"TonyB" wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the front-runners
> are 4, 6, and 11 (joy!).

Yes. They are.
But others may have potential too.

> >Better logo definitions.
> > <blah> <blah> <blah>
>
> I think that has been explained pretty clearly.

Glad you think so! :-)

> All you need is to collect all that have
> been discussed into one document that
> summarizes this in a clear, concise fashion.

I agree, but there haven't really been a discussion. I just made the rules
myself. It might be best with a discussion, but I wouldn't mind if it became
a short one...

> You should explain the difference between
> logos and their presentations.

I agree. I though maybe together with the logos people could optionally send
in some small images that shows various ways the logo could be presented.
That could be max 3 presentation per logo, and we could define max
proportions and size and so on.

> IMHO, I think that all the logos submitted
> should be black and white. Color is only
> part of the presentation. Don't you think?

Not always. Think about the Windows logo. Although the logo *can* be
presented in black and white, those four colors are always part of the logo.
However, I think only plain colors can be used, not effects like shading,
glow, drop-shadows or whatever.

Of the logos in the current competition I think the colors are essential in
logo 4, 6, 8, and 11. Not the colors in logo 2 and 5. Furthermore, the
shading in logo 2, 5, and 8 shouldn't be allowed in my opinion.

> The authors could submit their logos as
> they originally conceive them. Then voting
> should occur. Sound familiar? Well, here's
> the twist. Next to each priority, one
> should briefly (one sentence) explain what
> one liked or disliked about it. The authors
> would be given a certain time to improve on
> their logos and a new vote should occur.
> That's the part where we proceed with your
> original plan.

I don't quite agree here. Why should we vote the first time if it doesn't
count anyway? If you leave the voting part out, there's still the commenting
part left.

That is, people make logos, people comment on logos (but doesn't vote).
People improve logos. Then people vote, and this voting is definite and
final.

As I see it we just have to make it clear to everyone that it is important
that they comment on the logos in time, because when the logos are submitted
it is too late to change them.

That's my opinion anyway.

> >More people.
> > <blah> <blah> <blah>
>
> Yeess! I concur! <japanese>Kite, Niponjin,
> kite!!!</japanese>
> we need to spread the word to all the other
> POV newsgroups around the globe, with a
> translation of the rules for the people there.

I though so too, but Ken says that he hasn't heard of other POV-Ray
dedicated newsgroups than these, and the French, which already participated
in this competition.

> >More time.
>
> I think that's a bit too much time.
> Two months should be enough.

Remember, the time period is not only for creating the logos, but also for
first making all the rules, then make the logos, and then comment, discuss,
and improve the logos. But I don't know. I think first we should make a plan
over what is to be done when. Then we have a better idea of how long time
things will take.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message