It's ok, but it's really just the same logo in a box.
Hardly worth ¥100,000...
I won't be wearing any Tshirts of that, but I'll still use the language regardless.
Better luck to us all next time...
You know all it really needs is for the background to be lighter and
the foreground to have "popping-out" contrast --richer color, perhaps
a little shadow. Then I think it would be pretty nice.
T.
···
On Oct 30, 8:06 am, "Mikel Lindsaar" <raasd...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.
That was my first thought too. It lacks contrast and "edge
definition", and doesn't scale down well at all ((!) - that was one of
the design guidelines, wasn't it?). Plus, too much text.
Photorealism is the static typing of graphic design.
Any sufficiently detailed logo contains an ad-hoc, informally-defined,
artefact-ridden approximation of half a photograph? 
martin
···
On 10/30/07, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
Speaking strictly as a new user to Ruby, first impressions are very
important especially as a new user who are evaluating every aspect of the
language. If you ever get one part of it wrong, Ruby runs the risk of
becoming that other language, than a new and up-and-coming endeavor worth
putting time and money into. The more popular, the more likely all that love
Ruby will have something to love for a very long time.
This new logo doesn't look right for what I have seen in the last few weeks,
especially following this group. It would say it needs to be a bold,
brilliantly ruby-red icon, that's simple, but alluring. That is, if Ruby
needs a logo.
Same thing goes for that controversial certification thing. It's not that
you need it, but when you have it, people talk, and get interested just
because it does have it. For the average user, icons and certifications mean
nil, but for the future for all Rubyist, we need attention, and a growing
base of users who will continue to pour in investment (time, energy, ideas,
money, books, blogs, magazines, and bright red tee-shirts with ruby logos
all over them, with matching underwear for the holidays--Oh the power of
marketing)...
Quincy
···
-----Original Message-----
From: James Britt [mailto:james.britt@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:55 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: [ANN] the result of Ruby official logo contest
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
Fully concur. Also, as a merely practical matter, this logo will be
difficult (and therefore expensive) to print well[1].
General advice to the mailing list from someone with a degree in graphic
design: do not accept a logo proposal without considering the one- and
two- color treatments, and what it looks like at small sizes[2].
-mental
[1] Think teeshirts, hats and mugs, not book covers.
[2] Rule of thumb: if you can't make a recognizable favicon out
of, you lose.
···
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:55:18 +0900, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not care for the new logo, finding it clumsy and complex, useless
at small resolutions and monotone renderings...
Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
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.
A couple of seconds experimenting with PhotoShop and the Spotlight filter gave me, what I felt, was a much improved version of the original design. Maybe the original wasn't as bad as the saved version. A lot of programs seem to filter out some of the design when saving it to anything but it's native format.
···
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:
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
# On 10/30/07, Gerardo Santana Gómez Garrido
# http://www.goodbyehelicopter.com/2007/10/30/fwiw-my-ruby-logo-
# submissions/
···
From: Austin Ziegler [mailto:halostatue@gmail.com]
#
# Oddly enough, I thought all of the ones on that page, well, sucked.
# They were boring.
oddly, we differ. i think they were better.. the old ruby logo in ruby-lang is better too..
# 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.
i suggest we remove all those fill colors and all text. ie we start with the plain outline, the sliced gem and the box. if we do not like the outlined result, then it's really not what we want. but looking at it now, i guess a plain smoothed outline is not bad (in fact i may be happy even without those colors :)) can anyone experiment on this, pls?
# 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".
along the lines w this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo
kind regards -botp
"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.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> 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.
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.
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.
Sound familiar?
Yeah. All of those positive attributes don't apply to the logo you like.
-austin
···
On 11/2/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:03:00PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
--
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
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
Casimir wrote:
perrin@apotheon.com kirjoitti:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
Oh, that is *excellent*.
Hear, hear!
Separated at birth?
http://ruby-doc.org/_img/logo-rubydoc.gif
···
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:07:21PM +0900, Willem K??llman wrote:
--
James Britt
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little
time to change that here and there."
- Richard P. Feynman
John Joyce wrote:
Better luck to us all next time...
I know it's too late for the contest, but this is a logo I'm using on some
shirts and presentations:
http://eustaquiorangel.com/images/ruby.png
Best regards,
···
--
Eustáquio "TaQ" Rangel
http://eustaquiorangel.com
"When someone says, "I want a programming language in which I need only say what
I want done," give him a lollipop."
Alan Perlis
John Joyce wrote:
It's ok, but it's really just the same logo in a box.
Hardly worth ¥100,000...
I won't be wearing any Tshirts of that, but I'll still use the language regardless.
Yes, well Python proved that a sucky logo need not hamper a language, though when they did their homepage redesign the logo got a welcome kick into modern times.
···
--
James Britt
"Judge a man by his questions, rather than his answers."
- Voltaire
That's why I thought the ruby-assn.org logo looked better:
http://www.ruby-assn.org/logo.png
See the very simple inverted triangle logo dealio on the left. Think
about how easy it would be to create a miniaturized monochrome
representation of it without losing its distinctiveness (though some of
the fade effect stuff would have to go, of course).
···
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:33:25AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:55:18 +0900, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not care for the new logo, finding it clumsy and complex, useless
> at small resolutions and monotone renderings...Fully concur. Also, as a merely practical matter, this logo will be
difficult (and therefore expensive) to print well[1].General advice to the mailing list from someone with a degree in graphic
design: do not accept a logo proposal without considering the one- and
two- color treatments, and what it looks like at small sizes[2].-mental
[1] Think teeshirts, hats and mugs, not book covers.
[2] Rule of thumb: if you can't make a recognizable favicon out
of, you lose.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Anonymous: "Eat your crow early, while it's young and tender. Don't wait
until it's old and tough."
Martin DeMello wrote:
Any sufficiently detailed logo contains an ad-hoc, informally-defined,
artefact-ridden approximation of half a photograph?
Doesn't logo already more or less include a lisp interpreter?
(ps. I'm writing a book called "Butfirst Logo".)
···
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
It seems to me that you are implying that a good logo should cater to
the lowest common denominator. "Don't put color in that logo, it won't
work well when printed on a laser printer! And make sure that all
details are readable at 16x16!"
Obviously my quote takes that to the extreme, and does not directly
represent what you are saying. (You didn't shout, for one thing.) But
I contend that good branding can consist of multiple flavors of a
design. Soft gradients and drop shadows (as ugh as they may be) for
the web, solid colors for some print, reduced details (beyond just
resizing) for small-size reproduction.
No, we don't have these in the chosen icon. But that doesn't mean that
they can't be created. A few minutes photoshop work (without the
original files, even) can drop out the gradient background and bring
sharper contrast to the gem and words. And I'm not a very good
designer; someone with more skill than I could certainly, I think,
make alternative versions for different, specific, uses rather easily.
I think about well-designed icons, how entire aspects of the design in
a 128x128 icon are slowly removed as you get to smaller and smaller
sizes. Is there any reason the favicon would have to be the bicubic
resampling of the entire icon, instead of just a recognizable subset
of it?
···
On Oct 30, 1:33 pm, MenTaLguY <men...@rydia.net> wrote:
Fully concur. Also, as a merely practical matter, this logo will be
difficult (and therefore expensive) to print well[1].
Any sufficiently detailed logo contains an ad-hoc, informally-defined,
artefact-ridden approximation of half a photograph?
Haha! Genius!
SM
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.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
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...
What . . . you prefer clutter?
···
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:59:25AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 11/2/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.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.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
wit."