Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: I need a Textile logo
Thanks for the votes of confidence, and especially coming from our esteemed designer.
I’m fully aware of Netcarver’s involvement (and I will get in touch with him about that logo’s source), and he has my utmost respect for his development contributions to Textile. I’m pretty sure he’s not a designer, though, and may not even be the creator of that logo…
ax wrote #295950:
No, it is the official Textile logo
I’m not convinced that logo can be called “official” anymore than this one by Dustin Curtis can be for Markdown, for the simple fact neither language has an official standard, despite Atwood’s attempts to railroad one through for Markdown (which did not get the blessing of Gruber).
But unlike the Markdown logo created by Curtis, which clearly shows actual thought behind it, the Textile logo seems to have no recorded source at all; it’s as far away from being official as anything can be.
A few other things I’m able to observe:
Textile was born from Dean Allen for use with Textpattern. Dean never created a logo, but I’m sure he could have (considering his book/typography design background) and would not have approved of a capital “T” made out of three apostrophes, which doesn’t symbolize Textile in any way.
The Wikipedia page shows this version history of what is clearly the PHP version only, and they’re all tied to this community:
- 2004: v2.0 beta (Dean)
- 2006: v2.0 stable (zem)
- 2010: v2.2 (Netcarver, Bloke, et al — even included a feature I requested)
- 2012: v2.4 (Gocom)
A more updated release history is shown on the TxStyle site, indicating the latest version as 3.5.5.
The only other two Textile formats I can find is RedCloth (a Ruby version seemingly created in 2008) and one for Python (seemingly created in 2009). I’m not positive about those dates, and jgarber and sebix seem to be handlers of them, respectively.
The Textile Organization (GitHub’s term) lists the PHP version (Gocom/Netcarver), Python’s (sebix), and while RedCloth is not listed there, Garber is a contributor and appears to be the handler of a Textile Spec created in 2011, which has two issues, one of which is directed at Garber asking about textileit.com (offline and pointing to HoDaddy), which was presumably supposed to be the spec site. Based on that alone, I’d say the logo was meant to be more than just for PHP, but for Textile entirely, as a standard or spec that hasn’t actually been invented yet.
All things considered — and it’s just a guess, so I would happily stand corrected if anyone actually knows — but Garber probably created the 3-apostrophe logo one dark and gloomy night (sans care for the logo craft or manifest symbolism) with the idea of using it in relation with the spec website (which never materialized). He also probably added it on the Textile “organization” page (without any real objective from non-designers) with that spec intention in mind, and it’s just been sitting there in no official capacity ever since — an overlooked default. If it wasn’t Garber, then it was somebody else under a similar scenario, I’m sure.
So in preparation for my Medium article I’m going to pull a Dustin Curtis and create a Textile-mark repo on GitHub that will serve as a recorded source for a new logo mark, even if the logo mark is not “official”.
My version of the mark will be the one I showed previously, but I’ll probably work on that a little bit. As for the mark itself, I like just the “t.” — it’s 1) simpler, 2) reflective of the lettered parts of the syntax pattern, and 3) more to the nature of “just write” and “getting out of the way of the writer”. I think adding the parenthesis to symbolize selectors, for example, starts getting too geeky, IMO. (No offense, Nicolas.)
I would love to have more clarification on the history and details of things, however. That would be useful regardless of which direction is taken.
Last edited by Destry (2015-11-17 18:08:59)
Offline
#17 2015-10-23 12:44:42
- GugUser
- Member
- From: Quito (Ecuador)
- Registered: 2007-12-16
- Posts: 1,477
Re: I need a Textile logo
I like the logo. But, more space on the right side would better symbolize Textile (and break the symmetry).
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
The logo reminds me of tapatalk:
We Love TXP . TXP Themes . TXP Tags . TXP Planet . TXP Make
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
Trying GugUser’s idea of offsetting a bit…
Offline
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
A double-struck “t” for the sake of curiosity.
Btw, does anyone know the process for creating a unicode symbol? I notice they did that for the Markdown mark, which looks like [M↓], but I’m also asking because of a different project.
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
NicolasGraph wrote #296154:
I’m not a huge fan of the border but it is maybe useful to have a version with it…
I’m not a fan of it either, but agreed it might be useful to show the relative dimension/scale. So without the border it’s (x + x/2) top, left, and bottom and (3x + x/2) right.
Offline
#23 2015-10-23 19:13:36
- GugUser
- Member
- From: Quito (Ecuador)
- Registered: 2007-12-16
- Posts: 1,477
Re: I need a Textile logo
I prefer this version without border.
With Fontello you can create a font from a SVC icon.
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
I like the basic idea too!
I’d never heard of tapatalk, so that didn’t strike a chord, but if anything it’s precariously close to the tumblr logo. They use a (chunkier) serif lowercase t and a wordmark with a dot at the end, and are in a similar business area. Quite by chance I saw that there’s an example of how not to use the tumblr logo at the bottom left of their logo page: www.tumblr.com/logo that looks very similar to your first idea. At a larger size it’s not a problem: the typefaces are different enough. At a smaller size, e.g. that of an icon, the finer differences are less discernible.
What could make it clearer both from a differentiation point of view and identity point of view is making GugUser’s idea a little more pronounced (the Germans say konsequenter = more deliberate), e.g. making the box wider, more rectangular (notionally like an input box or a textarea) and ranging the t. left as if it is about to start a sentence… That make it more readily distinguishable (albeit smaller) from other common variants…
EDIT: I agree, the flat version is definitely better
TXP Builders – finely-crafted code, design and txp
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
Destry wrote #296155:
Btw, does anyone know the process for creating a unicode symbol? I notice they did that for the Markdown mark, which looks like [M↓], but I’m also asking because of a different project.
Unicode symbols are parts of font types; I’m not sure to understand; how do you want to use it?
Last edited by NicolasGraph (2015-10-23 20:07:39)
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
Destry wrote #296155:
does anyone know the process for creating a unicode symbol? I notice they did that for the Markdown mark, which looks like [M↓], but I’m also asking because of a different project.
I misunderstood the Markdown example. I thought it was a single unicode glyph, but I realize now it’s four glyphs suggested for used as a stand-in when the logo image itself can’t be used.1
jakob wrote #296161:
but if anything it’s precariously close to the tumblr logo. They use a (chunkier) serif lowercase t and a wordmark with a dot at the end…
Good spot. I had thought of Twitter’s old logomark, which they no longer use, but not tumbler’s. In fact every letter of the alphabet — uppercase and lower — is used in various logos in various ways and typefaces (sans serif, serif, script, etc), so there’s always going to be some “overlap” with something, no getting away from it entirely. I’m not too worried about that. But tumbler is an interesting situation here that we can probably gauge things by. If we pass this test we’re in the clear. There’s a couple of interesting things there worth touching on:
- the wordmark
- tumbler’s do not for using the period
- typeface
What tumbler does is use a logo mark that’s consistent with it’s wordmark — both employ a lower-case “t”. In the case of Textile, the lower-case “t” and dot, t., make symbolical sense (the way the syntax is used), and I really like that, but it’s not consistent with Textile’s name spelling, which uses a capital “T”. And in my opinion, a Textile logo mark like this T. doesn’t convey the language syntax as effectively. Which begs the question: why not create a Textile wordmark too? I mean, can we even say it has one? If not, the door is wide open and we can do things like textile or t.extile.
With regard to tumbler’s rule about the dot (can not leave it out on the wordmark or add it on the logo mark), I’m proposing the exact opposite: we can leave it out in the wordmark, and it must exist in the logo mark (the nature of Textile usage), so that’s probably enough right there to satisfy the distinction between brands.
But we could nudge that further with the typeface choice. We don’t have to use PT Serif (the bottom example in the image above, in bold weight). The interesting thing about the doublestruck glyphs (equating to Cambria Math on my Mac) is they give some clear distinction against other types of serifs.
At the same time, maybe we should downplay the relationship between Textile and Textpattern, since it’s really Textpattern that’s closer in product type to tumbler. Textile is a “markup language”, which is a different game of sorts, and that might be a reason not to use PT Sans too, because Txp is already using it.
