amorphouspy logo

[ltalirz]

The current logo

is a nice start, but in my view its high level of detail makes it more of an illustration than a logo - a logo needs to work also when scaled down to 128x128 or 64x64 pixels + we should probably have a version of the logo that includes the package name.

I.e. I think some more work is needed here, opening this issue to collect input

[Atilaac]

Here is a new suggestion.

[ltalirz]

Thanks @Atilaac ! I think this is much more suitable as a logo.
It still has a lot of detail for a logo, but perhaps that is needed to communicate the concept of "amorphous" (at least I don't yet have a better idea).
I like the minimalism in terms of shapes and color.

I think we should introduce a little color, both in the spelling of the package and the amorphous "blob".
In the spelling of the package, I suggest the color should highlight the "amorphous" part; that also gets rid of the problem of the tendency of reading "spy".

For the amorphous "blob", I think we should use the second color to make it a bit more recognizable (so people are able to recognize the logo when they see the 'blob' somewhere).
I haven't yet quite figured out a good suggestion of where to use the color, we should definitely keep it simple (not color in different atoms / different inside/outside etc).

P.S. If we stick with this, we may want to have a more detailed look at the bonds - some are currently round, I think we may want to make them straight or remove those and in general make the indicated network a bit closer to a reasonable bonding network (doesn't have to be perfect)

[ltalirz]

Btw just for illustration, this is how the small versions of the logo would look like

32x32

64x64

128x128

I actually think the small version works surprisingly well (we just drop the name of the package for anything below 64x64)

[Atilaac]

I have an idea about the coloring.

To have a gradient color from hot to cool or vice versa to highlight the quenching of a glass. This can go for the name. For the network shape we can do the same as the logo or color few atoms randomly to highlight chemistry.

[Atilaac]

I'll draft something today if I find some time later and Upload it here

[ltalirz]

If you manage, perhaps prepare a simple 2-color version as well.
Gradients are always tricky in logos, sometimes they don't print well / don't show well.

I'm also not convinced we should introduce another idea into the logo - I think communicating one idea is already enough (what you are suggesting would make sense for the supercool name though ;-) ).

[ltalirz]

(not following all my own suggestions; just the first try with nanobanana)

btw - on the amorphouspy vs supercool question: would it make a different to your vote if we could have the "supercool" name on PyPI?

I looked up the guy, he might just give it to us if we ask nicely

Just saying... I still think supercool is much more memorable, and actually a valid name for the package

[Atilaac]

We already voted and settled on amorphouspy a couple of months ago. The idea of amorphouspy ensures we have room to grow beyond melt-quenched glasses. More importantly, "supercool" is already taken, and we would need to negotiate with the owner to get it, which would be a waste of time and effort.

[Atilaac]

[Atilaac]

I have an SVG version of this high-quality logo.

[Gitdowski]

Color-wise, I prefer this cleaner blue/orange version over the orange/purple/green version of the previous post. But I could also live with less particles/details (this could improve the appearance on the small-sized versions).
Big fan of having the "py" in a separate color 👍

[Atilaac]

I cant see what image you are referring to.

Edit: I got your point!

[ltalirz]

I also like the blue/orange version better.

I would suggest to remove some of the very long and curved "bonds" (but no need for all bonds to perfectly make sense).

@Atilaac
If you can prepare a PR with this logo, we can then close the issue once it is reviewed

[Atilaac]

Is this better??
you can also share the colors as hexcode