[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: [ANN] the result of Ruby official logo contest

Yukihiro Matsumoto

10/31/2007

Hi,

In message "Re: [ANN] the result of Ruby official logo contest"
on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:57:29 +0900, "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@gmail.com> writes:

|You can see my comments on the http://www.rubyi... page, and I
|think I'm certainly not the only one with those sentiments.

Those comments made me down. X-<

If it could be improved as Mikel and Trans expressed, I'd ask the
author to touch up. But...

matz.
29 Answers

Jeremy McAnally

10/31/2007 2:20:00 AM

0

Oh, I didn't mean to make you sad! :)

I just thought it best to be frank about it. I'm not a brand design
expert or anything, but I think this logo sort of fails on a number of
levels.

Can I ask you why you're seeking something other than the gem itself?
Is there a specific need you were wanting to fill with this logo that
it wouldn't? I didn't see any sort of information like that anywhere.
"Promotion of Ruby" doesn't really say much, especially when I think
the gem on its own would probably work for that.

--Jeremy

On 10/30/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ANN] the result of Ruby official logo contest"
> on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:57:29 +0900, "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |You can see my comments on the http://www.rubyi... page, and I
> |think I'm certainly not the only one with those sentiments.
>
> Those comments made me down. X-<
>
> If it could be improved as Mikel and Trans expressed, I'd ask the
> author to touch up. But...
>
> matz.
>
>


--
http://www.jeremymca...

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com...

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerub...

My blogs:
http://www.mrneigh...
http://www.rubyinpra...

lefteus

11/2/2007 9:07:00 AM

0

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Those comments made me down. X-<

Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
decision would have caused.
The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
worse, except for this one:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=...

I think the single-gem logo concept hits the spot and the next
logo, with some minor typographic tweaking, should be based upon it:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/image...

Willem
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Austin Ziegler

11/2/2007 12:03:00 PM

0

On 11/2/07, Willem Källman <lefteus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> > Those comments made me down. X-<
> Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
> decision would have caused.
> The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
> thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
> Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
> worse, except for this one:
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=...

Ugh. That's the worst. I don't know why people think that Web 2.0
logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
... to 2006.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

Jeremy McAnally

11/2/2007 2:39:00 PM

0

I like that logo because it's versatile. He's put a "Web 2.0" finish
on it now, but you could just as easily redefine it into something not
Web 2.0. I see it like the Apple logo: rainbows were so 1970's, but
tossing some shine on it brought it into the new millenium.

I think that logo could handle that sort of transformation quite easily.

--Jeremy

On Nov 2, 2007 8:03 AM, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/07, Willem Källman <lefteus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> > > Those comments made me down. X-<
> > Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
> > decision would have caused.
> > The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
> > thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
> > Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
> > worse, except for this one:
> > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=...
>
> Ugh. That's the worst. I don't know why people think that Web 2.0
> logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
> ... to 2006.
>
>
> -austin
> --
> Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
> * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
> * austin@zieglers.ca
>
>



--
http://www.jeremymca...

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com...

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerub...

My blogs:
http://www.mrneigh...
http://www.rubyinpra...

Marc Heiler

11/2/2007 2:46:00 PM

0

"but you could just as easily redefine it into something not Web 2.0. "

I think that last logo is a bit non-characteristic for Ruby though.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Wayne Magor

11/2/2007 3:05:00 PM

0

The winning logo terribly needs work. OK, so you've picked a logo, but
please clean it up a bit. Personally, I prefer this

http://www.ruby-lang.org/image...

but that's a moot point since the choice has been made. Now, maybe
there should be a contest to take the chosen logo and clean it up to
make it into something that is more acceptable to the Ruby community.

Perhaps, there could be a hundred minor variations of the chosen logo
and the winner of that contest would be a significant improvement.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

mortee

11/2/2007 6:47:00 PM

0

Willem Källman wrote:
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>> Those comments made me down. X-<
>
> Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
> decision would have caused.
> The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
> thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
> Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
> worse, except for this one:
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=...

This is the best version I've seen so far. My GF hates it though (:

mortee

Chad Perrin

11/2/2007 7:15:00 PM

0

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:07:21PM +0900, Willem K??llman wrote:
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=...

Oh, that is *excellent*.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Isaac Asimov: "Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is
completely programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest."

Chad Perrin

11/2/2007 7:41:00 PM

0

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:03:00PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> Ugh. That's the worst. I don't know why people think that Web 2.0
> logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
> ... to 2006.

Ignore the surroundings and fluff for a moment. The core image is
simple, elegant, versatile, and easily slotted into any general-purpose
application of a logo (favicons, t-shirts, stickers, websites, et
cetera). It doesn't require major modifications to suit it well to
different purposes, and with only minor additions or tweaks can be
adjusted to fit the standards of hipness for any marketing era.

Examples of logos with that sort of timeless flexibility include, but are
not limited to:

the AT&T "Death Star"
the Windows wavy-window (though they've screwed with it a lot)
the Apple apple
the SGI hypercube
the Sun diagonal square (whith the clever "u + n = S" motif)
the Target target

Notice that the AT&T "Death Star" logo has gained a definite
three-dimensional appearance [http...], the Microsoft Windows
wavy-window is now softly center-lit and acquired both a
three-dimensional look and simplified pastel feel
[http://microsoft.com/en/us/de...], the Apple apple is looking
mirrored and glossy these days, and even the Target target has acquired a
drop-reflection somewhere along the way. SGI hs, for some reason,
decided its logo should just be three letters (it looks like crap now),
but Sun's logo hasn't really undergone any modifications to fit the new
sense of what catches people's eyes -- though it was well-enough designed
that it fits in with a color-gradient background on the website perfectly
anyway [http:...].

These logos have all gone through a number of incarnations over the
years, to fit the current marketing imagery paradigm, but have largely
remained unmolested in their core design philosophies. They've worked
for years, and have contributed to the visibility and recognizability of
the organizations they represent.

These logos have some things in common:

simplicity
elegance
versatility
flexibility of application
easily fit into changing trends in marketing imagery

Sound familiar?

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."

Austin Ziegler

11/2/2007 9:59:00 PM

0

On 11/2/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:03:00PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > Ugh. That's the worst. I don't know why people think that Web 2.0
> > logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
> > ... to 2006.
> Ignore the surroundings and fluff for a moment. The core image is
> simple, elegant, versatile, and easily slotted into any general-purpose
> application of a logo (favicons, t-shirts, stickers, websites, et
> cetera). It doesn't require major modifications to suit it well to
> different purposes, and with only minor additions or tweaks can be
> adjusted to fit the standards of hipness for any marketing era.

I think the sharp-angled, lying-on-its-drunken-side four-tone ruby in
that logo is neither elegant or versatile. I'd argue about simple;
simplistic, maybe.

It doesn't look any better than the ubiquitous "beta star" you see on
Web 2.0 sites.

I believe that this so-called "better logo" would need as much work
(or more) to be acceptable.

> Sound familiar?

Yeah. All of those positive attributes don't apply to the logo you like.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca