Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Re-branding's proposal #3160

Closed
PaulMaly opened this issue Dec 7, 2017 · 88 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@PaulMaly
Copy link

commented Dec 7, 2017

Warning, almost manifesto. Reading carefully! ))))))

Hi everyone - maintainers and developers!

I believe that Ractive is the most simple, but the most powerful front-end framework I ever used. In past, I'd used Backbone and Angular. Quite recently, I'd tried React and Vue. But no one of them could give me the same simplicity, convenience, and functionality that Ractive gives.

In spite of the fact that Ractive is an excellent tool for building web apps, he isn't so popular, even in comparison with younger colleagues (hi Vue). And our community isn't very numerous. 5К+ stars on GitHub are not the most outstanding result.

However, Ractive is still alive and develops. Thank you very much @evs-chris, @fskreuz, @martypdx and other guys who maintain it. And of course to you @Rich-Harris, founder of Ractive.

I use Ractive in my work since 2013. Now in the end of 2017, we are very close to version 1.0. I believe it could be a turning point in the history of Ractive. I believe we could make Ractive more widespread and popular to involve new developers and maintainers.

To do that, we need to not only develop Ractive itself but also to form an ecosystem around him. We need to have awesome docs, awesome plugins and libs, awesome learning materials and other resources. And also we need to make little bit more marketing activities.

My version of the new logo you can find here. As you can see, the main concept is as though the logo is an element of a Periodic Table. I think it's quite cool. Also, I offer to change Ractive's slogan to something short and simple to read. I found this article by Eugene Mirotin from TopTal and I think what its title is what we look for - "Ractive.js - Web Apps Made Easy".

Thanks that you have read it. Please, leave your comments and put a thumb up if you agree with my proposals. Thus I will be able to estimate a need for this work. Also, I hope that my logo and slogan become a part of new Ractive's brand.

Good luck!

UPDATE:

Ractive's new logo I offer:

ractive-logo-small

@fskreuz fskreuz added the meta/general label Dec 7, 2017

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 7, 2017

Slogan could need a refresh. It's probably no longer "Next-gen" (it probably was 5 years ago). And I think I remember someone also mentioned before to ditch the green. A "bold" color would be great.

As for the logo... Hmm... 🤔 Here's your competition:

React, Redux, GraphQL: (I really like FB's logo continuity)
image

React, Angular, Vue: (Angular's shield for heroism, needed against monstrous code :trollface: )
image

Inferno
image

CodeIgniter and Laravel (just throwing this in. I used to work with CI.)
image

Meteor:
image

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 7, 2017

If you think about it, Angular's "A on a red shield" isn't that different from Ractive's "R inside a green box" or Vue's "flying V". We're all in the same party. 🎉 😄

@evs-chris

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 7, 2017

A branding update is very much past due, especially for the tag line 😆. I'm beyond lousy at marketing, but I will say that I favor simplicity in logos. I do like the periodic table idea.

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 7, 2017

And don't forget our old friend/logo "anglebars"

image

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 7, 2017

Hoooo man I'm a big fan of Ractive and branding is my jam. Would love to throw some ideas in here too. @PaulMaly Would that be ok? No worries if not.

@ceremcem

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 7, 2017

@PaulMaly Thank you for this quite sincere "issue" :) I completely agree about the part before the new Ractive logo. 5K+ stars is not fair enough according to me too but sometimes this makes me think that Ractive is my secret weapon :))

I use many frameworks and libraries for my projects and I find Ractive people most kind and helpful. Ractive's past and current design is admiring. That can't be a coincidence. And this proposal, can't be a coincidence.

The logo part... I think it's something that easily strikes at the heart of any engineer :) I liked it.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Dec 7, 2017

@fskreuz Hi Joseph, thanks for your response.

And I think I remember someone also mentioned before to ditch the green. A "bold" color would be great.
If you think about it, Angular's "A on a red shield" isn't that different from Ractive's "R inside a green box" or Vue's "flying V". We're all in the same party.

