is a common thing. Having a round and a double decker a variant is actually fairly commonplace. A good example of this is Montserrat, which has a font variant called Montserrat Alternates. Montserrat is one of the main fonts we use on Fedora websites.

      I would disagree that the f’s wider top makes it not fit in with Comfortaa. As suggested in the blog post, compare the f’s top curve to the r’s.

      • Frans-Jan van Steenbeek

        With regards to the font, I fully agree with the changes done to the ‘f’ while the ‘e’ puts me in mind of horrible beer 😉 (https://conningconsumers.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/heineken-making-consumers-smile-since-1964/).

        The double-story a is OK to me in principle, but the overshoot seemed off, so I took a double take: https://files.fst.li/fedora_logo.png
        Maybe a type designer should take a look at this? Call in Johan Aakerlund?

        In the linked image it also seems like the rotated ‘e’ should be lifted up a tiny bit. On that subject, I feel the word as a whole with all the changes comes across a teeny bit to “busy”, especially when compared to the original. I would possibly leave the ‘e’ as-is to balance that out again, not sure.

        While still on the font: will there be an alternate version of Comfortaa that includes the new a, e and f as well as updated kerning? That would help with further design use within the Fedoraverse.

        With regards to the mark, I’d go with candidate #2 on the basis of typographic balance. It also seems to my eye that the aligning issues with the original logo are somehow exacerbated with #1 and #3.

        • mairin

          Thanks for pointing out the alignment issues – these are all wip drafts so the final kerning, alignment, etc is still to go. Ill make sure we address that.

          We’re not planning to make the new letters into a font. They provide a mechanism that helps protect the trademark. This isn’t bc we dont want to share but bc our marks our governed under US trademark law we have to protect the marks as best as we can.

  4. Clarke Wixon

    I think Candidate 2 strikes the best balance between representing an “f” and an infinity loop. Like @Thub above, I believe it helps avoid it being interpreted as “of” or “df.”

    Have you tried a slight upturn in the member crossing the infinity symbol to the right? Somewhere between the original infinity-f and where we are now? Another option might be to break the lower loop like the upper one is. That’s definitely more “f”-like.

    Excellent work, and nice upgrade overall.

    • mairin

      Do you mean upturning the f’s cross bar?

      Cutting the bottom loop creates too many breaks or, depending on how extreme, completely eliminates the infinity which we’re looking to keep if only symbolically since it’s not a closed loop.

  5. I don’t like any of the proposals. I’m not completely happy with tweaking certain letters of a known font. Wouldn’t be better to pick a different font? Now there would be a font that is installed, Comfortaa, but won’t look like the logo. Uhm… maybe creating a new Comfortaa?
    The «A» doesn’t match the rest. The «E» proposals are okay, maybe the two or third versions are a bit nicer. The «F»… well, I would go for the lower left because I find it easier to read but that’s just a personal issue. And I dislike the logos.
    Sorry, I’m afraid my feedback isn’t very positive.

    • mairin

      In branding design, it is very common to tweak letters of a font to differentiate a logotype. For example, in Red Hat’s current logo type, the font is Myriad Pro but the top of the d has been angled to feed into the h that is adjacent. These types of contextual tweaks and ligatures can make sense in the context of a specific application – eg the word ‘fedora’ – and allow for creativity in the font that isn’t possible when building a font meant for generic usage. It also helps prevent trademark violations of the logo created by it being too easy to regenerate from the original font.

      Also understand that for each of the letter tweaks listed, the first one is from the original proposal, and the last one listed (in most cases) is the one we are proposing to move forward with.

    • mairin

      The Heinken E is a serif font, and the crossbar is complete and does not have a gap.

      A tilted ‘e’ is not all that unique a thing, and a lot of logos use them. They solve some specific technical problems as outlined.

      • Spazturtle

        The open ‘e’ just make it harder to read, when scanning the name I don’t immediately recognize it as an ‘e’ and it is rather jarring as I need to go back and look at it to see that it is an ‘e’. From a glance it looks like a ‘G’ has fallen over. The first closed and tilted ‘e’ design worked much better.

    • Thub

      I’d say the important thing there is whether someone is likely to *confuse* it with the Heineken word mark. I don’t think we’re in any danger there. This becomes more of an issue when we use only the logo without the “fedora” word mark because we have fewer visual elements to distinguish it.
      That is, the “e” is a pretty small element considering the whole, but the “f” in the standalone logo carries much more weight when distinguishing it from other single-letter logos.

  6. Pingback: Links 7/2/2019: Cockpit 187, Hatari 2.2.0, GNOME 3.31.90, LibreOffice 6.2 | Techrights

  7. Pingback: Hledání nového loga pokračuje | MojeFedora.cz

  8. the whole thing becomes more and more nonsense. Its just try to patch a thing because our FPL wants something changed. There are so many problems in this this font changes itself that it makes no sense to bring them all on here. The problem is really that something shall be kept where we should go for a complete re-start. But what shall I say its like the “strategy” our council has, its not a strategy its the description of a situation and this is the problem with Fedora nowadays. Just make changes to change something, that people think there is progress

  9. Rene Reichenbach

    I love the Symmetry of the current fedora infinity f logo. Would be not happy to leave that part behind. Its an implicit message that its standardized and of high quality. The suggestions look softer and kinda “sweet” i lack the words i guess. But it implies now that we sacrifice quality for lifestyle.

    Regarding the font changes i have a similar feeling watching at it. It should remain friendly to welcome new ones to fedora but not becoming too playful after all.

    I am with Silvia here and would like to see a real change or new font and not some minor adoptions that look patched or copied in the end.

    Now that i said all that i still like the work you do in general and hope you help fedora staying state of the art from a design perspective.

  10. jakfrost

    Hello Mairin,
    I would like to know if there is a graphic of the sample logos I could try to make into an ascii art logo, so I could give you an opinion based upon how easy/well each can be done.
    When I reflect on the Fedora Logo, yes it is familiar to me and I find that a comfort, but I never really liked how it looked in the first place, and that didn’t change my opinion of fedora or the community around it, just didn’t like the look of it. To my eye the #2 or #3 candidate present the best balanced look on immediate reaction, while #1 is too thick (the inifinity/F) and the off balanced bubble is still there in all of three, and still presents it’s layout challenges. I don’t think I have ever read anywhere the reasoning behind the original logo and what the original concept idea was. It would be interesting to review those bits of info.

    • mairin

      The original logo history is outlined in the previous blog post linked to at the top of this one.

      Contact me at duffy at redhat dot com and I can send you a sample to play with.

  11. Carlos

    #4>3>5.

    It’s the perfect equilibrium.

    But as I said in the previous post, I don’t like the color resemblance with the Windows logo, I would try with another blue tone

    • mairin

      I know this sounds lame but I’ve been having issues with the color accuracy of this WordPress install, something is buggy with Dreamhost’s installed imagemagick / php image conversion library. So this blog may not be showing the most accurate color on all browsers.

      If you visit https://pagure.io/design/issue/620 search for color and you’ll see where we analyzed different colors including the new MS blue and picked a color that was different to avoid a clash. The colors in pagure are also more likely to display correctly.

      • Carlos

        I know they are not the same color but for my eyes they look very similar. As the current fedora logo color, which isn’t the same that the facebook color, but both are very similar.

        Maybe is just me that I don’t like the lighter tone, but I think it would be better a darker one. Maybe a pure blue?

        PS: When the new logo will be adopted?

        • mairin

          I don’t know what to say except theyre not the same color if you look side by side. Blue has been an important part of our branding since we started so we’re not going to change it.

          • Carlos

            Obviously, the “blue” is non negotiable. I’m only asking if this concrete type of blue is the correct. In my opinion, it isn’t. But I will be happy anyway as the shape will be better than the previous one

  12. T

    I prefer the changes in the shape of the typography, it’s modernised and additive (opposite to minimalising). I don’t agree with the color changes or the changes to the mark. It’s the opposite intent to the font, a minimilisation of the existing mark. The best and most clear solution for the idea of displaying a distinct “f” while maintaining the infinity loop is the one we currently have that uses opacity.

  13. andreyorst

    The 2nd candidate is good, but ‘a’ looks better in the original logo, because in the new one the circle for some reason is squeezed in height, and no longer a perfect cycle, while other letters, like ‘e’, ‘d’, ‘o’, and even upper part of ‘f’ are. This looks out of place. Keep the old a it was perfect already.

    • mairin

      When determining the shape of the double decker “a” I studied the double decker design of “a”s from other sans serif fonts, including Bryant – an extremely rounded font – Montserrat, etc. and the shape of the bowl in a double decker “a” I found is never a perfect circle. It’s just not the shape of the character.

      • Igor

        However the logo is based on shapes that fit the logo, and not the rypeface. And in current variant tha ‘a’ just stands out and brings inconsistency. Fortunately it is balanced wit the infinity sign having one half of it bigger than the other.

        • mairin

          It was of course designed within the full context of the fedora logotype. The letters were not designed in isolation. I understand it might appear that way bc of how I have presented it here; I isolated them one by one here for clarity in explaining visually how each one changed individually.

          I dont see kerning issues with the new a. If you can be more specific about your concerns I can take a look.

  14. Michal Domonkos

    The current version just doesn’t “click” in my head. I find the white-space between the mark and the text too big, making those two elements almost seem disconnected.

    How about moving them closer to each other? Or even better, why not merge the mark with the first letter “f”?

    That said, maybe I’m just too weird. I have always fancied minimal and simple logos (see Apple or Microsoft as an example). And I also suspect I have (a mild form of) OCD, so yeah.

  15. Michal Domonkos

    Although it’s a nice piece of work, it just doesn’t “click” in my head, as a whole. I suspect it’s the amount of white space between the logomark and the logotype which makes those two elements seem a bit disconnected. But then again, it’s just me and my OCD…

  16. Mel

    I don’t understand why going from a 4 color logo, where the infinity symbol AND the F can be easily distinguished, to a dual color logo. Not only it look way more flat and too simple, but I saw multiple comment stating that you can’t anymore distinguish the two symbols, or that the logo is confusing.

    Why not just change the original logo colors ? simpler, and will also avoid Facebook confusions (IMO I won’t change the logo at all, because if someone can’t make the difference between facebook and a linux distro, that’s either because he’s not into computers, or that I need to explain what’s Fedora 😉 )

  17. Barry

    Mairin, thanks for the hard work. My feedback is that I like the new letter changes to the word Fedora. I would also select the logo from candidate #2. I actually like how the f is represented in candidate #1 but don’t like the infinity symbol in candidate #1. The symmetry of the infinity symbol in candidate #2 won me over.

  18. Chris

    Out of these newest iterated options, candidate #2 is best.

    But even better is candidate #1 from the *previous* set (i.e. the thing at the very top of this blog post). It looks much closer to the infinity symbol and looks great. Not sure why it had to be changed. The changes just made it worse in my opinion.

    Of course, by far the best is just the current logo. I understand the problems with it, but it still looks best.

  19. George

    Candidate #2’s logo is too symmetrical, it looks unnatural and not that interesting to look at. Think the rule of 3’s in photos, the asymmetry in #1 and #3 adds intrigue. #3 looks a bit too rounded, as there are no straight edges. The only problem with #1 is if it was shrunk in size, the tiny gap between the vertical bar of the f and the left loop may disappear, making the d and f look merged and potentially not as nice. Though I think #1 is the most interesting of the 3. Also #1 looks closest to an infinite symbol because the straight gap makes it look like the line continues, where #3’s large gap makes it look like the line ends before the vertical bar rather than continuing. In fact #3 looks more like some kind of animal than an infinite symbol, with the head at the top, arm on the right, and tail at the back, where #1 looks more like an infinite symbol. So my preference would be #1 -> #2 -> #3 with #1 being the best.

  20. Pingback: Microsoft Joins the OpenChain Project, Google Open-Sources ClusterFuzz, New Android Vulnerability, FSF Gives the Vikings D8 Mainboard and Workstation Its "Respect Your Freedom" Endorsement, and Fedora Is Redesigning Its Logo | Top Tech Stories

  21. Hugo

    I think I must be in the “infinite shape” camp instead of the “looks like an f” camp because my favorite logos were actually the K, L and M “loopy shapes” variations that were shown in the previous blogpost.

  22. Zhihang

    Thanks for your great work! Of the three I prefer #2. However, I don’t like the letter “e”. I still love the second design in the “Redesign of ‘e'” section. It’s a pity that my English is so poor that I can’t give further advice. Very sorry for that.

  23. jl

    I don’t like the logo in the first and third candidates. The larger lower left swoop makes it look like the f has a huge ass. The more balanced logo in the second candidate is fine.

  24. Michael

    Someone else mentioned that a major problem with the current redesign candidates is that the infinity is no longer in the background with the ‘F’ in the foreground. They’re both in the foreground and visually read together which causes a huge interpretation issue that makes you think, ‘cf’, ‘df’, ‘of’, ‘cp’, ‘dp’, ‘op’, etc.

    My honest opinion is that so much iteration has been done to alleviate the above concern, but no one is willing to admit defeat and close the book on it. This doesn’t mean skip redesigning the logo, it just means that if you do, you need to be practical and realize when a design isn’t working and try something new.

    This isn’t even a redesign, in my opinion, it’s a refresh of the exact same design that is literally butchering it. While I like the infinity symbol, I am willing to admit that it doesn’t even fit in with the current Fedora Pillars (Freedom, Friends, Features, First).

    I choose neither, leave it as is or get rid of the infinity symbol completely and start from scratch.

    • uriesk

      +1
      if someone doesn’t know the previous fedora symbol, he will interpret it as “cf” or “df”.
      And no further tweaking of the shape could fix that, you need an additional color.

      • mairin

        That is the challenge of working with the existing mark. I’m ok with it, because the logotype is used with the mark in situations where we expect viewers to be unfamiliar with us so it wont have to stand on its own. And the mark ia symbolic, so it doesn’t need to be as perfectly readable as the type needs to be.

  25. Average User

    I like that the Fedora project is considering a redesign of the logo. I really like all of the font changes. As for the symbol change, If the project wants to keep the infinity symbol, might they use two colors, one for the ‘f’ portion and another for the rest of the sideways 8. If wanting to stick to one color, maybe a small line break between the “f” and rest of the loop. This would make the “f” central, and and infinity surrounding it.

  26. JCjr

    The new ‘a’ is a flat tire compared to all of the other nice round letters.

    Slanted e’s are overused: Lenovo, Dell, GOOGLE, etc. We don’t want this looking like another propeller-head ad company.

  27. Waethorn

    I don’t really get this.

    Is the logo the symbol, or the word “fedora”? Don’t mix and match custom logos with custom typefaces. Either make it all “fedora” with a custom typeface, or use a stock typeface and change the f-logo badge. If a brand has a separate graphic logo, the text treatment should be easily reproducible.

  28. Pingback: FPgM report: 2019-06 – Fedora Community Blog

  29. searchsam

    Hello, I love the idea of a logo with only one color, finally, thank you duffy. Refente the color I would like it to be a little darker, to link to the current blue of fedora that we have well marked (The blue of the proposals reminds me of the light blue of the logo of mageia). The ‘f’ of infinity inside the bubble does not seem very symmetrical, it does not really bother me but when I put it together with the bubble it does not finish pleasing me visually in the proposals # 1 and # 3, however the proposal # 1 seems to me the most successful in terms of being an update of the current logo. I’m curious about using gradients in the bubble or some part of the logo (I would be very satisfied with just being able to use gradients in the bubble). The proposals lend themselves to applying a gradient.

