Dawid Weiss wrote:
I'm with Karl here --
http://picasaweb.google.com/lukas.vlcek/Mahout/photo#5172299040948088882
looks nicer to me (more like a logotype, less like a picture).
I recall some of the discussions I had with a graphical designer on my
team ... His points regarding a logo design (those that I can still
remember!):
* it should convey one or few concepts, and do it well - i.e. don't try
to communicate too many messages
* it should be meaningful and acceptable for the target audience, or
abstract enough that it doesn't matter. I'm not sure how the IBM-type
suits would react to the beach-ball if it were to appear in the
documentation of their product ;)
* it should be easy to reduce to black & white (or a fixed number of
colors) without the loss of meaning. It should be readable when printed
in reverse.
* elements should be readable at various magnifications, or it should be
possible to remove some elements (simplify) and still preserve the
distinguishing features. Think of the logo at a poster size, and at a
favicon.ico size. There could be two versions of the logo for different
sizes, where the focus is on different logo element - for example, the
elephant, or the rubik cube with a stylized "M".
... etc, etc, he could go on for hours .. ;)
Considering the above, I think I prefer this one:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lukas.vlcek/Mahout/photo#5172299040948088882
and perhaps this one is already too complex as it is.
--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki <><
___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