I think I know what you mean but seems that it's a most popular modern logo style, especially for the Internet. Remember Facebook, Tumblr, Medium, and others.

In my logo, I've intentionally tried to leave all basic attributes of the old logo - same green color, "R" inside the box, etc, but make it a little bit more elegant and conceptual.

I didn't aspire to absolute novelty because it can have harmful affect an already available brand. It's more about re-design, not full re-branding of a logo. Maybe I'm wrong and we need to have full re-branding, but it's too unsafe I think.

I used to work with CI.

Oh, yea! CI, ExpressionEngine, good old days...

@evs-chris Thanks, Chris!

@simonlayfield Of course, Simon, join a party!

@ceremcem

sometimes this makes me think that Ractive is my secret weapon :))

Oh, yea! Me too, definitely! Sometimes I want to tell "them" - "wow, guys, why you so strain and suffer? Just use the Ractive and become happy". But they answer me: "omg, there is no +100500 modules for all occasions!" or "Ractive have only 5K stars on GitHub, how it can be an awesome thing?" Sh!t, I hate that.

The logo part... I think it's something that easily strikes at the heart of any engineer :) I liked it.

Thanks, I really appreciate that!

How about the tagline, anyone has any other ideas?

@paulocoghi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 7, 2017

@PaulMaly

Maybe I'm wrong and we need to have full re-branding

I am in favor of a full re-brand. :)

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Dec 7, 2017

@paulocoghi Thank you that you here.

I am in favor of a full re-brand. :)

Sure, no problem. I think we could accept to discussion all proposals. Go ahead!

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Dec 7, 2017

One more idea that Ractive needs to have more concrete positioning itself on the market. Something like a niche where Ractive is the best no doubt. I suppose it could be something like "Framework for environment-agnostic web apps"

Environment agnosticism is the capacity of a framework to work with various environments without requiring any special adaptations. It's quite similar to isomorphism (universal web apps), but has some differences. For example, the Meteor is bright representative of isomorphic approach, but it still using obvious separation of a code on server and client sides.

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 7, 2017

Ractive is positioned as "Optimised for your sanity" - and I think it's a good enough niche.

I'd skip the performance, isomorphic, functional pitches. Although Ractive is secretly capable of doing all of those, I wouldn't pit Ractive against more hype-driven, battle-hardened frameworks with the numbers and the products to prove it and large companies backing them up.

If we're to start pitching Ractive as a great framework, a good start would be logos of products and companies on the homepage... like jsDelivr's for starters.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Dec 7, 2017

@fskreuz

"Optimised for your sanity"

Actually, I don't know what does it mean. ))) For me it's just a few buzz-words, they mean nothing. These words don't explain to me should I start the new project with Ractive? What types of projects I can cover, using it.

For example, my company working with Smart TV projects. Can I use Ractive on Smart TV? Let's look: "Optimised", "for", "your", "sanity". Ok, I'm sanity-man, but Smart TV industry not. It's a piece of...stupidness )))))) I still can't make a decision to take Ractive. And after that, it brings me a brilliant idea - I'll just look at the GitHub stars and compare. Epic fail, here.

I'd skip the performance, isomorphic, functional pitches. Although Ractive is secretly capable of doing all of those, I wouldn't pit Ractive against more hype-driven, battle-hardened frameworks with the numbers and the products to prove it and large companies backing them up.

It makes sense, that's why I suppose that we need to find a rather narrow positioning. On the one hand, it shouldn't be too narrow, on the other hand, shouldn't be occupied by other players. We don't need to fight with them, we need to find our own way.

For example, from the beginning and possibly until now, Riot.js was positioned as "the best solution for the development of a website widget". Why? Because, it's small, fast and makes work easier. And because guys who maintain it uses Riot.js to develop own awesome widget (https://muut.com/). So, when I thought, what tool I need to take to develop callback widget I have quikly remembered about Riot.js. Because of positioning.

And as you can see, there isn't a lot of articles about Riot.js vs React.js or Riot.js vs whatever. No, Riot.js stands little bit beside all this battle. But even Riot.js has 12K+ stars on GitHub. Not much, because it's niche too narrow. We able to fix this mistake with Ractive.

