blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white
!important; } Im not a designer, but standard wisdom on logos is something
that works at multiple scale with few substantial differences is better. Less
visual noise is good.
Mikel
On Saturday, October 15, 2016, 5:13 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>
wrote:
Hi,
On 10/15/2016 08:03 AM, Yves wrote:
> I personally find the 'negative magnifier' elegant, and the
> disappearance of the 0s and 1s a good way to simplify this logo and make
> it easier to scale.
I wonder what the established wisdom in the design community is about
this. I mean, many people view the web site on a high-dpi screen with
about a bazillion calibrated colours and we could have a super crafty
logo with gradients and shadows and a shiny 3D effect and so on.
Then there are use cases where you want to logo on a T-shirt or in
16x16px in the corner of a map.
Does that automatically mean that you need to have the
lowest-common-denominator logo that uses only 4 colours and is easily
scalable - or are there ways to have a polished logo for large displays
together with a scalable version and both still retain the same visual
identity?
Of course even a simple logo can look good in large print but I do like
it about the current logo that there are details to discover when you
look closer.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
