 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In the thread "PLC: General qualities of the logo" there is a big discussion
about whether or not the logo *must* be presentable in black and white.
People can't quite agree no matter how much arguing is done, but I guess
that's just natural.
Since we can't reach a conclusion by arguing, I think we could make a
"mini-voting" about the question, and see people's opinions that way. Let's
say, if more than 60% agree, then we have our conclusion. If not, we'll have
to find another way to find out.
I have not been able to summarize the arguments I've seen, so I encourage
everybody to read the thread "PLC: General qualities of the logo" and as
many of the replies as possible before voting here.
Remember: This voting is not about if the logos *should* be presentable in
black and white. It is about if the logos *must* be presentable in black and
white. If we reach a conclusion, that conclusion will be a rule everyone
must follow.
Reply to this message with your vote.
You can vote "yes" or "no", but please don't come with arguments here. Post
your arguments in the thread "PLC: General qualities of the logo" if you
want.
So here's the question we vote about:
Must the logo be presentable and easy recognizable when viewed in just black
and white (with no shades of gray)? (yes or 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Must the logo be presentable and easy recognizable when viewed
>in just black and white (with no shades of gray)? (yes or no)
Preferably yes, but also consider this: who would really want to see the
logo like that? Most people would use it in color form.
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.
although i would use shades of gray, too.. was that an argument?:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An absolute requirement ? Absolutely not !
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] iname com> wrote in message
news:3914549a@news.povray.org...
> In the thread "PLC: General qualities of the logo" there is a big
discussion
> about whether or not the logo *must* be presentable in black and white.
>
Again, let the author submit whatever they want and let the final voting
decide if it was a good Idea...
I would hate to see the best possible Logo go unsubmitted because it
doesn't work in 2D or B/W...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"TonyB" <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote in message
news:39145a5d@news.povray.org...
> >Must the logo be presentable and easy recognizable when viewed
> >in just black and white (with no shades of gray)? (yes or no)
>
> Preferably yes, but also consider this: who would really want to see the
> logo like that? Most people would use it in color form.
If, for example, I wanted to put the logo on an image, like a watermark.
If the image didn't have many bright colors it would ruin the image to have
that colorful mark down in the corner. Simply converting the colors to
grayscale might not work. Unless there was a rather "flat" area in the
corner of the image, it would require a logo with high contrast in order to
make the logo visible and recognizable.
It's all about flexibility.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Kivisalo www.kivisalo.net
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.
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 Mon, 8 May 2000 15:51:28 +0200, Rune wrote:
>> Must the logo be presentable and easy
>> recognizable when viewed in just black
>> and white (with no shades of gray)?
>
>Yes.
You are voting on your own questions in public? Does that count as an
election campaign? :-)
ObVote: yes.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
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.
Fabien Hénon
Rune a écrit :
> In the thread "PLC: General qualities of the logo" there is a big discussion
> about whether or not the logo *must* be presentable in black and white.
>
> People can't quite agree no matter how much arguing is done, but I guess
> that's just natural.
>
> Since we can't reach a conclusion by arguing, I think we could make a
> "mini-voting" about the question, and see people's opinions that way. Let's
> say, if more than 60% agree, then we have our conclusion. If not, we'll have
> to find another way to find out.
>
> I have not been able to summarize the arguments I've seen, so I encourage
> everybody to read the thread "PLC: General qualities of the logo" and as
> many of the replies as possible before voting here.
>
> Remember: This voting is not about if the logos *should* be presentable in
> black and white. It is about if the logos *must* be presentable in black and
> white. If we reach a conclusion, that conclusion will be a rule everyone
> must follow.
>
> Reply to this message with your vote.
>
> You can vote "yes" or "no", but please don't come with arguments here. Post
> your arguments in the thread "PLC: General qualities of the logo" if you
> want.
>
> So here's the question we vote about:
>
> Must the logo be presentable and easy recognizable when viewed in just black
> and white (with no shades of gray)? (yes or 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Hénon" wrote:
> 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] inamecom>
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 )
Rune a écrit :
> "Fabien Hénon" wrote:
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Hénon" wrote:
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Point taken.
> Must the logo be presentable and easy
> recognizable when viewed in just black
> and white (with no shades of gray)?
* Must as a moral obligation for designers : yes
* Must as a rejection rule : no
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> Point taken.
>
> > Must the logo be presentable and easy
> > recognizable when viewed in just black
> > and white (with no shades of gray)?
>
> * Must as a moral obligation for designers : yes
> * Must as a rejection rule : no
Thanks, I'll take note that you vote "no" to the question I asked.
I will also take note of your other statements.
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 Thu, 11 May 2000 10:37:59 +0200, "Philippe Debar"
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>"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.
Only for documents which explicitly state that. It helps avoid
misunderstandings.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2000 22:38:58 +0200, Rune wrote:
>"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>> ObVote: yes.
>
>What does ObVote mean?
"Ob" means "obligatory". It comes from newsgroups which aren't really
discussion groups, like rec.humor. When people discussed
there instead of posting jokes, they often included a short
joke at the end and preceded it with "ObJoke", to show that they knew
that this group is only for posting jokes, but that they really wanted
to discuss this and didn't care much about the joke. In alt.peeves it
became sort of a fad to prepend "Ob" to just about everything.
>It is your vote right?
Yes.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
