"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> I think a logo can be good by itself and even better
> when you get the explanation.

I agree.

> Given the size of a text file, it would be a pity if
> authors could not explain themselves.

The size was never a problem.

> 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."

The problem here is that a logo ought to be excellent even without any
explaination.

> To summarise, I would say that a good logo is good by
> itself and is good with the explanation.

I agree.

> > So I don't know. What do others think?

I wrote that, and I still don't know the answer.
Lets start a discussion about it later and finish this discussion first.

> > 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.

Hmm, if more people think your suggestion is better, then we should go with
that one instead. Try to start a new thread where you formulate your
suggestion clearly and ask what people think of it.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated April 25: 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