"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:39344177@news.povray.org...
> It might be a good idea if the logo designers could explain the concepts
of
> their logos. On the other hand, logos should make sense without an
> explanation. When you normally see a logo, you don't get any explanation,
so
> a explanation shouldn't be nessesary.

I think a logo can be good by itself and even better when you get the
explanation. eg. I like the Nike logo quite much, but I won't say it makes
sense. With an explanation, my apreciation of this logo would certainly
change (is it clever, amusing or dumb or boring?). Given the size of a text
file, it would be a pity if authors could not explain themselves. Another
example, although a less direct one, is the IRTC : I read many times
voters/commenters writing things like "I did not understand/like this image
at first, but after reading the text, I find it excellent." To summarise, I
would say that a good logo is good by itself and is good with the
explanation.



> So I don't know. What do others think?
>
> And by the way, what do you think of the image formats themselves?

They're OK by me. I'd just make the custom formats freer, more custom.
Something like : any number of images, any format, with a maximum total
number of pixels of 194400 (=180^2*2+360^2) for all images combined. I just
don't like too strict guidelines for any project. (OT: during my
architectural studies, I had some projects with very strict presentation
rules. The last I had, I respected every rule [a rare occurrence], but drew


the time, the projects that appropriately broke the rules got the upper
scores. The difficulty being to know when, how and why to break the rules.)



Povingly



Philippe

Post a reply to this message