 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, it should... but (there always is one)...
For this rule/guideline, as with all other contest rules, I adopt the
following attitude : the rule must be obeyed except if the benefits of
breaking it outweighs the benefits gained by applying the rule. Talk about a
subjective notion :-)
So, it would be better if the logo was presentable in B/W, but if there is
an outstanding logo that does not follow the rule, I'll forget the rule and
that logo would get my preference. Now, I would penalise an average-quality
logo (to my taste, by comparison to the other submitted logos) that breaks
this rule - or any other one. This is why I prefer the "guideline" word.
Povingly
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Must the logo be presentable and easy recognizable when viewed in just
black
> and white (with no shades of gray)? (yes or no)
yes, I feel that the image must be able to be presented in black and white
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
> You are voting on your own questions in
> public? Does that count as an election
> campaign? :-)
No, I just thoughy I had as much right to vote as everybody else.
> ObVote: yes.
What does ObVote mean? It is your vote right?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Short answer : No
>
> In pure Black & White : No
> In shades of gray : Yes
>
> Pure black and white is too destructive
> and would surely ruin any logo (even the
> best one).
> The size of the logo is already a limit
> in itself, turning it into B&W would
> make it unrecognizable.
Just to eliminate confusion:
When I say no shades of gray I mean in the logo itself only. Anti-aliasing
is not a part of the logo itself, so shades of gray can be used for
anti-aliasing.
Having got that extra bit of information, do you still want to vote "no"?
If you do not respond to this message I will presume that you still want to
vote "no".
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> Yes, it should...
I ask a question " *Must* the logos bla bla bla... "
To which you answer " Yes, it *should*... "
I use the word "must" while you use the word "should".
Your answer does not fit to the question I asked.
Because of this I cannot accept your vote.
However, I will take note of your opinion and arguments.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2000 22:50:47 +0200, "Rune" <run### [at] iname com>
wrote:
>I use the word "must" while you use the word "should".
To avoid misunderstandings, please refer to RFC2119 located at
ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt for the standardised meanings
of: "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL".
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> >I use the word "must" while you use the word "should".
>
> To avoid misunderstandings, please
> refer to RFC2119 located at
> ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> for the standardised meanings of:
> "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
> "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
> "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL".
Thank you, I will have a look at it when I'm able to reach it.
However, in this case Philippe could see from the context what I meant, and
I could see from the context what he meant.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just to be clear :
I would say yes for a picture with 256 colors.
I would say no for a picture with only 2 colors ( hence without antialasing )
> > Short answer : No
> >
> > In pure Black & White : No
> > In shades of gray : Yes
> >
> > Pure black and white is too destructive
> > and would surely ruin any logo (even the
> > best one).
> > The size of the logo is already a limit
> > in itself, turning it into B&W would
> > make it unrecognizable.
>
> Just to eliminate confusion:
>
> When I say no shades of gray I mean in the logo itself only. Anti-aliasing
> is not a part of the logo itself, so shades of gray can be used for
> anti-aliasing.
>
> Having got that extra bit of information, do you still want to vote "no"?
>
> If you do not respond to this message I will presume that you still want to
> vote "no".
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just to be clear :
> I would say yes for a picture with 256 colors.
> I would say no for a picture with only 2 colors ( hence without
antialasing )
Anti-aliasing is not really a part of the logo itself, so anti-aliasing is
allowed.
I will take note that you vote "yes".
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:ackjhsorirt2na2ak719s4msactcc3q2vf@4ax.com...
> To avoid misunderstandings, please refer to RFC2119 located at
> ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt for the standardised meanings
> of: "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
> "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL".
I just never imagined there were RFC-standardised meanings. Kind of scary.
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
