Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:33:02 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Changing the rocket...What's up?
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Sam, at the Capclave meeting Alice Lewis's name came up as another graphic
designer (she works for the Washington City Paper these days) who was born
and raised in fandom -- her parents are Suford & Tony Lewis, and she's done
most of the latest NESFA Press book covers.

Ernest, when is the latest that you can have the new logo and still get it
on the book?  If it's not too late I think we should use that as our
deadline for making a decision and plan any work accordingly.

At 05:59 PM 2/26/05, Michael Walsh wrote:
> > ecfield at comcast.net 2/25/2005 9:42:53 PM >>>
> >I just created a quick image to share.  You can find it at the top of
>
> >this page:
> >
> >http://home.comcast.net/~ecfield/myspace.html

<snip>

>Here's what a few other clubs have done:
>http://www.lunacon.org/

I just found out that this was designed several decades ago by [name just
forgotten but noted comics person].  It's since been PhotoShopped and had
color added but the design is the same.

>http://nesfa.org/ (the club logo is worked into the NESFA Press logo)

IIRC, the tree is for New England, the rocket for SF, and I've forgotten
what the moon is about.  Properly rendered the tree is green, the
background blue, and the rest white.

>http://www.psfs.org/ (hmmm, no cheeseteak there...)

Nope.  The simplified version that shows up on my browser tabs seems to be
a black circle on a white ground with a white rocket headed towards about
1:30 with a black plume extending outside the circle on the other side --
looks good even when small.

>www.bsfs.org (it's a "fire dragon"... really.  But dragons can be
>skiffyish... McCaffrey's dragon stories were first published by Mr Hard
>SF himself: JWC, Jr)

And I like the clean, pen-and-ink rendering.

>http://www.cfg.org/

I like it and the shape but perhaps too much there?

Good things to pull from all of them.

>Personally I like the concept of the Original Design, & I do appreciate
>how Elspeth has, er, issues with it.

Actually, it's just that now and then I abruptly find that I still have
issues with the person who designed it and it takes me a bit of work to get
over things again -- and sorry for subjecting the group to them.  Dan did
good work and we should give him credit in the history section.  If someone
reminds me later on I'll try to come up with a firmer date for when he put
together the logo.

But even in the throes of being upset I like the concept of the original
design, the elements that made it up and the general shape.  The Capitol
dome and a Hugo-type rocket convey a sense of both the geography and the
group while the circle pulls them together.  It's also fannish without
being so cute that it doesn't fit in with the logos of other, non-fannish
organizations.  And it's the one that we've already been using for close to
a decade, so we already have something invested in it.  On the other hand
the colors are bad, it doesn't look much better in B&W, the styles are off
and the lettering looks as if it came from a typewriter.

Having looked over all of the things people have come up with thus far and
played about with some of them, and also looked at what other groups or
organizations have done I have some suggestions:

The logo should use pared-down versions of the elements that we have and
put them into a clean, simple design.  NESFA's is a bit too simple for my
taste but the shield logo is easily recognizable when scanning bookshelves
or other places that it shows up.  If you see that shape in the context of
SF, you immediately know that it's NESFA.  Similarly, glancing across the
currently open tabs on my browser it's obvious that two are from SFF.net,
one is NESFA, one is the Washington Post and another is the New York Times;
they all have simple, distinct logos.

Using the hollow circle for the WSFA lettering would have something of the
same effect, a shape that the eye comes to associate with a group even when
seeing it at a distance.  (I'm certain that there are other ways of coming
up with a distinctive shape but I can only offer critique, not having the
eye or skill to come up with anything more than a very general concept.)

It should look good in full color on the website or in B&W or -- what's the
term for just one or two colors? -- on a letterhead, contract, or
inexpensive business card.

It should be fannish rather than generic but also professional, that is,
something that works when dealing with people outside of fandom.  Sadly,
this means while I really, really love the image of the Capitol dome with a
propeller beanie I found on the WSFA website I can't recommend it.

Going over this discussion I came across something that Mike Penderson said
a while back, which bears repeating:

>Speaking as a professional graphic designer I have to say that the logo
>is charmingly cute but falls short of several requirements of good
>design. First off the three components (circle, Capitol, rocket) are in
>three different styles and don't mesh well together. Second, all of the
>detail work on the Capitol and the gradients on the rocket are too
>complex, the eye doesn't have a focal point to rest on. Third, a good
>logo needs to be easily rendered in both color and black and white and
>this one would not look anywhere near as good in black and white.

Obviously I don't agree with the "charmingly cute" but do agree with the
rest.  Would it make sense to take those three elements and first render
them in black and white, then add the color?  That might give us the clean
lines we're looking for, and also get us away from the pink and baby blue
which is still showing up in the suggested designs.

Elspeth