Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New GitHub Logo

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: New GitHub Logo

#91

Post by jlogsdon »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #90
tmhedberg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the official Git README: "git" can mean anything, depending on your mood. - random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not actually used by any common UNIX command. The fact that it is a mispronunciation of "get" may or may not be relevant. - stupid. contemptible and despicable. simple. Take your pick from the dictionary of slang. - "global information tracker": you're in a good mood, and it actu…

Wonderful. And that's why git's awesome.

Well, Linus is. But by extension that makes git awesome so you are technically correct (the best kind).

Re: New GitHub Logo

#92

Post by gojomo »

jawns wrote: post #2

When the Octocat Mark is rendered at any size less than 75x75 pixels, it's pretty much impossible to tell that the "tail" of the cat is actually a tentacle. That's unfortunate, because on https://github.com/logos the only recommended use for the mark is in social buttons, which are going to be relatively small. Even at larger sizes, the tentacle just seems tacked on.

Maybe that's OK: we know it's a tentacle, others can just blissfully think it's a tail.

Re: New GitHub Logo

#94

Post by wfraser »

addandsubtract wrote: post #87
trhaynes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Compare the logo in the blog post to the one in the masthead. And then go one step further and compare to the favicon (no tail there). The small sizes don't have to convey that the tail is a tentacle, they just have to convey "GitHub".

There is a tail in the new favicon[0] It's also been the old logo[1] [0] https://github.com/favicon.ico [1] http://octodex.github.com/favicon.ico

Only at larger sizes. At the 16x16px version, there isn't anymore.

Re: New GitHub Logo

#95

Post by hga »

Tobu wrote: post #93

From https://github.com/logos Please don't do these things: - Create a modified version of the Octocat or GitHub logo Do they have something against the Octodex? http://octodex.github.com/

http://octodex.github.com/faq.html

The most relevant one:

"Q: Can I submit an octocat to the Octodex?

We make quite a few octocats here at GitHub. Since they probably wouldn't be seen by more than a few people internally, we created the Octodex as a way to show them to the world. Everything on this list is official GitHub artwork and is under GitHub's trademark license, so we only include submissions from people affiliated with GitHub."

And their quality is indeed very high.

Since others might be wondering about the implications of what you quoted:

"Q: Can I make my own octocat?

So long as it is created for personal/fan use, you are more than welcome to create and display your own octocat. If you choose to distribute your octocat, you may not do so with a license, Creative Commons or otherwise, that allows modification or distribution of the octocat."

Re: New GitHub Logo

#96

Post by thedaniel »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what? Github is still run by its founding team. They're big because they sell something that is extremely awesome compared to the market substitutes. The good guys don't always win, but they did this time. Spare us the anti-corp agita.

They are stretching past the ability of a founding team to be intimate with everything - which in many many ways is fantastic - top 1% of startups only. But I read an outsourced rebranding that came in nicely wrapped up, even with legalese in appendix A. And then octo-goodness sprinkled on top. This does not feel like a move and an announcement with GitHub DNA at is heart. It feels added on. Done well, but my antenna…

"But I read an outsourced rebranding that came in nicely wrapped up, even with legalese in appendix A."

I can assure you, your read is wrong. This work was done by GitHubbers collaboratively and painstakingly.

Re: New GitHub Logo

#97

Post by pacomerh »

jawns wrote: post #2

When the Octocat Mark is rendered at any size less than 75x75 pixels, it's pretty much impossible to tell that the "tail" of the cat is actually a tentacle. That's unfortunate, because on https://github.com/logos the only recommended use for the mark is in social buttons, which are going to be relatively small. Even at larger sizes, the tentacle just seems tacked on.

Yeah totally, when small it looks like its waving a hello

Re: New GitHub Logo

#98

Post by lifeisstillgood »

thedaniel wrote: post #96
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are stretching past the ability of a founding team to be intimate with everything - which in many many ways is fantastic - top 1% of startups only. But I read an outsourced rebranding that came in nicely wrapped up, even with legalese in appendix A. And then octo-goodness sprinkled on top. This does not feel like a move and an announcement with GitHub DNA at is heart. It feels added on. Done well, but my antenna…

"But I read an outsourced rebranding that came in nicely wrapped up, even with legalese in appendix A." I can assure you, your read is wrong. This work was done by GitHubbers collaboratively and painstakingly.

Thank you, then I stand corrected. My antennae will have to go back to the shop. :-)

Good luck with the rebrand and the (I suspect) avalanche of new stuff to be doing.

cheers

Re: New GitHub Logo

#100

Post by wilfra »

markdotto wrote: post #59
mimiflynn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks pretty twitter bootstrap like, if you ask me. I feel that a lot of designs are ending up like this due to bootstrap influence, which, might be influenced by dropbox for all I know.

I wrote all the styles for Bootstrap and refactored GitHub's forms and buttons a few months ago for a similar approach. Not 100% the same, but definitely close. All those styles are tested thoroughly within Bootstrap and made it super easy to update and standardize our styles, while at the same time dropping mad duplicate code. The overall homepage though I think looks nothing like Bootstrap's docs, if that's what yo…

Slipped my mind that you went to Github. Definitely looks a lot like Bootstrap as well. Though if it wasn't inspired by Dropbox, there are nevertheless some strong similarities. Namely the signup form, footer and the call to action for the paid product. I can see developers not understanding what I mean, but surely a designer must!

Not trying to be critical by the way. I'm a huge fan of every company/framework/person etc mentioned here. I'm just really interested in the form, function and messaging of homepages.

Post reply on HN