# 5) I hope that this can be an open, iterative process. I don't think
# that we want the Ruby logo changing monthly, but perhaps once a year
# the community can work on and improve the official face of Ruby, if
# only slightly, continuously improving the marketing to match the
# beauty of the language.
totally agree.
kind regards -botp
From: Phrogz [mailto:phrogz@mac.com]
Hey Matzさん
I think a wise person said once "You can't get anything good out of
group agreement" and the only real strides made have been by
individuals who are willing to put themselves on the line to make
something... like yourself with the great language, Ruby.
Granted, groups can help, and assist to codify and expand. But it is
the individual contributions that moves things forward in every case.
So don't feel down about any negative comments...
As I said above and Trans has as well, it is not a bad logo at all.
There are some minor things that, if done, could make it a lot better
and really add some punch to it.
Absolutely, the author could touch it up a little. I think if he taks
the professional comments out of all the stupid and inane comments
from the blog, and looks at them, there are only about 3 points which
are repeated which would make the world of difference:
1) Add saturation to it a bit more to give it a bit more punch -
removes the washed out feeling from it.
2) Use a sans-serif font that is not common, for some uniqueness -
makes it more modern looking.
3) Define the gem itself some more.
If the author of the logo got with the person who designed the front
page of www.ruby-lang.org and spent a small amount of time, I am sure
it would come out a lot better.
I would be willing to help... but my photoshop and illustrator skills
are not _quite_ up to it.
Regards
Mikel
On 10/31/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Those comments made me down. X-<
If it could be improved as Mikel and Trans expressed, I'd ask the
author to touch up. But...
Hi there,
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 02:42 +0900, John Joyce wrote:
Arlen, it looks like you adjusted the logo a bit. Colors are more
saturated. Contrast is higher.
I did not modify the logo in any other way than cropping the text.
I have no real problems with the logo as is, by the way.
Arlen
this is fine. just remove the text and the sparkles (the sparkles look
like thorns). remember, we need a _logo_.
btw, mind if i copy it? you wont need it anymore since the contest is
finished, right? 
kind regards -botp
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Those comments made me down. X-<
Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
decision would have caused.
The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
worse, except for this one:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
I think the single-gem logo concept hits the spot and the next
logo, with some minor typographic tweaking, should be based upon it:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/images/logo.gif
Willem
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Robert Dober wrote:
It's a little like an invitingly open door way.
Will the other submissions also be available?
Good point, although I have to say right away, this is a beauty, well done!
This is really interesting... The (so far 2) answers here are quite... hmm... different compared to the (so far 59) answers here:
http://www.rubyinside.com/so-heres-the-new-ruby-logo-639.html#comments
Does this mean that the Ruby world is clustered into (at least) 2 sets of people: contributors to the Ruby mailing list and readers of the rubyinside.com blog? Obviously not, but the contrast between the quantity and content of the comments on the mailing list vs rubyinside is pretty striking.
Cheers,
Peter
On 10/30/07, Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@fysh.org> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2007, at 09:15, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Here are better ones:
http://www.goodbyehelicopter.com/2007/10/30/fwiw-my-ruby-logo-submissions/
It's funny that you didn't mention Perl, or PHP.
Perl's is not precisely a great logo either. But everybody associates
the camel (and not a pearl) with Perl (after "the Camel" book), so it
works great for Perl, and therefore it's a great logo (oops, reductio
ad absurdum? 
PHP's, well, it's simple and does the job. I wonder how it got chosen.
It reminds me the first logo in the URL above.
2007/10/30, Marc Heiler <shevegen@linuxmail.org>:
I just looked at the Python logo
http://www.python.org/images/python-logo.gif too, to compare.It looks somewhat okay, but also a bit like a company's site logo ...
And didnt Python have a logo-snake in the past? It looked not good, but
python did put a lot of emphasis on "FUN" ... the new webpage looks more
professional, but less "fun"... Anyway that is just my opinion.(Btw that Python logo has a TM notice while the ruby logo has not, maybe
thats also a different philosophy behind a language? *grin*)PS: I actually like the proposed logo. If there is only one aspect I
could change, maybe I would try to make it more crisp/sharper, but I
side on the people that like the logo anyway so it aint important for
me.PSS: I will put the "official" one on my webpage as link to the ruby
site too
--
Gerardo Santana
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
On 11/2/07, Willem Källman <lefteus@gmail.com> wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Those comments made me down. X-<
Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
decision would have caused.
The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
worse, except for this one:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
* austin@zieglers.ca
botp wrote:
this is fine. just remove the text and the sparkles (the sparkles look
like thorns). remember, we need a _logo_.btw, mind if i copy it? you wont need it anymore since the contest is
finished, right?kind regards -botp
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.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Willem Källman wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Those comments made me down. X-<
Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
decision would have caused.
The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
worse, except for this one:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
This is the best version I've seen so far. My GF hates it though (:
mortee
Oh, that is *excellent*.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:07:21PM +0900, Willem K??llman wrote:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Isaac Asimov: "Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is
completely programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest."
From a design point of view, it has a number of flaws and I find it
washed out and not as beautiful and striking as the exisiting logo.
I read through the comments on the website... aisde from the
unconstructive, inane slander which is unneeded, the professional
negative comments about sum up my view on this logo.
My 2c.
I think it could be improved with a bit of touch up.
Mikel
On 10/30/07, Peter Szinek <peter@rubyrailways.com> wrote:
Robert Dober wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@fysh.org> wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2007, at 09:15, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>> >[3] http://www.ruby-assn.org/ruby-logo.jpg
>> It's a little like an invitingly open door way.