With regard to offsetting the logo mark, even making the logo rectangular, that only makes sense if we consider the background colors as part of the mark, which then gives the relative sense of measure. But what if the idea is to just use the mark alone? Then that sense of left-alignment doesn’t actually make sense anymore unless we define how close something can be on the four sides of it, which is possible.
I mean, we could still say something in the spec like: top, left, and bottom must not be closer to anything than 1/3 the mark width (x/3), and nothing should be within 2x the distance on the right side. But for an immediate sense of effect, you’d have to have a field color. Should a color and rectangular field be part of the mark?
1 Not to get off topic, but my question about creating glyphs was in relation to the extinction symbol — making a glyph for it. So I guess what you’re saying, Nicolas, is you can’t create a single unicode glyph? It has to be one of an entire set of glyphs, or a trademark, or something?
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
Continuing with the conceptual exploration…
By way of another forum conversation, I came across one of Dean’s old posts, which shows his forum signature he used back when the boards were first put up: text*, or text-wildcard, which meant to suggest all his text things: textpattern, textile, textism…
So having a bit of fun with that against the ideas so far, but using the asterisk in the subscript position instead (more like a dot), maybe it could pass as a wordmark. I even like PT Serif here.
Or maybe instead of a wordmark, it’s the actual logo mark, so you have the full name as a wordmark (textile), and the logo mark pays a bit of homage to it’s creator in a slightly different way. You could say the asterisk — following along with the wildcard idea — is symbolizing the “tile” concept (e.g., when you tile a background image as x, y, or repeat). In this case, we can think of it as tiling alphanumeric characters, which is not unlike what we do when writing.
Whatever the case, I feel we can say this for sure:
t.is sufficiently unique enough as a logo mark against any other logos (e.g, tumblr’s), and even PT Serif is fine.- If the logo mark is indeed
t., it should include the wider right margin, but the background color is optional (specs can be created for both situations). - If the logo mark is
text*— regardless if asterisk is superscript or subscript position — a wider right margin is not needed. - If we include a wordmark (needed?) it should be written out full,
textile(but should it be capitalized?)
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
Just wanted to say, I like what you’ve done and think your simplest textile box and wider t. with box are fine – heck you can draw the logo with textile :-) The star idea is more cryptic than the dot, but the dot has a reason so “understanding textile” also means you “understand” the logo. I don’t think any of the outline versions are as clear or that they add anything.
Seen together, it looks a little odd that the boxes aren’t the same height – I can see that’s got to do with the low height of the t versus the l – but as one will be using one or the other but not both together, it’s not important.
TXP Builders – finely-crafted code, design and txp
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
Last visual from me here. Next stop is the textile-mark GitHub repo.
Although I’ve added a full wordmark here, I won’t add that to the repo yet because it probably needs more discussion with regard to the lowercase “t”. It can always be added later if/when it’s clear a wordmark is even useful. I don’t need a full wordmark for my essay, so I can move on with the repo at this point. But, again, we can always add it later as a mark option, just like tumblr offers.
Regarding the icon… I noticed that Dustin Curtis’ Markdown mark spec doesn’t give a reference for a basis of value “x”, and there should be one in relation to the typeface, otherwise how do you know what the relative scale of “x” is? So I’ve done that for the textile mark, using what seemed like the obvious choice — the stem width of the “t”.
As noted in the image:
- x = width of stem for a lower-case “t” set in PT Serif, bold weight.
- 2x = top, left, and bottom padding between letter mark and field edge
- 6x = right padding, a larger space to suggest actual textile usage
Calculations for the images shown were based on an initial 96pt font size, which in that case:
- x ≅ 12px
- 2x = 24px
- 6x = 72px.
It doesn’t matter what font size is used because the typeface scales proportionally. At this point it should only be necessary to create a vector version and then various .png sizes can be created from that, I guess.
But I don’t use Adobe applications (too expensive and bloated for my wimpy laptop), and I have no clue where to start with creating SVGs, so this is where I’m hoping the graphics-inclined will contribute to the repo.
Offline
Re: I need a Textile logo
Destry wrote #296268:
Last visual from me here. Next stop is the textile-mark GitHub repo.
Thank you.
What about the ‘border radius’?
Offline