I agree that we should use the first round of voting to learn what the general consensus of the Haskell community is on a logo design "idea" (and to filter out the non-viable logos).
In the spirit of bikeshedding, I would love to see---and would volunteer to spend part of a day editing, say, the top one or two logos, in Photoshop---generating numerous variations on fonts, colors (text, emblem and background), and relative font/emblem sizes. (Alternately, the original author of the favorite logo(s) could produce said variations.) Then I think we should vote on the final minor variations. I can *almost* picture a few of the current logos becoming the Final logo, but not As Is; there are many great ideas but some of them (or combinations of a few of them) could be improved in minor ways, bringing things (at least to me) up to professional level for a logo. (cf. the python.org logo) Jared. On 3/9/09, Ian Lynagh <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:13:40AM +0000, Sebastian Sylvan wrote: > > > > Another reason condorcet voting is nice is that there is no need to group > > "similar" items together. > > > I think the plan is that once a logo "class" is chosen, we'll have > another vote for the actual colour scheme etc to be used, if applicable. > > Yes, we could have done this in a single vote, but then people would > need to spend time creating 30 variants of each logo, and we'd be > ranking 3000, rather than 100, options. > > > Thanks > > Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