>>
>> Will the other submissions also be available?
> Good point, although I have to say right away, this is a beauty, well done!This is really interesting... The (so far 2) answers here are quite...
hmm... different compared to the (so far 59) answers here:Does this mean that the Ruby world is clustered into (at least) 2 sets
of people: contributors to the Ruby mailing list and readers of the
rubyinside.com blog? Obviously not, but the contrast between the
quantity and content of the comments on the mailing list vs rubyinside
is pretty striking.Cheers,
Peter
___
http://www.rubyrailways.com
http://scrubyt.org
Robert Dober wrote:
>>> >[3] http://www.ruby-assn.org/ruby-logo.jpg
>> It's a little like an invitingly open door way.
>>
>> Will the other submissions also be available?
> Good point, although I have to say right away, this is a beauty, well done!This is really interesting... The (so far 2) answers here are quite...
hmm... different compared to the (so far 59) answers here:Does this mean that the Ruby world is clustered into (at least) 2 sets
of people: contributors to the Ruby mailing list and readers of the
rubyinside.com blog? Obviously not, but the contrast between the
quantity
but the news came just out, that explains the quantity
and content of the comments on the mailing list vs rubyinside
is pretty striking.
Maybe I would like others better, but I did not see them, I am the
conservative guy and I like how it stays in tradition, I also said
that I liked it but I am not a graphics guy, maybe I should not have
made my verdict.
But you know "de gustibus non disputandum esse" how to say that in English?
Tast's different?
Cheers
Robert
On 10/30/07, Peter Szinek <peter@rubyrailways.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@fysh.org> wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2007, at 09:15, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Cheers,
Peter
___
http://www.rubyrailways.com
http://scrubyt.org
--
what do I think about Ruby?
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/
Peter Szinek wrote:
Does this mean that the Ruby world is clustered into (at least) 2 sets of people: contributors to the Ruby mailing list and readers of the rubyinside.com blog? Obviously not, but the contrast between the quantity and content of the comments on the mailing list vs rubyinside is pretty striking.
Well, I rarely comment on blogs, and prefer to hold discussions on lists such as this one.
But I did add a comment on rubyinside.com; I do not care for the new logo, finding it clumsy and complex, useless at small resolutions and monotone renderings, and generally lacking in the qualities that make Ruby appealing. It looks like something for QVC, not a 21st C. programming language.
Photorealism is the static typing of graphic design.
--
James Britt
"Judge a man by his questions, rather than his answers."
- Voltaire
Gerardo Santana Gómez Garrido wrote:
2007/10/30, Marc Heiler <shevegen@linuxmail.org>:
I just looked at the Python logo
http://www.python.org/images/python-logo.gif too, to compare.It looks somewhat okay, but also a bit like a company's site logo ...
And didnt Python have a logo-snake in the past? It looked not good, but
python did put a lot of emphasis on "FUN" ... the new webpage looks more
professional, but less "fun"... Anyway that is just my opinion.(Btw that Python logo has a TM notice while the ruby logo has not, maybe
thats also a different philosophy behind a language? *grin*)PS: I actually like the proposed logo. If there is only one aspect I
could change, maybe I would try to make it more crisp/sharper, but I
side on the people that like the logo anyway so it aint important for
me.PSS: I will put the "official" one on my webpage as link to the ruby
site tooHere are better ones:
http://www.goodbyehelicopter.com/2007/10/30/fwiw-my-ruby-logo-submissions/It's funny that you didn't mention Perl, or PHP.
Perl's is not precisely a great logo either. But everybody associates
the camel (and not a pearl) with Perl (after "the Camel" book), so it
works great for Perl, and therefore it's a great logo (oops, reductio
ad absurdum?PHP's, well, it's simple and does the job. I wonder how it got chosen.
It reminds me the first logo in the URL above.
Well ... there's the PostgreSQL elephant and the MySQL dolphin. As far as a logo for Ruby is concerned, I don't have any strong opinions one way or another about the new one, except that at first glance, it looked to me a lot like the Rails logo.
Oddly enough, I thought all of the ones on that page, well, sucked.
They were boring.
I can't say that the chosen logo "turns me on", but I think it can be
cleaned up; maybe with a few more black lines to darken the gem;
possibly wash out the red/orange background gradient.
But I don't think it's a *bad* logo at all, and it's certainly better
than some of the Web 2.0 style logos that I've seen touted as
"better".
-austin
On 10/30/07, Gerardo Santana Gómez Garrido <gerardo.santana@gmail.com> wrote:
Here are better ones:
http://www.goodbyehelicopter.com/2007/10/30/fwiw-my-ruby-logo-submissions/
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
* austin@zieglers.ca
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
On Nov 2, 2007 8:03 AM, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/2/07, Willem Källman <lefteus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> > Those comments made me down. X-<
> Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
> decision would have caused.
> The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
> thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
> Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
> worse, except for this one:
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158Ugh. 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
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
* austin@zieglers.ca
--
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/
My books:
Ruby in Practice
My free Ruby e-book
My blogs:
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 [Hardware | Oracle].
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?
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:03:00PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
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.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."
Chad Perrin|
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
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.
--
I. P. 2007-11-04T01:03
perrin@apotheon.com kirjoitti:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:07:21PM +0900, Willem K??llman wrote:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
Oh, that is *excellent*.
Hear, hear!
