[Autocrypt] Logo design considerations

[holger krekel]

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 06:18 +0300, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Lurking except when something like communications comes up where I feel
> I might contribute:
> 
> On 02/05/17 10:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > On Tue 2017-05-02 08:39:50 -0700, Noah Swartz wrote:
> >> As far as size and shape, we seemed to agree that something that would
> >> look good as an icon would be the right level of complexity - but feel
> >> free to chime in if you disagree.
> Icons and logos are good. But the lock imagery is tired:
> 
> Proton mail:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/476557489584893952/-jK8VOF4.png
> GnuPG:
> http://blog.ghostinthemachines.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GnuPG-Logo.svg_-420x552.png
> Hushmail:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/529319650044030976/vAUPbmDi.png

thanks for linking; i am also tired of the "lock" imagery.

my current functional requirement view is:

- to look good without "Autocrypt" text but also it'd be good
  if some "autocrypt" text can be attached to it without looking weird.

- to be usable for the autocrypt spec both in web and in a PDF

As of now, i am not sure how visible an Autocrypt logo needs to be
within MUA applications like enigmail or K9.  This is where the logo
might appear as an icon along with messages/informations which a user
gets there.  I'd first like to hear from Patrick, Vincent or other
MUA developers if they think this is a good idea.

Other than that, I agree with ideas that:

- autocrypt is about e-mail, so it make some sense 
  to have something relating to email imaginery but it is not strictly
  required.

- autocrypt is about increasing unreadability at the provider/network level
  and preventing unreadability of mail for users.  Metadata collections
  (who mails whom) and active attacks will remain possible with L0
  and probably L1.  So anything that confers a binary secure/insecure
  is not really fitting (like a lock). 

so much for now,
holger