H
halostatue
Ugh. That's the worst. I don't know why people think that Web 2.0
logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
... to 2006.
-austin
Ugh. That's the worst. I don't know why people think that Web 2.0
logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
... to 2006.
-austin
J
jeremymcanally
I like that logo because it's versatile. He's put a "Web 2.0" finish
on it now, but you could just as easily redefine it into something not
Web 2.0. I see it like the Apple logo: rainbows were so 1970's, but
tossing some shine on it brought it into the new millenium.
I think that logo could handle that sort of transformation quite easily.
--Jeremy
--
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/
My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/
My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/
My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/
on it now, but you could just as easily redefine it into something not
Web 2.0. I see it like the Apple logo: rainbows were so 1970's, but
tossing some shine on it brought it into the new millenium.
I think that logo could handle that sort of transformation quite easily.
--Jeremy
--
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/
My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/
My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/
My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/
S
shevegen
"but you could just as easily redefine it into something not Web 2.0. "
I think that last logo is a bit non-characteristic for Ruby though.
I think that last logo is a bit non-characteristic for Ruby though.
W
wemagor2
The winning logo terribly needs work. OK, so you've picked a logo, but
please clean it up a bit. Personally, I prefer this
http://www.ruby-lang.org/images/logo.gif
but that's a moot point since the choice has been made. Now, maybe
there should be a contest to take the chosen logo and clean it up to
make it into something that is more acceptable to the Ruby community.
Perhaps, there could be a hundred minor variations of the chosen logo
and the winner of that contest would be a significant improvement.
please clean it up a bit. Personally, I prefer this
http://www.ruby-lang.org/images/logo.gif
but that's a moot point since the choice has been made. Now, maybe
there should be a contest to take the chosen logo and clean it up to
make it into something that is more acceptable to the Ruby community.
Perhaps, there could be a hundred minor variations of the chosen logo
and the winner of that contest would be a significant improvement.
E
evangelino.valverde
botp said:
Sure,
just drop me a mail and i'll send you the logo (with and without text
and sparkles) in svg format.
Please, if you use it, apply the Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike license.
regards, Cejacas.
M
mortee.lists
Willem said:
This is the best version I've seen so far. My GF hates it though
mortee
P
perrin
Oh, that is *excellent*.
P
perrin
Ignore the surroundings and fluff for a moment. The core image is
simple, elegant, versatile, and easily slotted into any general-purpose
application of a logo (favicons, t-shirts, stickers, websites, et
cetera). It doesn't require major modifications to suit it well to
different purposes, and with only minor additions or tweaks can be
adjusted to fit the standards of hipness for any marketing era.
Examples of logos with that sort of timeless flexibility include, but are
not limited to:
the AT&T "Death Star"
the Windows wavy-window (though they've screwed with it a lot)
the Apple apple
the SGI hypercube
the Sun diagonal square (whith the clever "u + n = S" motif)
the Target target
Notice that the AT&T "Death Star" logo has gained a definite
three-dimensional appearance [http://att.com], the Microsoft Windows
wavy-window is now softly center-lit and acquired both a
three-dimensional look and simplified pastel feel
[http://microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx], the Apple apple is looking
mirrored and glossy these days, and even the Target target has acquired a
drop-reflection somewhere along the way. SGI hs, for some reason,
decided its logo should just be three letters (it looks like crap now),
but Sun's logo hasn't really undergone any modifications to fit the new
sense of what catches people's eyes -- though it was well-enough designed
that it fits in with a color-gradient background on the website perfectly
anyway [http://sun.com/].
These logos have all gone through a number of incarnations over the
years, to fit the current marketing imagery paradigm, but have largely
remained unmolested in their core design philosophies. They've worked
for years, and have contributed to the visibility and recognizability of
the organizations they represent.
These logos have some things in common:
simplicity
elegance
versatility
flexibility of application
easily fit into changing trends in marketing imagery
Sound familiar?
H
halostatue
I think the sharp-angled, lying-on-its-drunken-side four-tone ruby in
that logo is neither elegant or versatile. I'd argue about simple;
simplistic, maybe.
It doesn't look any better than the ubiquitous "beta star" you see on
Web 2.0 sites.
I believe that this so-called "better logo" would need as much work
(or more) to be acceptable.
Yeah. All of those positive attributes don't apply to the logo you like.
-austin
S
stack.tcpip
|Chad Perrin|
CP> Oh, that is *excellent*.
Quite interesting though it works only for those who has seen old
logo (and mentally complementing 2D for 3D), I'm afraid.
CP> Oh, that is *excellent*.
Quite interesting though it works only for those who has seen old
logo (and mentally complementing 2D for 3D), I'm afraid.
P
paradisaeidae
Yep, http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
is interesting.
1) It has some unforseen implied angles.
2) There is the lack of a box, so it cannot even be out of one.
3) There is a major edge out of visual reading harmonic, in that it is
the top left, first part of a western-reading scan.
4) This promotes the 'edginess' of Ruby.
5) Then there is the lack of alignment of the subText.
6) (5) Combined with (3) promotes a leaning towards a tipping point.
Very clever.
7) This tipping point is left-2-right, which makes taking the entire
pill a whole bunch easier.
8) The logo can change over time.
If http://www.ruby-assn.org/ruby-logo.jpg is to be adjusted in any way
my observation is that resorting to any colour approaching Orange is a
desperate last act of marketing. Even in a gradation.
Orange is a washed out mid between red (warming influence) & yellow
(alerting influence). Undecided at best,
Here is one example : http://telstra.com/index.jsp
Another: http://www.orange.com/english/home.php
So many times I have found (& still do) Ruby-lang to be breathtaking,
it would be good if the logo did the same.
MarkT
is interesting.
1) It has some unforseen implied angles.
2) There is the lack of a box, so it cannot even be out of one.
3) There is a major edge out of visual reading harmonic, in that it is
the top left, first part of a western-reading scan.
4) This promotes the 'edginess' of Ruby.
5) Then there is the lack of alignment of the subText.
6) (5) Combined with (3) promotes a leaning towards a tipping point.
Very clever.
7) This tipping point is left-2-right, which makes taking the entire
pill a whole bunch easier.
8) The logo can change over time.
If http://www.ruby-assn.org/ruby-logo.jpg is to be adjusted in any way
my observation is that resorting to any colour approaching Orange is a
desperate last act of marketing. Even in a gradation.
Orange is a washed out mid between red (warming influence) & yellow
(alerting influence). Undecided at best,
Here is one example : http://telstra.com/index.jsp
Another: http://www.orange.com/english/home.php
So many times I have found (& still do) Ruby-lang to be breathtaking,
it would be good if the logo did the same.
MarkT
D
dangerwillrobinsondanger
It's actually quite amusing to read programmers' quibbling over
graphic design...
it's about like mom's arguing the merits of an operating system...
graphic design...
it's about like mom's arguing the merits of an operating system...
M
mortee.lists
John said:
There's a saying in my country: you don't have to be a shoemaker in
order to know how your shoes hurt your leg. This is not to say that I
agree or disagree with anything posted in this thread, just that even
programmers may have valid points related to graphic design or anything
else.
mortee
D
dangerwillrobinsondanger
Oh I don't doubt that at all. But it is fascinating to read the
comments. Programmers are generally extremely (anal) picky about what
words are used or how to describe something precisely. However, when
it comes to art & design, they generally lack the vocabulary. Of
course, it makes sense, as every field of study has its own jargon
and its own common idioms.
The uninitiated sound like cats talking to dogs.
P
perrin
What . . . you prefer clutter?
P
perrin
Some of us have actually gone to school for digital graphic design.
D
dangerwillrobinsondanger
Sure, there's no doubt about that, but it's probably not the majority.
Most of the time developers and designers are in different skin.
P
Phrogz
C
Casimir
(e-mail address removed) kirjoitti:
Hear, hear!
J
james.britt
Casimir said:
Separated at birth?
http://ruby-doc.org/_img/logo-rubydoc.gif
--
James Britt
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little
time to change that here and there."
- Richard P. Feynman