If we're to start pitching Ractive as a great framework, a good start would be logos of products and companies on the homepage... like jsDelivr's for starters.

No doubt.

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 7, 2017

ractive-logo-draft-001

I had a little time this morning to whittle something out, but it's by no means polished and I have some other rough ideas that I can develop further.

So, I'm actually cool with green - although I did find that brightening up the shade of green used in the original branding helped it to feel a bit fresher (as well as a gradient which isn't essential and can be used without).

I wanted to keep it simple, but perhaps add some of the polish that other tech logos seem to share. This concept should be pretty obvious I guess. The R is made up of building blocks, or 'components'.

For the typeface I actually also tried not to stray too far from the original. It's not the same obviously but it's a slightly condensed capital R. The 'Ractive' typeface and strap are, I think, a good balance for Ractive. It's simple and verging on playful, but also clean and professional. The strap obviously has yet to be agreed on/decided of course, but used this for presentation purposes.

In summary, I believe in what Chris Coyier would call "evolutionary design, not revolutionary design". I think that the original logo has enough there to build on and evolve, so I tried to take that and move it forward.

Happy to take feedback, or scrap it and move on if it's off the mark. Totally fine either way, just happy to be involved.

Thanks.

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 7, 2017

Dang! I've actually noticed there's some irregularities in the kerning of the 'Ractive' typeface. Annoying, but easily fixed.

@evs-chris

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2017

Disclaimer: I couldn't design my way out of a wet paper bag in a hailstorm.

@simonlayfield I like that concept, but it feels a little bit busy. I've also never been wild about condensed fonts, as I've spent waaay too much time with arial narrowin the land of legally binding documents. I poked at it a bit, and I kinda liked the R split into four bits and in a normal width font like deja vu sans mono.

A complete rebrand has been proposed on more than one occasion, and I'll say it is tempting. I can't count how many times people have asked me what "reactive.js" or "r-active.js" are. I'm not clever enough to come up with something that would justify walking away from the branding that has been built up, though. Maybe we should just change the tag line to "as in interactive" 😆.

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2017

I'm cool with a rebrand. But we'll need a checklist somewhere if we ever proceed to do a complete rebrand. Things that will require changing would be:

  1. The npm org name - For publishing everything under one namespace.
  2. The github org name - For the docs site.
  3. The js.org domain name - For the docs domain.
  4. The docs site theme/content
  5. The library name, of course.
  6. The name everywhere in the code.
  7. [insert something that needs to be renamed somewhere]

Plus we'd need a feature update on all published code to put a deprecation notice saying we've renamed and what the replacement will be. Add migration notes as well. Plus since people will still reference Ractive, it's probably going to stay in life-support until everyone moves away...

😱

Feels like it's better to just start a totally different library from scratch with no associations with Ractive. In that case, let's all move to Svelte en masse :trollface: .

@ceremcem

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 9, 2017

@simonlayfield I liked your design too as it's much simpler. But I think there are 2 problems:

  1. The green stripes (same green as the background) on the R is random and has no meanings?
  2. The random stripes are too thick that it's very hard to read an R, which feels less certain. The very same problem is with @PaulMaly 's {{web.apps.made.easy}} part. It's well designed, but very small (as he tried to make it appear as a periodic table element format (tried to align it to the bottom left).
@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 10, 2017

@ceremcem The intended tie-in with Ractive as a concept was that the 'R' is made up of separate blocks, like components. It's a little tenuous perhaps, but as I say I didn't spend too much time on it.

I actually hadn't considered the R was difficult to read, although I guess it's not necessarily something that needs to be immediately readable. It's a companion logo to the RactiveJS typeface and they're designed to work together in most cases so it can afford to be a little abstract. Using the Vue logo as an example (see above), seeing this on it's own isn't necessarily 'readable' as the letter 'V'. I mean, it's obvious that it is when you know that the name of the product is Vue.js - but if it was called 'Bermuda.js' then you'd most likely identify it as a series of triangles (as in, the Bermuda triangle) and not a V at all. The React logo is even more abstract (a la Nike tick), which I'd be happy to attempt if there are ideas for what kind of logo form Ractive would suit?

Anyway - all feedback is constructive and I'm happy to crank out more ideas!

Thanks all.

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 10, 2017

Alrighty! I probably should have started with this to be honest.

ractive-logo-draft-002

So, points to note are that (based on above feedback) the R is less busy, and thus more readable (@ceremcem @evs-chris ). I also changed the R back to the original (current) Ractive typeface 'Voltaire', except I've modified it to make it less condensed. It also has ever-so-slightly rounded corners (consistent with green square corners). I've also removed the gradient and fixed the typeface kerning.

This is as simple and true to the original as possible - essentially just an update to the existing branding. I do get the impression that some people want a full rebrand but I guess there's little point in exploring that visually if there are still technical considerations being discussed.

@evs-chris

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 10, 2017

@simonlayfield now I'm sold on "bermuda.js - get lost in the simplicity triangle" 😁

I quite like that simplified logo. Nice!

prior disclaimer is still in full effect

I don't think it would hurt to split it into components, as in the original, just maybe not as many. When playing with it, I took it down to favicon size to get a feel for how it could be broken up while not dissolving completely at small scale.

I think it might also be slick to throw the "js" in the upper right corner like the periodic element idea as in the opening post, which would also put a bit more distance away from "R" the language.

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 10, 2017

That font and grey text, love it! 🎉 Also, the slight round edges on the text and logo give it a less serious, more playful feel. I think I've seen this effect somewhere, I think Slack or Discord. Speaking of Slack and Discord, I wonder how the logo would look like with a color their color schemes (light green, orange, yellow, red, or purple). 🤔

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 10, 2017

@evs-chris I also like the periodic element idea, although I have to say that visually I prefer it clean and simple as just an R in the square. It may have less of a theme (there's no derivative meaning from it), but it looks sharp and has a nice balance within the square on its own. I've mocked it up, though, so people can make their own call there.

ractive-logo-draft-003

The main challenge here is that the JS needs to be distinct enough to be read at small sizes. Any smaller than this and it's a little too illegible.

racive-icon

I've split up the R as before, but fewer pieces. I'm actually ok with this - it still looks clean and sharp. I haven't really spent time polishing the shapes, just put stripes through the letter as is. I've added the combined periodic/component treatment as well, but arguably things are getting noisy again...

I also removed the JS from the typeface in the last mockup in case anyone thinks there's a repetition in it being used in both the square and the type.

ractive-logo-draft-004

How are people feeling about the green? It'd be nice to really own a colour among the other frameworks above. Off the top of my head, this green is similar to Node.js but I'm not sure if that's an issue (is it?). Happy to stick with it, or change.

@ceremcem

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 10, 2017

Since an element can be useful both on its own and by combining the other elements, the periodic element idea automatically gives the "component based design / modular design" message.

@simonlayfield Simple R is nicer, combining it with the periodic element idea is much nicer. By the way, if it would be an element, it should not be Ra but might be R instead, as Ra is used for Radium already.

The green is much pastel than it should be, IMHO. Pastel colors seems nice to me, but taking it too far makes me think it's - kind of - hard breathing.

image

The slogan which has the same width as RactiveJS is much nicer and much clearer to me:

image

@PaulMaly 's original logo is like a periodic table element much more than the simplified one, I don't know why. Maybe because of the sharp edges, maybe because of inner frame, maybe because of the "Ractive" string under the "Ra" (element symbol). Combining them might be something like that:

image

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 10, 2017

@ceremcem Thanks for the feedback.

I think the only points I can offer regarding your iteration is that the JS and Ractive text within the square would be too small to read if the logo were to be displayed any smaller (which it's sure to be). The line within the square would also begin to blur with the edge at smaller sizes, so if it needs to be there it would have to be offset from the edge a bit more, I'd say.

The green I think just comes down to preference. I prefer to draw it back a bit because I think it locks in a bit better with the tone of the grey typeface, maybe. I'm not wed to it, though, so if others prefer a more luminous green then I'm cool with it!

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 10, 2017

Just throwing it out there. "RJS" on first glance, RequireJS comes into mind. Then the R language ("R in JS"). Maybe ditch the "R" (or letters in general) and maybe go for something graphical? React and family do have the atom/molecule logos for their projects.

image

image

image

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 11, 2017

@fskreuz I think while conversations like this are still happening and it's still unclear as to what is required from a rebrand I'll hold off from adding more mockups.

It's a little difficult to know if everyone is in agreement on this too, so would the most effective (fair) way to approach this be a poll? Or are there stakeholders that should be making this call being that they are the primary drivers of the direction of Ractive?

I'm totally cool either way of course, I'd just rather not gallop ahead with concepts if there's still high level discussion to be had.

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 11, 2017

it's still unclear as to what is required from a rebrand

@simonlayfield that would be a question for @PaulMaly since he posted the original question.

I'm just throwing in ideas, some of which may or may not be on target at all. I just don't want this to be a case like PHP where it ended up using \ as the namespace separator only because the choices provided were terrible (seriously, not even ., / or even a single : were in the choices). Lots of choices, lots of ideas, lots of discussion, the better. 😁

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 11, 2017

@fskreuz Yeah absolutely. Don't get me wrong, ideas are great and I'm still keen to continue developing them but I think there's a number of options depending on what is necessary.

To list the high level options:

  • Full visual rebrand (+ change the name Ractive)
  • Full visual rebrand (+ keep the name Ractive)
  • Evolve current name/branding (+ change green)
  • Evolve current name/branding (+ keep green)

There are more options once this has been decided, like logo form which you mention above, but first things first I think it's important to get an indication of what level of work is required.

@PaulMaly What do you think the best way to decide this would be? Should we be reaching out to the wider Ractive community somehow? Maybe a poll or survey or something?

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here. A lot of people are involved with Ractive and have put a lot of time in to making it great. Anyone else has just as much right to take the wheel, so let me know if this is getting a bit hectic. Sometimes sitting on the idea for a while helps to make clearer decisions, too.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Dec 11, 2017

Holy Ractive! I never saw here such hot discussions! I'm glad that topic has hooked so many people. Thank you guys to get involved.

@simonlayfield Thanks for your activities. I think you're right in the case that we need to make a decision which type of re-branding we prefer. I believe I described my point of view very clearly above. But if not, so let's tried again.

Full visual rebrand (+ change the name Ractive)

No, I don't think we need to re-name Ractive to something else. I think, right now it's the worst move we can do. I haven't missed @evs-chris point about "reactive.js" or "r-active.js". Yes, it's a little bit confusing, but we already have this name and many people know this name. I think new name has to be only for brand new thing.

Full visual rebrand (+ keep the name Ractive)

It's a possible option. Actually, not so a lot of things we could re-design in Ractive, because Ractive hasn't any brand-book and all that stuff, you know.

Evolve current name/branding (+ change green)
Evolve current name/branding (+ keep green)

About the color, I'm not sure, but I think current color the part of the current Ractive's brand. And I don't think we need to cut-out current brand and create the new one from scratch. I think we need to refresh original brand and create some additional brand attributes to complete it.

Small comment
@ceremcem

Simple R is nicer, combining it with the periodic element idea is much nicer. By the way, if it would be an element, it should not be Ra but might be R instead, as Ra is used for Radium already.

It doesn't matter, that it's Radium. Above, Joseph told that many other use first letter as a logo. Periodic element idea gives us a reason to be more unique because in Periodic element admit to use two first letters. No one doing that in logo, but we could with this idea.

Simplified version of my idea:

ractive-logo-2-small

@simonlayfield

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jan 10, 2018

Ok, so here's the concept I believe satisfies the brief most effectively. I've also added a quick mockup of the current ractive.org layout wth this logo for some context. I also thought this was a good opportunity to try something a bit fun with the logo - just on the homepage. The peel effect was supposed to tie in with the 'web apps made simple' strapline - as in, it's as easy and fun as a sticker sheet. It's a little tenuous, granted, but I still think the homepage might be a good opportunity to do something fun. I have other examples I've tried but don't want to clutter this post with options.