    • mairin

      Yep if you look at the mockup board from the original candidate #1 proposal you’ll see a gradient version. We totally intend to permit this type of usage.

  30. Andrew

    I think I like #2 the best, but I think it would look better with the straight cut from #1. The straight cut seems to communicate the idea that this is an infinity symbol than the rounded one

  31. Carlos

    I just modified cantidate #2, changing the color to yellow and adding some glow for fitting with my icon theme and color scheme and the result is brilliant for my taste https://i.imgur.com/BiCW0eF.png

    The old logo is more limited for customizing it. When it’s possible to make a light color version of it, the result tends to be visually not good. The current modifications make way easier to “play” with it.

    When at first I wasn’t very convinced, now I can’t wait for the change becoming official XD

    • mairin

      It does help to play around and have a go to see firsthand the possibilities this new design will open up for us bc of the technical issues it solves. I am glad you took the initiative to explore this and see for yourself 🙂

  32. Dale Turner

    I like the logomark #4 (which would be Candidate #2, I guess). It “feels” the most balanced for me. It seems to preserve the ‘f’ from the original logo, which most people identify with Fedora, I think. The infinity is implied in the design. I find it harder to see in the other candidates. I love the tweaks to the ‘e’ and ‘a’.
    You and the design team are doing an awesome job. Thank you.

  33. Elliott S

    For the logotype, I thought I had a few issues with the individual changes, but seeing it all together, it looks pretty good. Maybe highlighting the changed letter just makes it look strange? For example, I didn’t initially like the bowl of the new ‘a’, but it looks good in the final result. I especially like the symmetry with the ‘r’. I also agree that the kerning of the new ‘f’ looked off, and while I don’t know whether the slanted ‘e’ helps or not, it looks better in the final version. Overall, I like the new logotype, and I don’t really have any holdups about it being a ‘real’ font or whatever.

    The only issue I have, and it’s quite minor, is that the bowl of the ‘d’ seems a bit overwhelming for that character. It’s perhaps because the ‘f’ is now taller, so the ‘d’ seems a bit stunted. Increasing its stem may help a bit there.

    For the mark, I’m still not completely sure about any one or the other. My gut feeling is probably #2 is best.

  34. david paige

    Máirín, I read recently that no one ever likes new logos, but eventually we get used to them. Here is my view.

    -I like having the full mark being encapsulated.
    -I am not fond of the e having a break in it, especially when it is rotated
    -In the current logo, it’s clear that the letter is an ‘f’, since the horizontal bar extends out on both sides. It’s not as attractive having it extend out only on the right side
    -I like consistent coloration through all of the letters
    -I like the lower-right ‘f’ best if that is the font to be used (not entirely happy with it, tbh)

  35. xezton

    I like the changes made to the logo type, especially the “e”. The “a” is certainly less ambiguous and the “f” looks fine on its own and doesn’t compete with the mark.
    Because of how thin the “f” is, the “a” at the end seems kind of… chubby? It seems to make the logo type heavier on the right than the left. I wonder if making the “a” a little skinnier would help balance it out as a whole, especially when the text is by itself.

    Maybe this is simply due to having a background in music, but at this point the logo mark looks more like a music note to me, specifically a stylized 16th note. I think this is due to the larger gap between the top loop and the cross-bar in the upper right, making the lines look more like “flags” coming off of a music note stem. Similar to the confusion caused by previously mentioned similarities to the Facebook logo, the current list of candidates all make me think they are for some sort of music app or music-production-centered OS.

    If I had to pick, I would go with candidate #2 because it is more symmetric and thus looks less like a music note, retains the infinity symbol, and still looks like an “f”. I wonder if putting another gap between the bottom of the “f” and the left loop would make the “f” stand out more? Then stylize the bottom left loop to make it look less like a “c”.
    I’m no artist and I’m on a laptop, but something like this: https://i.imgur.com/aZBirC5.png but… obviously better quality, maybe more even dashes or dots for the bottom-left loop?

