I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it looks better
(and if I may say so, fits with Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby better as
well).
Attachments:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Original is better for me :).
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Fredrik Stagling <fredrikhcs@gmail.com> wrote:
I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it looks better
(and if I may say so, fits with Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby better as
well).Attachments:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
--
Pozdrawiam
Radosław Bułat
http://radarek.jogger.pl - mój blog
The trick is to stay the same.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Fredrik Stagling <fredrikhcs@gmail.com> wrote:
I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it looks better
(and if I may say so, fits with Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby better as
well).Attachments:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png
# I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it
# looks better
# (and if I may say so, fits with Why's (Poignant) Guide to
# Ruby better as
# well).
From: Fredrik Stagling [mailto:fredrikhcs@gmail.com]
#
# Attachments:
# http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png
that's not red 
btw, if you only color the jewel and the ruby font, it is much better and the whole logo would stand out. i would prefer that the font be changed too. Currently, the font looks as if it's an ad from a cosmetic or perfume.. (no offense intended)
I think the "Atractive Version" lacks some of the elegance of the
original. It is nice, but I think elegance is a important factor for
the Ruby logo, since elegance is important for Ruby itself. 
However, a change in the background only could be nice, although it's
hard to say without actually seeing one.
On Nov 23, 9:30 am, Fredrik Stagling <fredrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it looks better
(and if I may say so, fits with Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby better as
well).Attachments:http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png
--
Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Peña, Botp wrote:
From: Fredrik Stagling [mailto:fredrikhcs@gmail.com]
# I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it
# looks betterthat's not red
True. It should be a ruby coloring. On the other hand, though the GEM
should be colored as a ruby, perhaps a tweak of the [b]background[/b]
might help a bit.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Peña, Botp wrote:
that's not red
Yes, but rubies aren't only red. They vary in color
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby\).
From Wikipedia: "The finest ruby is best described as being a vivid
medium-dark toned red. Secondary hues add an additional complication.
Pink, orange, and purple are the normal secondary hues in ruby. Of the
three, purple is preferred because, firstly, the purple reinforces the
red making it appear richer[3]. Secondly, purple occupies a position on
the color wheel halfway between red and blue."
The color of the ruby in the logo doesn't look very "vivid".
attractive_version.png was just a mockup. But I still think it could use
an edge. So I think some purple/pink to spice it up would look very good
if not overused (like it was in attractive_version.png, I just changed
the hue of the whole image). Would be interesting to see some attempts
at this.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
I prefer the original color for the gem, but maybe the background color
should be changed.
This pink is flashing to much in my eyes I think 
I just like the original 