The colour was something I settled on because after trying lots of shades of green I decided to go back to square one with choosing a colour. I think this blue colour, along with a dark grey, is cool (as in temperature), fresh and different. As you can see there's a darker tone of the blue that's used for text (mostly) in order to be AA compliant in accessibility standards. While this might not be explicitly mentioned in the brief I think we should have this covered. Vue.js, for example, doesn't. Like, at all.

Vue homepage
Vue green text contrast
Vue grey text contrast

screen shot 2018-01-11 at 9 25 51 am

screen shot 2018-01-11 at 9 20 19 am

Let me know if you need anything else for the poll. You needn't add my previous concepts to be honest. This one is kind of the culmination of those efforts.

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 11, 2018

Here's an idea @simonlayfield : Tilt the icon slightly counter-clockwise. Makes the "R" look like something bounced off a slope and flew off. Also makes it more like a real sticker - no one really puts it up straight, it's always a wee bit misaligned. 😁

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jan 11, 2018

Well, let's vote for it. If I've missed something - feel free to kick me.

Poll

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 11, 2018

Poll missing the full variant (logo with text) #3160 (comment)

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jan 12, 2018

@fskreuz In my opinion, it's a quite equal logos and perhaps it's not necessary to show up both versions. Should we replace logo variant without text to the logo with text?

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 12, 2018

it's a quite equal logos and perhaps it's not necessary to show up both versions

Not really. It loses context. What was the criteria for choosing "logo only" versus "logo with name" for the poll?

Should we replace logo variant without text to the logo with text?

It should be constant for everyone. I suggest putting the full logo (logo-and-text variants) for all selectable logos. A user can deduce what the graphic-only logo will look like from the full logo, but not the other way around.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jan 12, 2018

@fskreuz Unfortunately, the offered variants are not very normalized. I think we should select an idea of the logo (I wrote it in a welcome text of the poll), but not the logo design itself. Because seems all these variants not ready for production and need to be improved.

So, I think we can choose the best idea of the new logo and after that finish the chosen variant, more thoroughly.

If you really sure that this is two different logo ideas, so we can add it to the poll separately. For me, it's a single idea in different forms.

@paulocoghi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jan 12, 2018

Excellent work from @simonlayfield

@dagnelies

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 1, 2018

Wow, this one generated a lot of ink written! I'd like to add my 2 cents too. As a rebranding -warning warning danger- a complete renaming might be considered as well. 😉 Why do I say this? Because with many people I've met, discussion went like this:

  • Bla bla bla
  • I'm using ractive
  • You mean React, right?
  • No, ractive.js
  • Ok, I'll take a look at it ...googles for Reactive

This is a picky detail, granted, but it annoyed me since it occured nearly every time I spoke with someone.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 1, 2018

@dagnelies

I believe it's worst what we can do right now. Also, I think it's not that thing, which prevents Ractive to be more popular. For example, Vue has the same problem, because Vue and View seem to have the same transcription - [vju:]. So, many people also googles for ViewJS when hearing it. But we see, it does not prevent Vue be so popular.

Besides, Ractive word have a roots (http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/Ractive).

@dagnelies

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 1, 2018

I agree it would probably do more harm than good.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 6, 2018

I have started the poll about month ago. So, seems any who wanted to vote already did that.

Results you can find here.

Interesting that current logo in third place )))

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 8, 2018

Improved version of "Periodical table's element" idea in different colors:

2018-02-09 0 03 11

2018-02-09 0 01 34

2018-02-08 23 54 35

2018-02-08 23 50 41

2018-02-08 23 52 37

2018-02-08 23 48 21

2018-02-08 23 45 38

2018-02-08 23 58 15

2018-02-08 23 56 30

@dagnelies

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 9, 2018

Hi

sorry to barge in again, but I think one key aspect was not given enough attention: such a logo is often employed as small icon. As icon in the corner of a site, as a favicon, next to links...

