MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Discuss functionality of QuarkXPress 10, 9 & 8 (and before) (excluding Digital Publishing).
For Digital Publishing functionality please refer to forums in the "Digital Publishing" group.

As QuarkXPress 1 thru 10 are not supported by Quark anymore, please upgrade to a newer version of QuarkXPress if you are looking for official support. Support options for supported versions are here: http://support.quark.com

tperkins
Posts: 15
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:59

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by tperkins » 14 Sep 2005, 10:19

New logo leaves Quark green at the gills...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/14/new_quark_logo/

Jeff Weinman
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Oct 2004, 12:04

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Jeff Weinman » 14 Sep 2005, 10:23

Ace, thanks for pointing out to me how stupid I am sometimes. When looking at the Scottish Arts Council logo I thought to myself, "why would they use a 'Q'" for their logo. It never even occurred to me that it was an "a".

Wow... not too many neurons connecting on that. I need more Coke (not coffee, that stunts your growth and smells really bad).

Jeff

synterx
Posts: 32
Joined: 16 Jun 2005, 15:43

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by synterx » 14 Sep 2005, 23:12

that's classic stuff. Those links, especially that first one with yet another identical match is great. As a designer, I always struggle with something that hasn't already been done on logos. Just shows I'm not alone.

Linda
Posts: 1510
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 14:57

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Linda » 15 Sep 2005, 18:15

On the Sic list, the list of similar logos is seven or eight URLs long, I think. The more that crops up, the more obvious it is that no *one* company can claim it; Quark Inc is but one of a SERIES of organizations that is choosing to use this basic shape.

If there had been only ONE other organization, that would be bad, but that there are so many, so similar, shows that the Scottish Arts Council didn't care about any of those other companies using it... why care about Quark's using it?

In other news, Pantone has deemed Panton 368 (I think that was it) as "Quark Green"! I like that.

peace,
Linda :mrgreen:

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Jim Oblak » 16 Sep 2005, 07:34

[strong]Linda:[/strong]On the Sic list, the list of similar logos is seven or eight URLs long, I think. The more that crops up, the more obvious it is that no *one* company can claim it; Quark Inc is but one of a SERIES of organizations that is choosing to use this basic shape.

That is the sad part: not that Quark or its design agency 'stole' a logo concept from the Scots, but that Quark is just not that original. This is another blow to Quark's image after spending at least three years to catch up to InDesign 2 with their upcoming QuarkXPress 7 release. Creatives require tools from progressive (original) developers.

Linda
Posts: 1510
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 14:57

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Linda » 16 Sep 2005, 11:12

Jim wrote:

"That is the sad part: not that Quark or its design agency 'stole' a logo concept from the Scots, but that Quark is just not that original. This is another blow to Quark's image after spending at least three years to catch up to InDesign 2 with their upcoming QuarkXPress 7 release. Creatives require tools from progressive (original) developers."

OR...

Quark's design firm realized that this was a successful image throughout the arts- and design-related world, and hopped on the bandwagon. (See, there are two sides on every coin!)

I don't see XPress as "lagging behind" InDesign, so I take exception to that part of your statement too. It's called InDesign, not InLongDocument; great for people who design on the fly, but it's just not proved -- in my workflow -- to be the workhorse that XPress is.

That comes back around to the question of whether you want your page layout tool to be a design tool or not. I don't, but some do. To each their own. But, that doesn't mean that InD = good and XPress = bad. They are just different.

No matter where I go, there are always wars between the "top two":

Mac or PC?
XPress or InDesign?
Cats or dogs?
Civic Hybrid or Prius?

In every case, the answer is: "It depends, because they are different." It's impossible to rule, once and for all, that any choice is better than any other except on an individual, case-by-case basis.

peace,
Linda 8)

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Jim Oblak » 16 Sep 2005, 12:48

How do you reconcile the idea that Quark is hopping on a 'bandwagon' but that it is still original enough to be better than the competition? I think you missed the point.

You cannot promote a changed company and a leading design application when you are copying existing technologies and designs.

You cannot leap forward if you are stuck on the bandwagon.

http://www.creativepro.com/printerfrien ... 23380.html

Linda
Posts: 1510
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 14:57

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Linda » 17 Sep 2005, 22:30

There is no reply, as you're continuing to maintain a "better" or "worse" scenario. I'm not going there.

Not everything in life is "better" or "worse" than something else. When you open your mind to "different", you'll be much less bitter and acerbic.

til then,
Linda :D

longtimedesigner
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 11:01

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by longtimedesigner » 18 Sep 2005, 01:10

[quote:d460073063]Not everything in life is "better" or "worse" than something else. When you open your mind to "different", you'll be much less bitter and acerbic.

I guess it's "better" to be "different" than to be "better," since advocating being "better" is "being ascerbic." But, if one advocates being, "different," and claiming that it is "better" than being "better," is that an ascerbic perspective?

Anyway, I missed the part where Jim placed "everything in life" on the "better" or "worse" dichotomy. I thought he was commenting on whether it would be better for Quark to be more original in its identity and positioning.

Clearly, however, Quark isn't being, "different" anyway. So, how do you reconcile that? Personally, I to think it would be better for Quark to be "different," especially if that difference includes innovation, customer loyalty, functionality, stability, etc. An unoriginal logo doesn't offer any of that.

Post Reply

Return to “QuarkXPress 8, 9 & 10: General”