    Otherwise, I think this is definitely on the right track and I can say I’m one of those people who doesn’t have any Fedora merch due to so many people thinking it’s the Facebook logo. So I’m happy to see any update! 🙂 Thank you!

    • Carlos

      I think that for some people your design could create the opposite effect that you pretend to erase, making more visible the “phantom” c

      I think that with the current candidates, the “cp” problem is solved, the f is perfectly visible and is correct balanced with the infinite shape. Because the simmetry and resemblance with the current logo, I think candiate #2 is the better.

  36. Pingback: Fedora Community Blog: FPgM report: 2019-06 | Fedora Colombia

  37. Flora

    I pick #2 just as most people here have done. It seems people love symmetry, and I don’t find a reason against it.
    What I may suggest is the upper-right end of the f/infinity can curl in a little bit more. Just a little bit so the end is not vertical. This has two effects. First, the infinity is more complete and recognizable. (I’m in infinity-over-F party. Brands that represent themselves with a single F is more than Facebook. I can name several. ) Second, it matches the style of the logotype more, which is vivid and dynamic thanks to the spinned ‘e’.

  38. no thank you

    I like candidate #2 the best. The loops in candidates #1 and #3 are too wide. I like the change to the “a” character but it seems taller than the other characters.

  39. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

    Thank you for your hard work on this.
    I think the logotype proposal looks just great in the latest iteration.

    For the mark, I actually like #1 a lot, I guess I’m from the “infinity” camp. #4 would be my second choice.

  40. I like option #2 the best since I like the infinity symbol with Fedora and because of the symmetry. I will say this, since the new proposed ‘F’ has a different shape, can we try to mimic that shape in the new icon? And perhaps use the same curve on the bottom? Perhaps some of these typographic changes could be folded into a new “Fedoraa” type.

    • mairin

      So I’m pretty sure I mentioned why we’re not doing that in this post – we tried, it is one of the f options, but it caused a weird optical illusion effect and we decided it wasn’t worth pursuing.

  41. uriesk

    Thank you for your work,
    but i personally do not like any of those. I don’t think that flat monochrome design is the way to go. Those logos just gives me a feeling of Windows 10 and a little bit of Google. Flat designs are popular for years now already and users start to get tired of it and that trend will eventually end soon.
    The current fedora logo was around for 13 years and still looks good after all that time. I give monochrome/flat style 5 years max till it looks bad.

  42. Tommy

    Nice blog and result. Option #2 logo looks most balanced to my eyes, where the ‘f’ is more prominent, and the implicit ‘d’ less so.

    In my eyes there is an imbalance between the tilted up-beat ‘e’ and the double deckah drousy ‘a’. They create a visual arch / \ reminiscent of “sad eyebrows”. Although i like a double deckah ‘a’, the current one is falling a bit out of the style of the type being too slanted downwards to the right. Maybe opening up the small ‘o’ in the ‘a’ a bit or making it a bit flatter would help?

    Just some nit-picking 🙂

  43. rugk

    Personally, I really like #1 with it’s symmetrical shape much more. The reason is:
    1. it is thicker and thus likely better visible in low sizes. Just imagine this in 16x16px as a website favicon, I guess one can hardly see the small lines of the other approaches then.
    2. it is simpler and symmetric (thus also better to see in 16×16) and this feels easier to me.

    IMHO also that “stencil-like” is not bad, because why not use it as a stencil? You already did some things like that on your last proposal (filling the color with a different pattern).

    • mairin

      Neither of the two candidates in the last round had fill. Fill doesn’t make sense, it complicates the design, adds a lot of points to it and causes scaling issues bc it doesn’t scale properly. The one blog post showed how we had to resort to a fill as a temporary stopgap due to a fontawesome issue.

Comments are closed.