On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Austin Hair
<adhair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM, phoebe ayers
<phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you missed it because it wasn't
really discussed before as
part of the vector update... right? I admit I didn't read all the
announcements, but was this discussed/announced earlier?
That's the point I was trying not to be a jerk about—I'd like to think
that I'm fairly attentive to this, particularly since the logos are a
special concern of mine, but I don't remember any kind of public
discussion or request for comments beforehand. Now that I look at the
relevant wiki pages, it clearly wasn't any kind of secret, but I can't
help but wonder if it was deliberately not made widely known.
My response to Jay's message was to post links to the two image files
in the hope that someone else would complain, I'm really honestly
tired of being so negative.
I laughed out loud at the crescendo of people trying not to be jerks,
finally reaching a reverse cascade of "as long as it's been said,
yeah, I was just trying to be nice before."
I am less confident about unbalanced. The old logo
could also be said
to be visually unbalanced and perhaps we're just used to it?
I'm sure that's part of it—the old one really does look a bit crowded,
looking at it objectively. What makes me say "unbalanced" is, very
simply, the ratio of text to puzzle globe. The globe just looks too
small.
Oh well— at least we've got something to complain
about and improve.
We could always go back to talking about porn on Commons.
Austin