On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Austin Hair <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think you missed it because it wasn't really discussed before as >>> part of the vector update... right? I admit I didn't read all the >>> announcements, but was this discussed/announced earlier? >> >> That's the point I was trying not to be a jerk about—I'd like to think >> that I'm fairly attentive to this, particularly since the logos are a >> special concern of mine, but I don't remember any kind of public >> discussion or request for comments beforehand. Now that I look at the >> relevant wiki pages, it clearly wasn't any kind of secret, but I can't >> help but wonder if it was deliberately not made widely known. > > My response to Jay's message was to post links to the two image files > in the hope that someone else would complain, I'm really honestly > tired of being so negative.
I laughed out loud at the crescendo of people trying not to be jerks, finally reaching a reverse cascade of "as long as it's been said, yeah, I was just trying to be nice before." > I am less confident about unbalanced. The old logo could also be said > to be visually unbalanced and perhaps we're just used to it? I'm sure that's part of it—the old one really does look a bit crowded, looking at it objectively. What makes me say "unbalanced" is, very simply, the ratio of text to puzzle globe. The globe just looks too small. > Oh well— at least we've got something to complain about and improve. We could always go back to talking about porn on Commons. Austin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
