Re: [VOTE] Which logo, now with a new contender (#1.5)

On 19/01/2017 13:30, Daniel Dekany wrote: A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After all, changing a logo is backward compatible (an almost disturbing feeling if you have maintained FM... <-; ). #1.5

Re: [VOTE] Which logo, now with a new contender (#1.5)

I still like #3 on the top row... simple, and square is nice on certain sites (ie certain sites require a square logo). -David  On Jan 19 2017, at

Re: [VOTE] Which logo, now with a new contender (#1.5)

OK, I focused, and I still prefer 2 with its (very hard to see) paler shadow Jacques Le 19/01/2017 à 18:47, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Sincerely I don't see the differences between 1.5 and 2. Disclaimer: I'm a bit daltonian Jacques Le 19/01/2017 à 13:30, Daniel Dekany a écrit : A new

Re: [VOTE] Which logo, now with a new contender (#1.5)

Sincerely I don't see the differences between 1.5 and 2. Disclaimer: I'm a bit daltonian Jacques Le 19/01/2017 à 13:30, Daniel Dekany a écrit : A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After all, changing a

Re: [VOTE] Which logo, now with a new contender (#1.5)

+1 for 1.5 Am 19.01.2017 6:19 nachm. schrieb "Jacopo Cappellato" < jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Dekany > wrote: > > > A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a > > new one. But I guess we can be less

Re: [VOTE] Which logo, now with a new contender (#1.5)

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a > new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After all, > changing a logo is backward compatible (an almost disturbing feeling > if you