The "voted for" one, albeit nice, fits mostly when shown really big. Once you scale it down to small icon size, it becomes barely readable. That's why I'd prefer the lightweight version of @simonlayfield ...perhaps with a small dark "a", dunno. It also offers a nice continuity since it uses the same font/color.

I also like the battery idea of @PaulMaly , especially if put in another light: an icon "powered with RactiveJS" that sites could put in the footer or so.

...and I would not be a fan at all of changing the color. There are so many places where it's used, it would totally disrupt it. Not to mention all the articles out there. Some continuity is an asset.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 9, 2018

@dagnelies I don't think that it looks bad in different sizes:
2018-02-09 11 59 56

One more argument, just look at Periodic Table:

periodic_table_of_the_elements-web

Each element icon is also not too big, right, but looks nice.

I agree with you about color.

@andreujuanc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 9, 2018

I liked @simonlayfield colors :) . I think current green is too organic, not so RadioACTIVE ☢️

About size, design can change for small ones (sort of responsive), for example, by removing the "a" on <= 48px and centering the "R".

@evs-chris

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 9, 2018

I definitely like the blue better than the current green. How about a compromise between @simonlayfield s final design and the winner - drop the 'a', center the 'R', use the blue for the background, round off the edges, and maybe drop the white inner border? That would be a bit more modern looking to me, but still keep the periodic feel and look nice with the sticker effect.

The current green feels a bit too grassy to me, and I think it's time to put it out to pasture.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 9, 2018

Periodic Table Element logo with @simonlayfield colors:

2018-02-09 23 59 34

@PaulMaly PaulMaly closed this Feb 9, 2018

@PaulMaly PaulMaly reopened this Feb 9, 2018

@evs-chris

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 19, 2018

Thought I'd drop this here in case it's of any interest. I still prefer @simonlayfield's final design, but it was fun playing with trying to mix various designs.

ra-sticker-2

@evs-chris

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 28, 2018

This was a pretty difficult decision, because there are many good, varied proposals in this issue. After much consideration, I've decided to go with the modular blue logo by @simonlayfield for a few reasons:

  1. It and its variations polled well, even though the poll didn't exactly get a huge response.
  2. It has a unique element that stands on its own, so it's portable to other formats and uses. I recognized this as a factor I should probably consider when trying to make the sticker above this into a round twitter-style avatar. It worked, but lost the periodic element feel entirely.
    • The unique element also works well with the colors inverted (blue R with white or no background), which is handy in many different situations.
  3. Even though it is fairly simple, it is elegant and still relates nicely to one of the main goals of ractive (make composing webapps from various bits as easy as possible). It even kinda looks like stitching.
  4. Got a thumbs-up from @fskreuz, who is the major force behind ractive.js.org.

@evs-chris evs-chris closed this Feb 28, 2018

@ceremcem

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 28, 2018

Wow, so this is it?! I was thinking that this will never have an end :D Many thanks to @PaulMaly for this proposal. I think the winner is him! :)

@andreujuanc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 5, 2018

Thanks to @PaulMaly for always pushing to get ractive better, and to @simonlayfield for the great design.

@PaulMaly

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Mar 6, 2018

Make Ractive Great Again! )))

@ceremcem

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 11, 2018

Maybe new colors require new {{code}} block colors, different from maroon:

image

What do you think?

@andreujuanc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 11, 2018

It's not soooo bad. But yeah, I agree. Brownish purple?

@ceremcem

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 12, 2018

Current colors are pretty good I think:

image

@fskreuz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 12, 2018

The dark teal from the palette should work nicely. Although you might need to work with whatever highlighter is used to achieve a consistent theme (highlighter may have more than a single color).

The font is also open for replacement, feel free to play with the typography. Formerly, it just reused the old fonts (Voltaire, Source Sans) and recently a different one (can't remember but it was something Android-y/Google-y). Anything that doesn't cause tears would be appreciated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.