Re: Logo procedure and ideas
On Thu, Apr 15, 1999 at 01:15:48AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think it's good that we're going to have another chance to produce
> logos. Many of the ones from the GIMP contest weren't logos at all.
>
> Voting on a wide selection is a good idea, but I think we need to be
> clear that we can't have in the vote logos which
> - are too Linux-specific
> - are just text or the letter D in a funny font
> - are actually pictures and not logos at all, eg
> + can't be made distinguishable as a 32x32 or even mono 16x16 icon
> + rely too heavily on colour
> + can't be made to work both light-on-dark and dark-on-light
> - rely on `in-jokes' to be interpretable
> I think it would be appropriate for some kind of committee to decide
> that.
>
This is getting very tiresome. Every time this has come up, these points
have been stated up front. And repeated. Many times.
Yes, it would have been nice to have more submissions during the previous
contest. But why is it that people lambaste the previous submissions,
repeat the original criteria and submit new entries AFTER the deadline
for the previous contest?
Unfortunately, it looks like we will be accepting new submissions and
pushing the decision back yet again. Maybe Bruce was correct in simply
appointing a logo.
Jay Treacy
Reply to: