Suggestion for new graphic profile / logo

[Martin Loxbo (811805)]

Only updating new documents would indeed not be too much work, but most of our documents are not new but a continuous work in progress, which are updated whenever there is an update in procedures.

For example, today I've put the final touches on updating the Swedish LOPs when NTL VOR is withdrawn and replaced by reporting point TOVRI. A very minor change but it requires at least 5 documents to be updated. If I had to update logos and other graphical standards in all those documents the work that might take 30 minutes for replacing NTL/TOVRI would probably take a couple of hours instead.

[Bork Johnsen]

I think having the perhaps soon to be old logo in older documents will work fine. Regardless of whether a document contains the old or the new logo, people will understand which vACC the logo belongs to. To prove my point, I don't see people getting confused over American Airlines flying with an old livery/logo, despite having changed their logo years ago, and I honestly find the problem with having old logos in documents to be non-existent. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Bork Johnsen

[Dace Nicmane]

7 hours ago, Mats Edvin Aaro said:

I have no say here, but I think it's genius. Though most people won't know the idea behind, it still looks great.

As for updating documents, real world companies change their logos, names etc., but it doesn't mean you have to change every old document. You're not even supposed to change a document once issued. It remains as an evidence of history. It's not like the logo's being changed because it's wrong, just updated.

[Henrik Sonstebo (1203470)]

As @Bork Johnsen here points out, there's nothing standing in the way for a professional organisation to use an old logo or graphical profile for its old documents. Most of our training documents (at least for Norway FIR) are way outdated anyways. It's way more important to have correct information in our documents than to have a consistent graphical profile all over, incl. the old documents.

The documents that are outdated we'll have to change anyways, as the info there is outdated and either false as for what's regular practice, or as for how the world of aviation has changed. Even our Exam document is outdated, as per our practical standards, where examiners often require to see the examinee deal with an emergency and where the requirement for a military flight under a checkout is not practiced.

I find it more unprofessional that spoken or verbal procedures are not consistent with what's actually written down in our documents. Time and time again I have to tell my students to disobey our training manuals, because they have false information in them.

[Mathias Johnsen (839996)]

On 11/8/2017 at 11:15 AM, Mats Edvin Aaro said:

The idea of connecting the 5 hubs is not bad. But in my opinion it doesn't work . It's to big (the logo symbol), if you want to use it on all platforms.
The text is not bad, try to have the same horizontal scale and size on both lines (vatsim and scandinavia) then you have an open room next to "vatsim". This is where our symbol/avatar should be placed. It should not add this much white-space. Remember that the main use of the logo is text documents in our case. If we wanted to build two/three version of the logo it does not matter. We could have a document logo, a web logo, and a presentation logo. ( Sidenote: I dont like the idea of FIR specific logos, We are ONE vACC and should not profile us as 5 different ones)

For everyone watching this, don't think that the symbol presented here has to stay in that format for every setting.

I have long thought about remaking the design-profile for vatsca, but it is a big process and it has to be original and easy to recognize even if it is only the symbol showing. And for some time now, I've wanted to make an avatar for our logo/brand instead of a symbol, an avatar that we can animate for presentations and have a more futuristic design.

The avatar could be a nice little ATC robot (for ex), that can speak on animated presentations, jump up and down and celebrate whenever we get awards. I've wanted to make animated overlays and alerts for twitch/streaming platforms because more and more people are starting to stream when they are controlling/flying online. I have a lot of plans/wishes for the design, but things takes time and has to be done with 100% professionalism. 

A complete design-profile is not needed in my opinion, as this is not a company with strict guidelines on how the profile should be. We just need a coherent understanding to how we want to be viewed from the outside.

Just remember not to rush with this change.

If we have a designer/animator in our roster, contact me and we can look at some of my ideas together, then present it to the rest.

 

[Henrik Sonstebo (1203470)]

@Mathias Johnsen: Agreed. We don't need a complete graphical profile, but do we really need a logo at all then? Can't we just replace that as well with the text "VATSIM Scandinavia"? It's no problem doing that. However, I feel we as an organisation need to appear at least friendly, if not professional -- right now we just look like a dull group of people doing boring things. Just look at our graphical profile from an external point of view. It is embarrassing to say the least, when comparing our documents, posters, banners etc. with other vACCs and vARTCCs. Not necessarily because they look bad, but because there's no consistency or "refreshment" in them whatsoever.

Now, I totally agree with us not needing to rush this at all -- remember that we're all here because it's a hobby. But when someone actually works with graphical design for a living (or has it as a hobby) and has VATSIM as a hobby *cough*Mats*cough*, I don't see any reason to stop them from participating in the creation of a new graphical profile.

Also, I totally agree with your description of the process needed. It's a long process, that needs to be executed with 110% professionalism.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Henrik Sonstebo

[Mathias Johnsen (839996)]

22 minutes ago, Henrik Sonstebo said:

Also, I totally agree with your description of the process needed. It's a long process, that needs to be executed with 110% professionalism.

Hehe Typical Scandinavian people who says 110% all the time LOVE IT

But yeah I could try to pitch my ideas to @Mats Edvin Aaro and maybe he could make some more ideas?  If your not too hung up on the 5-hubs idea that is

[Halldor Bui Jonsson (812050)]

I was the one who designed the current logo in conjunction with Werner, so I can answer a little on what the triangle is.

It's actually derived paper-strip symbol for cleared to enter controlled airspace. It has nothing to do with the number of countries or hubs.

 

That said, I think your proposal is good looking, tying the number of countries or hubs may be something you want to avoid though as that could always change, you dont want to have to change the logo then...

 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Halldor Bui Jonsson

[Daniel Edwards (1193732)]

I'd like to bring up the discussion again about this.

Any updates or news about this identity update?

[Mats Edvin Aaro (1227980)]

I sent a formal proposal to the board, however after my recollection, I never got an answer... Only so much one can do.. :P